cc 2023 AR 02/14 development code amendments skateboard ramps in single-family residential zones

ACTION:
____________________________
Clerk/Secretary
Department: Community Development Item No: PH1
Prepared by: John Conley, Director Meeting Date: February 14, 2023 Approved by: Amanda Lee, Acting City Manager Agenda Location: Public Hearing SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS FOR SKATEBOARD RAMPS IN SINGLE-FAMILY

RESIDENTIAL ZONES
RECOMMENDATION:

1.Open, conduct, and close a public hearing to receive testimony regarding the proposed amendments to the Development Code and City Council Policy (P22-0353).

2.Introduce and adopt Ordinance No. 2023- , amending chapters 18.08, 18.10, 18.28, and 18.72 of the Vista Development Code related to skateboard ramps in single-family residential zones and nonconforming accessory structures.

3.Adopt Resolution No. 2023- , approving City Council Policy No. 300-16, Skateboard Ramps in Single- Family Residential Zones.

CORRELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS: This item relates to but does not directly support the following City Council goal: Public Safety.

PRIOR ACTION: None.

PRIOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: On January 17, 2023, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2023-02, recommending City Council approval of an ordinance amending chapters 18.08,

18.10, 18.28, and 18.72 of the Vista Development Code related to skateboard ramps in single-family residential zones and nonconforming accessory structures (Vote: 5-0, Hastings and Savage absent).

STATEMENT ON THE SUBJECT: On October 18, 2022, the Planning Commission discussed skateboard ramps in single-family residential zones and directed staff to prepare a Development Code amendment to allow skateboard ramps over six feet in height within certain single-family residential zones (A-1, E-1, and R-1) with a Minor Use Permit (MUP), subject to specific development and operational standards, as well as prepare an amendment to Chapter 18.72 of the Development Code to address the amortization of nonconforming accessory structures.

Project Description. The proposed project amends Chapter 18.08, the E-1 Zone, Chapter 18.10, the A-1 Zone, Chapter 18.28, the R-1 Zone, and Chapter 18.72, the Nonconformity Regulations within the Vista Development Code to allow skateboard ramps exceeding six feet in height with a Minor Use Permit (MUP) within these single-family residential zones, and to establish regulations for nonconforming recreational accessory structures. Staff further recommends a new City Council Policy (No. 300-16) to address applicability and establish requirements for discretionary review. The proposed code amendments and City Council policy are summarized below.

AGENDA
REPORT

CITY COUNCIL

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

SUCCESSOR AGENCY

BUENA SANITATION DISTRICT

JOINT POWERS FINANCING AUTHORITY
02/14/2023 PH1 1 of 16
Approved above recommendation, 1) Introduced and adopted City Council Ordinance No. 2023-4; and 2) City Council Resolution No. 2023-12. Vote: 5-0

MEETING DATE: February 14, 2023
PAGE 2
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS FOR SKATEBOARD RAMPS IN SINGLE-FAMILY

RESIDENTIAL ZONES
Chapter 18.08, Estates (E-1) Zone. The proposed project would amend Section 18.08.010, Permitted Uses, to add a category under subsection "L," which establishes uses subject to a minor use permit, for skateboard ramps exceeding six feet in height subject to City Council Policy 300-16.

Chapter 18.10, Agricultural (A-1) Zone. The proposed project would amend Section 18.10.010, Permitted Uses, to add a category under subsection "O," which establishes uses subject to a minor use permit, for skateboard ramps exceeding six feet in height subject to City Council Policy 300-16.

Chapter 18.28, Residence (R-1) Zone. The proposed project would amend Section 18.28.010, Permitted Uses, to add a category under subsection "I," which establishes uses subject to a minor use permit, for skateboard ramps exceeding six feet in height subject to City Council Policy 300-16.

Chapter 18.72, Nonconformity Regulations. The proposed project would amend various sections of Chapter 18.72, Nonconformity Regulations, to address accessory structures that are nonconforming. The amendments would add language related to land use provisions and the regulations governing the removal or alteration of nonconforming buildings to clarify that structures which do not fit within the definition of a "building" would be included. This includes adding a section to the regulations governing the removal or alteration of nonconforming buildings to clarify that the abatement period for non- agricultural accessory recreational structures is 18 months from the date of construction, or the date of nonconformity, whichever comes later. This would apply to skateboard ramps over six feet in height in residential zones that exist when the ordinance becomes effective, and which do not obtain a minor use permit within the specified 18-month timeframe.

Should the City pursue abatement of a nonconforming structure under these amendments, it would be subject to the abatement procedures established in Development Code Section 18.72.110, which requires a public hearing at the Planning Commission to determine the appropriate date of abatement. The Planning Commission's action would be appealable to the City Council.

The proposed Development Code amendments are included in the draft City Council Ordinance attached as Exhibit 1.

City Council Policy 300-16, Skateboard Ramps in Residential Zones. The proposed project includes a new City Council Policy (No. 300-16) regarding the review of skateboard ramps in single-family residential zones. The policy would establish specifications for skateboard ramps requiring discretionary review and establish criteria under which such structures would be reviewed by the Planning Division for a minor use permit.

Applicability. The proposed policy would apply to any skateboard ramps in the A-1, E-1 or R-1 zones that exceed six feet in height, as measured from the flat bottom of the ramp to the highest deck (excluding any safety railing or fencing). Such structures would require a minor use permit subject to review by the Planning Commission, which would be appealable to the City Council. Skateboard ramp structures meeting this criterion would not be considered or permitted in any other residential zone.

Criteria. Based on direction received from the Planning Commission discussion on October 18, 2022, the proposed criteria to be addressed in the planning review of eligible skateboard ramps includes the following:
• Landscaping / Screening of structure • Parking • Soundproofing • Hours of operation
• Materials • Lighting
• Special events • Setbacks
02/14/2023 PH 1 2 of 16

The proposed policy includes provisions specific to these criteria, as detailed in the draft policy attached as Exhibit 2A.

Application. Any application for minor use permit for an eligible skateboard ramp must include an appropriately scaled site plan reflecting property lines, existing structures, setbacks, topography, and retaining walls and/or fencing on the subject property. Such application shall further include the proposed structural details and a cross section of the structure reflecting maximum height inclusive of any safety railing or fencing. The City Planner or Building Official may request any additional pertinent information related to the request.

Staff Review. The proposed amendments would permit skateboard ramps exceeding six feet in height in the A-1, E-1, and R-1 zones, subject to approval of a minor use permit, per the Planning Commission's direction. The amendments would further establish an amortization period for non-agricultural, nonconforming recreational structures in residential zones of 18 months. The MUP process would enable the review of each application, consistent with the recommended City Council Policy to consider specifics of the proposed use, including the appropriateness of the location, operating characteristics, time of use, and other applicable parameters. Conditions of approval are applied through the MUP process to establish operational and site-specific requirements for the intended use. MUPs for skateboard ramps within the specified single-family residential zones would be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Commission's decision would be appealable to the City Council.

There are no goals or policies specific to skateboard ramps in the General Plan; the proposed Development Code amendments would not conflict with any General Plan goals or policies. The proposed amendments would require discretionary review of large skateboard ramp structures to protect surrounding properties from potentially adverse impacts consistent with General Plan Goal LUCI-3 in the Land Use and Community Identity Element.

Planning Commission Recommendation. The Planning Commission acts in an advisory capacity to the City Council regarding amendments to the Development Code. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Development Code amendments on January 17, 2023, and unanimously recommended approval of the staff recommendation.

FISCAL IMPACT: No direct fiscal impact would result from the staff recommendation. Any new applications for minor use permits would be responsible for paying the fee to process an application. The application fee for a minor use permit is currently $3,345.12.

EXHIBITS:

1. City Council Ordinance No. 2023- , amending chapters 18.08, 18.10, 18.28, and 18.72 of the Vista Development Code related to skateboard ramps in single-family residential zones and nonconforming accessory structures

2. City Council Resolution No. 2023- , approving City Council Policy No. 300-16, Skateboard Ramps in Single-Family Residential Zones

3. Correspondence received
02/14/2023 PH 1 3 of 16

ORDINANCE NO. 2023-

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CHARTERED CITY OF VISTA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTERS 18.08, 18.10, 18.28, AND 18.72

OF THE VISTA DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATED TO SKATEBOARD RAMPS

IN SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES AND NONCONFORMING

ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
The City Council of the City of Vista does resolve as follows:

1. Findings. The City Council hereby finds and declares the following:

A. This ordinance is enacted by the City Council pursuant to its authority under the Charter of the City of Vista and Article 11, Section 7 of the California Constitution.

B. The City intends to amend Chapter 18.08, the E-1 Zone, Chapter 18.10, the A-1 Zone, Chapter 18.28, the R-1 Zone, and Chapter 18.72, the Nonconformity Regulations, of the Development Code to permit skateboard ramps meeting specified criteria in certain single-family residential zones with a minor use permit.

C. The proposed Development Code amendments would be consistent with the General Plan Land Use and Community Identity Element, Goal LUCI-3.

D. The proposed amendments to the Development Code would permit specified accessory recreational structures subject to further discretionary approval and, therefore, are exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the "Common Sense" exemption, because there is no possibility that the proposed amendments may have a significant effect on the environment. Any potential environmental impacts from said new structures would be evaluated as part of the required discretionary review process.

2. Code Amendment.

A. Section 18.08.010, Permitted Uses, subsection L, is amended to add category 9, as follows:
119. Skateboard ramps exceeding six feet in height subject to City Council Policy 300- 16"
B. Section 18.10.010, Permitted Uses, subsection O, is amended to add category 9, as follows:
11 9. Skateboard ramps exceeding six feet in height subject to City Council Policy 300- 16"
C. Section 18.28.010, Permitted Uses, subsection I, is amended to add category 7, as follows:

7. Skateboard ramps exceeding six feet in height subject to City Council Policy 300- 16"
EXHIBIT 1
02/14/2023 PH 1 4 of 16

ORDINANCE NO. 2023-

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CHARTERED CITY OF VISTA
PAGE 2
D. The title of Section 18.72.010, Extending Nonconforming Use, is amended to read "Extending Nonconforming Use, Structure or Building." E. Section 18.72.010, Extending Nonconforming Use, Structure or Building, is amended to read as follows:
"A nonconforming use of land, of a structure or of a building shall not be expanded or extended in any manner except as expressly permitted by the provisions of this code." F. The title of Section 18.72.100, Removal or Alteration of Nonconforming Buildings, is amended to read "Removal or Alteration of Nonconforming Structures or Buildings." G. Section 18.72.100, Removal or Alteration of Nonconforming Structures or Buildings, is amended to read as follows:
"A. Residential Zoning Districts. Every nonconforming building or structure in the subject zoning districts, with the exception of residential, church and school (public or private) buildings, which nonconforming building or structure was designed or intended for use no longer permitted in the subject zoning district in which it is located, shall be completely removed or altered to structurally conform to the uses permitted in the zoning district in which it is located within the herein specified times upon notice from the Planning Commission, which time is measured from the date of construction unless otherwise specified herein. For buildings, in no case shall this period of time be less than five years from the date of construction.

Unless determined at a public hearing to be a nuisance or other detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, the following abatement amortization periods are applicable:

1. If property is unimproved except for structures of a type for which the existing Building Code does not require a building permit: one year.

2. Non-agricultural accessory recreational structures: 18 months from the date of construction or the date upon which said structure becomes nonconforming, whichever comes later.

3. Agricultural accessory buildings and structures: five years, unless the buildings and structures are used for raising rabbits, poultry and animals in which event the accessory buildings and structures shall be removed or altered to structurally conform to the uses permitted in the zoning district in accordance with Subdivision 7 of this section.

4. Type I Buildings:
a. Offices and hotels: 45 years from date of building construction. b. Theaters: 50 years from date of building construction.

C. Warehouses, lofts, stores, garages: 45 years from date of building construction.
d. Industrial: 35 years from date of building construction.

5. Type II and Type III buildings:
a. Apartments, offices, hotels or residences having stores or offices below and apartments or office above: 35 years from date of building construction; however, residential apartments may be amortized for any reasonable period of time determined by 02/14/2023 PH 1 5 of 16

ORDINANCE NO. 2023-

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CHARTERED CITY OF VISTA
PAGE 3
evidence received at the Planning Commission's public hearing if the units do not meet all standards and requirements for such residential units.
b. Warehouses, stores, garages and lofts: 35 years from date of building construction.

C. Factories and industrial: 45 years from date of building construction.

6. Type IV and Type V buildings: 40 years from date of building construction.

7. Agricultural accessory buildings and structures used for raising rabbits, poultry, and animals shall be removed or altered to structurally conform to the uses permitted in the zoning district in which they are located after a hearing before the Planning Commission as follows:
a. Upon the adoption of an order by the Planning Commission or the City Council, the Planning Commission shall give notice of a public hearing, as provided by Section 18.04.060 et seq. of this code, of the intention of the Planning Commission to consider at a public hearing the abatement of the nonconforming use of any accessory buildings and/or structures used for the raising of rabbits, poultry or animals. b. Subject to the provisions of Subdivision (7)(c) of this subsection, all such accessory buildings or structures are hereby granted an automatic exception for a period of eight years from the effective date of the adoptive ordinance, or in those cases of future annexation of affected property, eight years after consummation of such annexation and such automatic exception shall terminate without further hearing at the expiration of such eight years; provided, however, in the event the accessory buildings and structures are not removed or abated at the termination of the automatic exception period, the Planning Commission shall hold a hearing to determine whether or not the accessory buildings and structures are in violation of this code. In the event the Planning Commission finds such accessory buildings and structures to be in violation of this code, it shall order the abatement thereof within 90 days.

C. After hearing by the Planning Commission, the automatic exception provided in Subdivision (7)(b) of this subsection may be modified or revoked at any time in less than such eight-year period upon findings that:
i. The use for which the building or structure is used is detrimental to the public health or safety or so as to be a public nuisance; or ii. Where such use can be revoked without the impairment of constitutional rights of the operator of the nonconforming use upon consideration of the value of the improvements, the replacement cost less depreciation, and the ability of such improvements to be relocated at reasonable expense to the operator of the nonconforming use. d. The Planning Commission shall consider the depreciation period to commence from the date of construction of such accessory buildings and structures or the use of a substantial portion thereof, whichever occurs first. e. Any action of the Planning Commission under Subdivision 7 of this subsection shall be subject to appeal in the same manner as provided for appeals from decisions of the Planning Commission under Chapter 18.04.

B. Commercial Zoning Districts. Every nonconforming building or structure in a commercial zoning district with the exception of hospital, church or school buildings shall be completely removed or altered to conform to those uses permitted in the commercial zoning district in which such building or structure is located within the herein specified times upon notice from the Planning Commission, which times are measured from the date of construction.

Any abatement period shall be for a reasonable period of time based on information provided by an appraiser and other circumstances affecting the property. As used in this section, the 02/14/2023 PH 1 6 of 16

ORDINANCE NO. 2023-

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CHARTERED CITY OF VISTA
PAGE 4
designations Type I building, Type II building, Type III building, Type IV building and Type V building are employed as defined in the existing Building Code. Unless determined at a public hearing to be a nuisance or other detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, the following minimum abatement amortization periods are established:

1. Where property is unimproved except for structures of a type for which the existing Building Code does not require a building permit: one year from date of building construction.

2. Agricultural accessory buildings and structures: five years from date of construction or annexation to the City.

3. Type I buildings:
a. Offices and hotels: 45 years from date of construction. b. Theaters: 50 years from date of construction.

C. Warehouses, lofts, stores, garages: 45 years from date of construction.
d. Industrial: 35 years from date of construction.

4. Type II and Type III buildings:
a. Apartments, offices, hotels or residences having stores or offices below and apartments or offices above: 35 years; however, residential apartments may be amortized for any reasonable period of time determined by evidence received at the Planning Commission's public hearing if the units do not meet all standards and requirements for such residential uses.
b. Warehouses, stores, garages, and lofts: 35 years from the date of construction.

C. Factories and industrial: 45 years from date of construction.

5. Type IV and Type V buildings: 40 years from the date of construction.

C. Industrial Zoning Districts. Every nonconforming building or structure in the subject zoning districts, with the exception of hospital, church and school (public and private) buildings, which nonconforming building or structure was designed or intended for a use not permitted in the subject zoning district in which it is located, shall be completely removed or altered to structurally conform to the uses permitted in the zoning district in which it is located within the herein specified times upon notice from the Planning Commission, which time is measured from the date of construction. Any abatement period shall be for a reasonable period of time based on information provided by an appraiser and other circumstances affecting the property. As used in this section, the designations Type I building, Type II building, Type III building, Type IV building and Type V building are employed as defined in the existing Building Code. Unless determined at a public hearing to be a nuisance or other detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, the following minimum abatement amortization periods are established:

1. Where property is unimproved except for structures of a type for which the existing Building Code does not require a building permit: one year from date of building construction.

2. Agricultural accessory buildings and structures: five years from date of construction or annexation to the City.

3. Type I buildings:
a. Offices and hotels: 45 years from date of construction. b. Theaters: 50 years from date of construction.

C. Warehouses, lofts, stores, garages: 45 years from date of construction.
d. Industrial: 35 years from date of construction.
02/14/2023 PH 1 7 of 16

ORDINANCE NO. 2023-

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CHARTERED CITY OF VISTA
PAGE 5

C. Factories and industrial: 45 years from date of construction.

5. Type IV and Type V buildings: 40 years from the date of construction." H. Section 18.72.110, Abatement Date Determined by Planning Commission, is amended to read as follows:
"A. When any nonconforming conditions exist in any zoning district, other than the nonconforming use of land when no structure is involved, it shall be the responsibility of the Planning Commission, on its own initiative, or upon referral of the City Council, to make a formal determination at a public hearing of the applicable date of abatement based upon the requirements of this title.

B. It shall also be the responsibility of the Planning Commission to determine whether, by reason of structural alterations or enlargement, or the installation of major equipment designed into buildings or structures prior to the effective date of the amendment codified in this section, it is deemed necessary to establish a later date for abatement than that prescribed herein for the nonconforming conditions in order to assure that the investment in the nonconforming use of land, structure or building may be amortized.

C. In performing this function, the Commission shall consider all pertinent data in connection therewith to provide the opportunity for the owner of record, lien holder, if any, lessee, if there be such, to present such evidence as they may possess and which properly relates to such case.

D. When the date of abatement has been determined, the Commission, by resolution, shall establish such date and shall set forth such facts as bear upon the case upon which the determination of such date of abatement is based, and shall formally notify the owner of such nonconforming property of the action of the Commission by mailing to such owner a copy of the formally adopted resolution not later than ten days following the date of subject action by the Planning Commission.

E. Any action by the Planning Commission under this section shall be subject to appeal to the City Council in the same manner as provided for other appeals from decisions of the Planning Commission."
I. The title of Section 18.72.120, Conditions for New Conforming Uses, is amended to read "Conditions for New Conforming Uses, Structures or Buildings." J. Section 18.72.120, Conditions for New Conforming Uses, Structures or Buildings, is amended to read as follows:
"No new conforming use of land, structures or buildings shall be instituted or maintained unless any nonconforming use of such land, structures or buildings is first abandoned and all nonconforming structures, buildings or facilities are first removed, unless otherwise specifically 02/14/2023 PH 1 8 of 16

ORDINANCE NO. 2023-

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CHARTERED CITY OF VISTA
PAGE 6
authorized by action of the approving body considering the continuance at a duly noticed public hearing."

3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day following the date of its adoption.

4. Adoption. INTRODUCED AND ADOPTED at a meeting of the City Council held on February , 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

JOHN FRANKLIN, MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:

WALTER CHUNG, CITY ATTORNEY KATHY VALDEZ, CITY CLERK By: By:

APPROVED
Amanda L.Guy
20230206173546
02/14/2023 PH 1 9 of 16

CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2023-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CHARTERED CITY OF VISTA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING CITY COUNCIL POLICY NO. 300-16, SKATEBOARD RAMPS IN

SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES
The City Council of the City of Vista does resolve as follows:

1. Findings. The City Council hereby finds and declares the following:

A. The City of Vista has developed a new City Council Policy, number 300-16, to clarify the procedures for the review of large skateboard ramps in single-family residential zones.

B. These proposed actions are not within the definition of a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Section 15378(b)(5) of the State CEQA Guidelines because these actions consist of the establishment of a policy which is administrative and will not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment.

C. On February 14, 2023, the Vista City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the requested policy. At the public hearing staff reports both written and oral were received in evidence, and all persons desiring to speak on the project were heard. At the conclusion of said hearing, after consideration of all evidence presented, the City Council reached a decision on the matter as set forth.

2. Action.

A. Each of the above recitals is true and correct and is incorporated herein by reference.

B. City Council Policy 300-16, "Skateboard Ramps in Single-Family Residential Zones," attached hereto as Exhibit "A," is hereby adopted by the City Council.

3. Adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a meeting of the City Council held on February 14, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

JOHN FRANKLIN, MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

WALTER CHUNG, CITY ATTORNEY ATTEST:

KATHY VALDEZ, CITY CLERK
By:

APPROVED
Amanda L.Guy
20230206174121
Exhibits:

A. City Council Policy 300-16, Skateboard Ramps in Single-Family Residential Zones 02/14/2023 PH1 EXHIBIT 2 10 of 16

300-16 SKATEBOARD RAMPS IN SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES

PURPOSE
To clarify the City's processes and procedures for the review and consideration of large skateboard ramps in single-family residential zones.

POLICY
Applicability. This policy shall apply to any skateboard ramps in the A-1, E-1 or R-1 zones that exceed six feet in height, as measured from the flat bottom of the ramp to the highest deck (excluding any safety railing or fencing). Such structures shall require a minor use permit subject to review by the Planning Commission, which would be appealable to the City Council in accordance with Development Code Chapter 18.04. Skateboard ramp structures subject to this policy will not be considered or permitted in any other residential zone.

Review Criteria. The following criteria shall be addressed in the review of any skateboard ramps subject to this policy, under the terms of the minor use permit:

1. Landscaping / Screening of structure— any skateboard ramp structure subject to this policy shall be sufficiently screened from view from surrounding properties with landscaping, screening material or other acceptable means to protect the privacy of surrounding properties.

2. Soundproofing —soundproofing, such as in the form of decking materials and/or materials placed under the ramp structure, shall be provided to the extent practicable to minimize noise from use of the structure.

3. Materials—Wood or composite materials shall be used in the construction of the decking on the ramp structure; no metal decking materials are permitted.

4. Special events — Use of the skateboard ramp structure is not permitted for special events held on the subject residential property.

5. Parking —Adequate off-street parking shall be provided for any guests of the property using the skateboard ramp. The skateboard ramps may not be used for any business or home occupation purpose.

6. Hours of operation — Use of any skateboard ramp subject to this policy shall not be permitted between the hours of 7:OOPM to 7:OOAM, or as otherwise conditioned by the Planning Commission, or the City Council upon appeal, in a noticed public hearing.

7. Lighting — Lighting provided for any skateboard ramp subject to this policy shall be directed downward and shielded as necessary to avoid light spill onto any surrounding property.

8. Setbacks—Any skateboard ramp subject to this policy shall meet the setbacks required for a primary residence within the applicable zone, or as otherwise conditioned by the Planning Commission, or the City Council upon appeal, in a noticed public hearing. 02/14/2023 PH 1 11 of 16

The foregoing criteria do not limit the discretion of the Planning Commission, or the City Council upon appeal, to impose any other conditions upon a proposed skateboard ramp that is deemed necessary or desirable to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. Skateboard ramps subject to this policy must also comply with all applicable requirements of the Vista Development Code that are not in conflict with this policy. 02/14/2023 PH 1 12 of 16

Attn: John Conley, Community Development Director
City of Vita Planning Division
200 Civic Center Drive
Vista, CA 92084
February 2, 2023
RE: Skateboard Ramp Discussion
Dear Members of the City Council,
This is in regards to the proposed Development Code amendments regarding skateboard ramps in R-1, E-1 and A-1 Zones in the City of Vista.

We are the owners of a property on Oak Drive that contains one of these ramps and appreciate the opportunity to share our views.

We purchased our property and home in 2012—a little more than 10 years ago. My husband is an immigrant from Brazil, and a professional skateboarder, and has long held the dream of owning his own home in the United States of America with a backyard skateboard ramp. He arrived in this country mere weeks after 9/11 to follow his dream - speaking absolutely no English and with less than $200 in his pocket. He has defied the odds and worked harder than most to become a naturalized citizen, to build multiple businesses, and eventually to own his own home with his dream ramp. He has lived in the City of Vista since 2005, and we purchased our first home here together in 2012.

The primary reason we chose Vista to invest in our home and in my husband's dream was because of the City's classification of skateboard ramps as "playground equipment," as well as the City's policy of imposing minimal regulation on personal property. That is something we strongly value in our household, and I would predict that autonomy of personal property is a value shared by many residents of our area.

Also, in a time when so many localities continue to discriminate against skateboarding in particular as a sport, it was refreshing to move to an area that favored freedom and autonomy and did not classify any one sport differently than any other. The City of Vista has a longstanding reputation as being a very skateboarding-friendly city and many professional athletes and successful businesses in the industry are a direct result of this.

In addition to our ramp, our neighborhood is the home of several different large recreational structures including pools, play structures, multiple large batting cages and more. We welcome these to the neighborhood and are delighted that our neighbors are able to have them for private use.

When we first moved into our home in 2012, we immediately sought and received the blessing of all our adjacent neighbors before we transported the ramp from its previous home at the YMCA in Encinitas to our property. Our neighbors at the time were overwhelmingly supportive; one adjacent EXHIBIT 3
02/14/2023 PH 1 13 of 16

neighbor directly assisted with the rebuilding work and another adjacent neighbor allowed us to use their side and backyard to more easily move the materials on a forklift into our backyard. We spoke to several other neighbors who expressed support as well.

About 5 years after we constructed the ramp, one of our next door neighbors moved out and a new neighbor moved in. We communicated with the new neighbors and asked about any noise or other concerns, and were told there were none.

Curiously, these same neighbors—the Hutchinsons, who are driving the recent slew of complaints- had maintained a warm friendship with us from the time they moved in (in 2018)through the time the complaints began (so for a period of nearly 5 years). We have had repeated conversations about our ramp with them over the years and neither of the couple had ever shared anything but positive feedback about the ramp. During our years-long friendship, we have been invited to several of their family gatherings, we have exchanged gifts back and forth, they attended our skateboarding-related event and they have expressed desire for their grandchildren to come skate our ramp (I have text messages confirming this last fact).

You can imagine the dismay, surprise and hurt we felt at the City Commissioner meeting in October when we saw these neighbors—our friends - stand up and share testimony that flies in the face of their own actions towards us. Until then, we had absolutely no idea they were driving this campaign.

The most recent text message that I have on my phone from Tony Hutchinson says "you guys are the best neighbors!" and expressed a desire to "hang out with you guys sometime soon." He has never once expressed anything but support to me for our ramp over the past 5+years.

The last time I saw his wife, Alicia Hutchinson, in person was a few short months before the previous City meeting—she had texted me to meet her out front with my four children. She then proceeded to give them gifts that she bought for her own grandchildren ... saying she thought of my kids and included them alongside her grandkids. There was no mention of any concerns with the ramp whatsoever, despite us having a lengthy conversation.

And yet, these former friends of ours have opted to tie up city resources and waste taxpayer money to address something they could have talked to us about personally. Instead of talking to us like adults, they chose to be passive-aggressive, cowardly and even hypocritical.They whined about our event to the city during the October hearing ... without bothering to mention the two very large and loud events of their own, which presented most of the same "concerns" they complained about regarding our event (loud band, MC, portable restrooms, parking issues, etc). It's especially ironic that they actually attended one of our events, and even allowed our guests and ourselves to park in their driveway more than once.

Truthfully, there has been only one personal conversation about ramp concerns with any member of the entire group of complainants, ever. Out of the group, only Tony Hutchinson has ever spoken to my husband (and never directly to me) about reducing use. At the time he spoke with my husband, Tony put the complete blame for his complaint in the lap of his wife (saying "my wife is not happy") and 02/14/2023 PH 1 14 of 16

clarified to my husband that he had no issues personally with the ramp or its use. This expression of concerns happened on a single occasion and we made a number of good-faith accommodations following that conversation. Apparently—we are now learning—our accommodations were not enough. But instead of talking to us again to remedy the issue and share additional concerns, our neighbors made the unfortunate choice to involve the city.

We have learned, after talking with City personnel, that false complaints have been made by Tony Hutchinson concerning ramp use on days when we were not using the ramp, as well as on days when we were not even home. As a taxpayer, I find this waste of city resources and false reporting to be selfish, childish and —frankly- reprehensible.

Members of this group of complainants (there are two primary households involved) have also harassed other neighbors and trespassed on private property in order to gather their "evidence" and try to drum up support. We have had multiple other neighbors reach out to us to express dismay at this group's actions. We received a written message from one nearby neighbor that shared views of how this group appears "bigoted" and "racist" (alluding to my husband's Afro-Brazilian heritage) based on comments that have been made. I have also heard stories about retribution against other neighbors. More than one other neighbor has already experienced this wrath through false reports to the authorities, and a few neighbors we talked to have expressed nervousness to speak in our support out of fear of retaliation.

In fact, one complainant in this group currently has a legal restraining order against her by another neighbor for making false reports to law enforcement! So there is already a legal, documented history of false reporting here. Other neighbors have reported members of this group revving their car engines and driving in a threatening manner while they were walking home from our house. This is—without a doubt—a group of neighborhood bullies and tyrants who are weaponizing the city and other resources in order to further their own personal agenda.

I have ample proof that at least part of the testimony shared by the group of complainants at the previous commissioners/planning meetings- as well as that in Tony's many emails to the city- is heavily embellished and even downright false. It is a clear attempt to defame us in an attempt to get what they want. One can't help but ponder: if they have to lie to make the case for their complaints, it probably wasn't a very valid complaint to begin with.

That said, my goal here is not to go tit for tat against my neighbors. I do not wish to join them in bothering the city over something that should be handled maturely, between friends and adults. I do, however, wish for the city to be made aware of the hypocrisy, as well as have the opportunity to share our own side of the story.

As noted above, we bought a home and moved to Vista in order to build a skateboard ramp for our own personal use, as well as that of our close, personal friends. It's a unique sport in that there is simply very little accessibility to these ramps. Local skate parks have bowls and street courses, but not vertical ramps.
02/14/2023 PH 1 15 of 16

Before we purchased our Vista home, we did our research. Our realtor emailed the City of Vista to confirm that there were no legal barriers to building the ramp at our current address. We further clarified this by calling and conversing with city personnel directly. We also alerted our adjacent neighbors and received their blessings before investing in moving and reconstructing the ramp.

We made a considerable investment into this ramp over the past 10 years, out of our own pocket. We put our life savings into building it, and are still working to pay off the expense. In fact, we took a second mortgage out on our home to help with the initial construction expenses. This was a very well- researched and carefully made investment. We did not want to make such a large investment in vain.

To the contrary, the two neighbors most driving these complaints both purchased their homes and moved in AFTER the ramp was in existence. At the two previous city hearings, these neighbors voiced concerns about disclosure and property values - but conveniently left out the very real fact that they each made a conscious choice to buy a home near our ramp, after it had already been in existence for many years. Disclosure certainly did not deter them from buying their homes at above-market pricing.

To think we might lose everything we invested in - including a second mortgage that is still in repayment - after doing our due diligence before making the investment, simply because these neighbors suddenly have buyer's remorse and regret their very conscious decisions, is heartbreaking.

We are in danger of losing what we used our life savings and credit to build —not because of poor decisions of our own, but because of the now-regretted decisions made by others. That is simply not fair.

Such a large ramp is an unusual structure and so we do understand any desires of the City of Vista to regulate skateboard ramps moving forward. However, both ramps in question were constructed legally and in good faith. Our ramp on Oak Drive has been inspected and found to be in compliance with existing Development Code. In consideration of the considerable investment the owners of both ramps have each made, and the fact that both ramps have independently existed for more than 10 years (mostly peacefully and without ongoing complaint), we respectfully request an extension of the proposed 18 month abatement period for these two specific structures to 10 years.

Matching the abatement period to the length of time each ramp has peacefully existed seems like a fair and reasonable way to honor the personal investments made by the respective owners, and would provide sufficient time for both owners to recover their sizeable, good-faith investments.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Kind Regards,
Courtney Menezes
02/14/2023 PH 1 16 of 16

From:

John Conley
To:

KaHry Valdez
subject:

RN: Backyard Ramp
Date:

Tuesday, February 14, 2M 6 4135 M
From: Tony Luna
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 9:39 PM
To: John Conley ; John Franklin ; Corinna Contreras
; Joe Green ; Katie Melendez
; Dan O'Donnell
Subject: Backyard Ramp
I
City Members,
I just wanted to send a quick note.

My neighbor Evandro Menezes has a skateboard ramp in his backyard, and I guess there are some things being decided regarding the city, and ramps. I just wanted to say he is a good neighbor, and I cant mind the skateboarding on the ramp. We share a property line, as I am at- Oak Knoll Dr. so I am right next door. He has always been respectful to me.

I guess overall I just want to say I love all my neighbors, and I can only speak for myself, and the ramp doesn't bother me.

Regards,
Tony

From:

John Conley
To:
xaHry Valdez
subject:
nN: Backyard ramps.

Date:

Tuesday, Febmary 14, 2M 6 39:35 MI
From: Joseph Schumacher
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 9:12 PM
To: John Conley
Subject: Backyard ramps.

Hello,
We are writing this in support of the Menezes family on the their backyard ramp. We bought our house in 2008. We live on the street next to them.

We are friends with their neighbor that share the fence line in their backyard. We were lucky to have been able to watched the ramp being built from our friends yard.

We have 2 children 12 son and 9 daughter. Our son has been obsessed with everything skating his whole life. A lot has to do with him being able to watch so closely.

Our children are both learning how to skate on the ramps. They are so excited and happy when they get to go over to the house. Honestly getting the kids outside and not on a device is a huge win for us. They have a passion for skating. We love that!
We consider ourselves so lucky to have been able to watch Evandro and friends skate for years. We have also grown an amazing friendship with him and his family. They expect nothing from us other than friendship. That is an amazing neighbor.

Both my wife and myself have watched Tony Hawk and may others from the x games and have always enjoyed watching in awe of the things they can do on skateboards.

So when we had a professional skateboarder move in the neighborhood. This was a huge deal. We have have been able to meet so many people we have watched growing up threw them. The skating community is amazing. Huge hearts and are the nicest people.

They are very respectful to the neighbors. We may have a few grumpy neighbors. That have nothing better to do in their lives than complain about everyone and everything else. It's truly very sad for them as people. But that is not the feeling on most of us. We do not share their opinion.

The noise has never been an issue for us. Neither has parking. Honestly if you don't know about the ramp. You would have no idea that it is even there.

We are in support for leaving the ramp. They have been there for so long. They really should not have to take it down or move it. The moneythey have already put into building it and the maintenance of it is very expensive. This is definitely not something thatjust anyone or a child who wants a ramp can do. They are very safe and you have to know they to be able to get in the yard and use it.

Thank you for listening.

Joseph and Laura Schumacher.
- oak knoll dr.

From:

John Conley
To:

KaOry Valdez
Subject:
rw: skate Ramp Usra
Date:

Tuesday, February 14, 20D 9:44:56 M
From: Aaron Sagman
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:37 AM
To: John Conley ; John Franklin ; Corinna Contreras
; Joe Green ; Katie Melendez
; Dan O'Donnell
Subject: Skate Ramp Vista
To whom this may concem,
I grew up skafing all over this city. Long before any skatepark here. It would have been amazing to be able to take lessons at the ramp.

I am confused on the issue of the ramp. The only "noise" I hear coming from the ramp area are kids having a great time. Please don't take the sound of kids enjoying themselves in a safe and fun environment away from them. The ramp is a part of this community. The ramp owner provides a safe place and opportunity for kids to Team a sport I grew up Teaming. I love the having the ramp in our neighborhood. Please don`t allow a couple bullies to influence you in thinking this ramp is a nuisance. It is not' The ramp and the safe place provided are a part of this community long before a couple bullies moved here. Keep the Vista community strong!
Thank you,
Aaron Sagman
- Oak Knoll - Vista

From: John Conley
To: Kathy Valdez
Subject: FW: Skateboard Ramp on Oak Or
Date: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:07:44 AM
Attachments: Letter To City About Ramo Regulation 2-2-23.docx Ramp Diagrams and Screenshots.docx
From: Courtney White Menezes-
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:42 AM
To: Joe Green
Cc: Evandro Menezes John Conley ; John Franklin
; Corinna Contreras ; Katie Melendez
; Dan O'Donnell
Subject: Skateboard Ramp on Oak Dr
Dear Joe Green and City Council Members,
I apologize for such a last minute email, but wanted to reach out to you personally before the City Council meeting tonight to share some thoughts and views. As a busy mother who homeschools four children while working full time, it's been hard to find the time to write this up until now.

My husband, Evandro, and I own the home at=Oak Dr, where we have a vertical skateboarding ramp in the backyard. It's existed here for more than 10 years, mostly without any issue. In the last several months, however, that has changed as our next door neighbor has started a campaign to attack our ramp and our reputation.

While I hate to put the City in the midst of a neighbor dispute, that's exactly what this is. I understand that you, Joe, met recently with Tony and visited his home, and some misconceptions were shared with me regarding concerns that apparently Tony expressed with you. Please feel free to clear up any misunderstandings I may have here, as I heard this information secondhand.

First, an introduction. My husband Evandro has lived in Vista since 2005. He originally immigrated here from Brazil in late 2001 on an athlete visa (for skateboarding), arriving with less than $200 in his pocket and speaking no English. The person he was supposed to stay with changed his mind at the last minute and Evandro found himself homeless and penniless.

Through nothing but determination and hard work, he found his way. Today, he is a proud naturalized citizen, a Vista homeowner and runs his own business.

Before leaving Brazil, Evandro told his friends that his dream was to move to the United States and have his own backyard skateboard ramp. People laughed at him. Called him crazy. Said it

could not be done. He was poor and Black and living in a third world country, and spoke no English.But he did do it! And it makes me so proud, to tears, every time one of his old friends calls up or visits and tells him they can't believe he did it. To hear them apologize for not believing in him.

We bought our current Vista property with the goal of fulfilling Evandro's dream. But I would like to emphasize that this decision to build our ramp in was made after lots of research and planning. We did not proceed without emailing the City of Vista to learn if building this ramp was possible, and after learning there were no legal barriers, we consulted with neighbors. All adjacent neighbors gave us their blessing and so we moved forward. That was 2012.

We poured our life savings into this ramp; into fulfilling my husband's dream. And we continue to invest. In the past year, we remodeled part of our backyard around the ramp, costing more than $10,000. Without the ramp, those modifications are useless. And this was done before we were aware of any complaints to the city. To think that we could lose all of that, due to one neighbor's trade, is so incredibly heartbreaking to me. We worked so hard to save up that money for those enhancements. And we are still paying off the second mortgage we took out to help cover the initial ramp construction.

Currently, we have four children who are all homeschooled. Two of them were born inside of this house, before Tony Hutchinson even moved in.

When Tony moved in with his wife Lisi (Alicia), we soon became friends. I distinctly remember the first time they invited me over to their house and I stood in their backyard, looking at the ramp on our side of the fence. The trees covered most of it, and I asked if it ever bothers them. I was told it did not, that they could barely see it, and that if things got loud they simply turned up the music and things were fine. I made it clear that there was an open line of communication and asked them to let us know if there were ever any concerns or if they wanted us to take a day off.

Over the years, they asked us to take the day off only a few times: for a baby shower, for a wedding, for a family gathering (though we were invited to a few of those), and once for a gathering of church friends.

In early 2022, Tony met with Evandro a couple of times asking him to add more privacy screening along the fence line, because they felt like our guests could see over the fence from our back embankment. Not from the ramp, but our natural embankment! So we added some extra reed screening. A couple of months later, we were asked to add some more screening, so we did. Then during a third conversation in April 2022, Tony asked Evandro if he could modify the skateboarding hours slightly, to try and minimize skating after 5pm on Mondays and Wednesdays. It was left that Evandro would do his best, but also agreed that sometimes

he may still skate during those hours alone or with a couple of friends. That was the last conversation, and my son was witness to it.

We were made aware of some complaints pertaining to a small event we were having in June 2022, which was a very small kids "contest" we agreed to host for my son's 13th birthday. The City came to inspect the event, but left without issuing a violation as we were not out of compliance. We then asked the City for permission for a bigger party in July, and after meetings with the City, we received permission. We were aware that a neighbor had called the City and the police during the event. A sheriff came by and noted everything was fine and we could continue. A week before that event, we put letters in all mailboxes along our road inviting neighbors to both attend the event, and to share any concerns. No one called or contacted us with concerns, and many neighbors attended the event.

It was not until October 2022, at the first Commissioners hearing, that we learned it was Tony Hutchinson who was driving the complaints. Our friend! I am still in shock. We had maintained a friendship with him and his wife for more than 4 years, since they moved in.

His wife had called me and my kids to meet her out front just a few months before that, to give them gifts that she bought for her grandkids and my kids. That's the sort of friendship we had. During that conversation, Lisi Hutchinson shared many of her life's woes, including health issues and sadness that her grown children and grandchildren were all moving out of state.

But she never once shared any concerns about the ramp. I later realized, we had this conversation AFTER her husband began complaining to the city! I felt and still feel so betrayed.

A friend recently went to talk to Tony, as he completely ignores any of our text messages or attempts to talk to him. The friend said he used to see Tony at our house, and at our events, and recalled how they used to all sit around and chat. The friend wanted to know why Tony was driving this. Tony's response? He claimed he didn't like Evandro's attitude after their last conversation. That was it. So this entire thing is driven out of a personal vengeance? In persuit of his "evidence," Tony trespassed on our neighboring property to take photos of our backyard. The owner of that other property was dismayed to learn that Tony trespassed on their property in order to attack us. We also learned after talking with Code Enforcement that Tony was calling (at the time) nearly every single day to complain about ramp noise.

Based on records, we noted that he called in to complain on days when the ramp was not in use, including days when we were not even home! This is false reporting and gross abuse of city time and resources. Tony has essentially weaponized the City in a proxy war against us.

Almost everything Tony has claimed at the various meetings, and in the letters to the City that I have read, were heavily embellished as well as many outright fabrications. And most of that we can solidly prove, either through text message evidence or witness testimony. Each

hearing, he seems to change his complaints. It's like a moving target. But so far we have not once heard Tony mention our years -long friendship. That he attended one of the events he complained about. That he had two very large, loud events of his own (rules for thee, not for me?).

And today, we learned that the newest complaint is that the ramp blocks Tony's pool view, and that Tony claims we continue to modify and add on to the ramp. Tony purchased his home with the ramp in place. We have not modified the footprint since it was constructed, nor added to the height.

The only visible modifications we have made since Tony moved in were done with his knowledge and permission, and were done to improve sound control and aesthetics. None of these interfered with or changed the view. I have attached a diagram showing these modifications.

Currently, it's winter and our trees have dropped their leaves, so the ramp is more visible right now. But for 9-10 months out of the year, we have an additional three large trees full of leaves that block Tony's view of the ramp. During the summer, you can barely see it.

It's difficult to share the long history we have with the Hutchinsons without taking up a lot more of your time, so I will leave it here. I would like to emphasize that we have a great relationship with our other adjacent neighbors, and have always attempted to keep an open communication with all of them.

I have attached a letter that my husband sent to John Conley last week. Hopefully you have already read it, but it is included in case you have not. I also attached a brief document with some photos of our backyard showing the areas of the ramp that were modified since Tony arrived in 2018. 1 also included some screenshots of just a few of the many text messages showing our friendship with the Hutchinsons.

Up until this year, they were the neighbors that I instructed my kids to go see in case of emergency. They watched our home while we were away. My son took care of their animals.

We swam in their backyard with their kids and grandkids. We attended family gatherings. We exchanged fruits and eggs and homemade goods. We were those sort of neighbors. I am heartbroken at the friendship lost, and at having to explain to my children why our trusted friends betrayed us. Why my children are flat out ignored when they call out to Tony and Lisi as they walk by. I have never in my life felt so betrayed.

I really hope that you all make a conscious choice tonight in deciding what to do about the ramps.

Please also keep in mind that Elliot Sloan's ramp has received virtually no complaints, despite being much larger. And his ramp is now collateral damage in Tony's attempts to attack us.

If you choose to move forth with the code amendments, my biggest hope is that you consider our investments when deciding on the amortization period. 18 months is not enough time for us to recoup our investment and decide what to do.

We did everything we could in good faith, to follow the law, to meet the existing code, to communicate with our neighbors. Elliot Sloan has put in an equal good faith effort. I truly hope you don't let one man's vengeance tear apart multiple investments and dreams.

With utmost respect,
Courtney Menezes
Courtney White Menezes

We are the owners of a property on Oak Drive that contains one of these ramps and appreciate the opportunity to share our views.

We purchased our property and home in 2012 — a little more than 10 years ago. My husband is an immigrant from Brazil, and a professional skateboarder, and has long held the dream of owning his own home in the United States of America with a backyard skateboard ramp. He arrived in this country mere weeks after 9/11 to follow his dream - speaking absolutely no English and with less than $200 in his pocket. He has defied the odds and worked harder than most to become a naturalized citizen, to build multiple businesses, and eventually to own his own home with his dream ramp. He has lived in the City of Vista since 2005, and we purchased our first home here together in 2012.

Also, in a time when so many localities continue to discriminate against skateboarding in particular as a sport, it was refreshing to move to an area that favored freedom and autonomy and did not classify any one sport differently than any other. The City of Vista has a longstanding reputation as being a very skateboarding -friendly city and many professional athletes and successful businesses in the industry are a direct result of this.

Curiously, these same neighbors — the Hutchinsons, who are driving the recent slew of complaints - had maintained a warm friendship with us from the time they moved in (in 2018) through the time the complaints began (so for a period of nearly 5 years). We have had repeated conversations about our ramp with them over the years and neither of the couple had ever shared anything but positive feedback about the ramp. During our years -long friendship, we have been invited to several of their family gatherings, we have exchanged gifts back and forth, they attended our skateboarding -related event and they have expressed desire for their grandchildren to come skate our ramp (I have text messages confirming this last fact).

You can imagine the dismay, surprise and hurt we felt at the City Commissioner meeting in October when we saw these neighbors — our friends - stand up and share testimony that flies in the face of their own actions towards us. Until then, we had absolutely no idea they were driving this campaign.

The last time I saw his wife, Alicia Hutchinson, in person was a few short months before the previous City meeting — she had texted me to meet her out front with my four children. She then proceeded to give them gifts that she bought for her own grandchildren ... saying she thought of my kids and included them alongside her grandkids. There was no mention of any concerns with the ramp whatsoever, despite us having a lengthy conversation.

And yet, these former friends of ours have opted to tie up city resources and waste taxpayer money to address something they could have talked to us about personally. Instead of talking to us like adults, they chose to be passive -aggressive, cowardly and even hypocritical. They whined about our event to the city during the October hearing ... without bothering to mention the two very large and loud events of their own, which presented most of the same "concerns" they complained about regarding our event (loud band, MC, portable restrooms, parking issues, etc). It's especially ironic that they actually attended one of our events, and even allowed our guests and ourselves to park in their driveway more than once.

clarified to my husband that he had no issues personally with the ramp or its use. This expression of concerns happened on a single occasion and we made a number of good -faith accommodations following that conversation. Apparently — we are now learning — our accommodations were not enough. But instead of talking to us again to remedy the issue and share additional concerns, our neighbors made the unfortunate choice to involve the city.

Members of this group of complainants (there are two primary households involved) have also harassed other neighbors and trespassed on private property in order to gather their "evidence" and try to drum up support. We have had multiple other neighbors reach out to us to express dismay at this group's actions. We received a written message from one nearby neighbor that shared views of how this group appears "bigoted" and "racist" (alluding to my husband's Afro -Brazilian heritage) based on comments that have been made. I have also heard stories about retribution against other neighbors. More than one other neighbor has already experienced this wrath through false reports to the authorities, and a few neighbors we talked to have expressed nervousness to speak in our support out of fear of retaliation.

In fact, one complainant in this group currently has a legal restraining order against her by another neighbor for making false reports to law enforcement! So there is already a legal, documented history of false reporting here. Other neighbors have reported members of this group revving their car engines and driving in a threatening manner while they were walking home from our house. This is — without a doubt — a group of neighborhood bullies and tyrants who are weaponizing the city and other resources in order to further their own personal agenda.

I have ample proof that at least part of the testimony shared by the group of complainants at the previous commissioners/planning meetings - as well as that in Tony's many emails to the city - is heavily embellished and even downright false. It is a clear attempt to defame us in an attempt to get what they want. One can't help but ponder: if they have to lie to make the case for their complaints, it probably wasn't a very valid complaint to begin with.

We made a considerable investment into this ramp over the past 10 years, out of our own pocket. We put our life savings into building it, and are still working to pay off the expense. In fact, we took a second mortgage out on our home to help with the initial construction expenses. This was a very well - researched and carefully made investment. We did not want to make such a large investment in vain.

We are in danger of losing what we used our life savings and credit to build — not because of poor decisions of our own, but because of the now -regretted decisions made by others. That is simply not fair.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Kind Regards,
Courtney Menezes
Oak Dr, Vista

We informed Tony Hutchinson before making all improvements. No concerns were ever expressed.

Only modifications made after Tony moved in were these:
o to box in the bottom (mostly below fence line), which adds an extra insulation layer and greatly lessened noise. It also covered up exposed support posts with a solid backwall and looks much cleaner than the old posts. o To add a playhouse for our kids near the top roll -in area, which did not add to height or width
o Both of these enhancements can easily be removed, though they did make things look better aesthetically in our opinion. Prior to adding the playhouse, the wood was unpainted and rotting in that area. Now it's painted with newer wood. o Tony Hutchinson was aware of and agreed to both enhancements before they were made
Footprint of the ramp has not changed since it was originally constructed in 2012.

Height of ramp has not been modified since 2013 (when original backwall was added at the request of the previous owner of Tony's property)
Currently, the trees have dropped their leaves, but 9-10 months out of the year we have very large trees between the properties that add plenty of screening

Diagram showing all
modifications made since
before 2017
'PThis taller wall was put in place in 2013,
about 5 years before Tony Hutchinson
purchased the home next door.

M 19
This boxed in area was added as a
play area for our kids, but it did not
add to height (it starts lower than
original wall and slopes down. It
covers uo old, ugly wood. We

11:02 .dl W.
a EDI
Tony >
Sat, Dec 25, 11:17 AM
Merry Christmas Neighbor. Did
your power go off?
Merry Christmas!! It did! Still off.

My stepdad said there were
some SDGE trucks working on
the transformers when he drove
in.

We left something in your
mailbox!
That makes sense. My stepson
was pulling up at right when the
power went off and he told me
about the electric company crew
as well. Hopefully we will get
stuff turned back on soon so we
can start cooking up our feast.

We will go check out the mailbox
shortly. Thank you so much. You
guys are the best neighbors!
Sent 12/25/2021
IWO
0 A fAcasn

11:59 .,1[ IF', W.
3 TH ' C31
Tony
Thank you!
Enjoy! Homemade T Mej
Christmas guys!! Big hugs
Hope the lights come on soon!
We aren't producing enough
electricity yet for the solar to
power it.

Same here. Hope that crew gets
it together before 5 PM tonight.
need to hang out with you guys
sometime soon.

We definitely do!! We keep
saying that
�iiviessage WJ
#cash r� • •
A.

11:53 = .W ^ O
Alicia (Tony's Wife Nextdoor)
Then we need to get together for
a drink!!
Oh ok! I just didnt want to bug
you in case you were not up to it.

Yes, would def love to celebrate
w a drink when this mess clears
up!!
Feel free to reach out ANYtime!!

0.01 Apr 1, 2020, 3,10 PM
Check out my lil skateboarder,
Roman! He may want to try out
Evandro's vert ramp soon! OR
Roman is their young grandson
Apr 1, 2020, 5:42 PM
Kalli showed me the video!! He is
the cutest thing ever. I can't
believe how big he is!!
i know, he is hilarious! I miss
him so
ooked lik ke was
riMessage

PH1 Add to Packet
Claire Lopez
From: Kathy Valdez
Sent. Tuesday, February 14, 2023 3:31 PM
To: Claire Lopez
Subject: FW: Meeting Request
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
------ Original message From: John Conley
Date: 2/14/23 3:27 PM (GMT-08:00(
To: Kathy Valdez
Subject: FW: Meeting Request
FYI
From: Tony Hutchinson
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 3:25 PM
To: John Conley
Subject: Re: Meeting Request
Ok. I just wanted to reference it in my 3 minutes to the council tonight. Hope they can access it if they want to look at any of it.

On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 3:22 PM John Conley wrote:

Hi Tony,
Anything you provided the Clerk is public record, but I do not know if it was shared with the Council.

John
From: Tony Hutchinson -
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 2:49 PM
To: John Conley
Subject: Re: Meeting Request
Hi John,
Do you know if the information I shared with Kathy back in September is still public record and available for the city council to view for reference/discussion on the skateramp ordinance tonight? On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 3:03 PM John Conley wrote:

Sounds good, I have a meeting from 3:30-4, otherwise I will be available. Thanks Tony.

John

From: Tony Hutchinson -
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2023 2:58 PM
To: John Conley
Subject: Re: Meeting Request
Hi John,
I got a reprieve from work and am leaving early.

I should be at city hall in about 45-60 minutes.

I will let the receptionist know when I get there.

Tony
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 8:15 AM John Conley wrote
Thank you Tony! See you then.

John
From: Tony Hutchinso
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2023 8:00 AM
To: John Conley
Subject: Re: Meeting Request
Good morning John,
I plan on being at city hall today around 4:30-5pm.

If I am able to come sooner, I will email you.

I am hoping to have just 20-30 minutes of your time.

Talk to you soon.

Tony
On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 6:02 PM John Conley wrote:

Thanks Tony,
I am open until 5:30 or 6:00 on Monday so no need to make it early if you need some time to get here, just let me know.

I have photos of Derek's inspection I can provide for you.

Respectfully,
John
From: Tony Hutchinson
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2023 4:49 PM
To: John Conley
Subject: Re: Meeting Request
John,
I would like to see Derek's evidence and documentation of the city's measurement of the setback. His signature on a form will not suffice.

We have no confidence in Derek being unbiased in his job in regards to our skate ramp neighbor. He has sympathized with him since day one.

I can meet Monday after 3pm with you.

Hopefully I can get out of Escondido a little early.

Have a good weekend.

Tony
On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 3:36 PM John Conley wrote:
2 Hi Tony,
Of course, I am open on Monday or Wed afternoon, anytime after 3pm. Whatever is best for you.

Thanks,
John
From: Tony Hutchinson
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2023 3:34 PM
To: John Conley
Subject: Re: Meeting Request
I would like to discuss further.

I am meeting with John Franklin at 6pm today at city hall; if you are free between 5:30-6 or after 6:30 today I could chat with you. Otherwise, let me know if you're free on a Monday or Wednesday or Friday afternoon.

I hope to meet with as many city council members as possible before the city council votes on it.

Hoping for the best; but I want to plan for the worst.

Talk to you soon.

On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 3:26 PM John Conley wrote:

Hi Tony,
Derek inspected the ramp on Tuesday and confirmed it meets the 3-foot setback from the fence.

I conferred with our City Attorney and we do not have any other code section which is being violated, based on what's currently available to us.

The case has been closed. Please let me know if you would like to discuss further.

Thank you,
John Conley
Director of Community Development & Engineering
City of Vista
200 Civic Center Drive
Vista, CA 92084
(760)643-5388

CITY OF VISTA
From: Tony Hutchinson
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2023 2:57 PM
To: JohnConley ; Clarence Rich
Subject: Re: Meeting Request
Hi John and Clarence,
Were you able to inspect my neighbor's skate ramp this week? On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 8:24 AM John Conley wrote:

Code is scheduling a follow up inspection of the ramp this week, I will confirm with them on the 3-foot setback. That is what the notice of violation cited.

Thanks,
John

From: Tony Hutchinson
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 8:20 AM
To: John Conley
Subject: Re: Meeting Request
That is a bummer.

When I spoke to Clarence yesterday he indicated a 2 foot set back, but I like your 3 foot setback better; I love the 5 foot rule more.

Any idea why Clarence would cite 2 feet vs 3 feet? In any case, based on the picture of the distance between the ramp and the red colored neighbor fence, it looks like the ramp is inches from that property.

Is there any chance my neighbor would still be in violation of the 3 foot setback? I know you and Clarence and Joe and everyone else at the city is sympathetic to our situation, but I hope Clarence is using the full extent of the law during his inspection.

The thought of my neighbor being given 18 months to continue killing off my quallty of life is really disheartening.

On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 8:11 AM John Conley wrote:

Hi Tony,
The building setbacks are listed correctly in the zoning attachment.

Our City Attorney reviewed this and said we cannot impose the accessory structure setback of 5 feet because the ramp does not constitute a "building" which is what the code requires a setback from (per Development Code section 18.58.270).

Instead, we are stuck with a setback of 3 feet from any fence or wall in accordance with Development Code section 18.58.370.

So, that is what Code Enforcement is requiring for the ramp. Until we can regulate it under the new requirements.

The relevant Development Code chapter is here: deve code 18 58 eeneral orovisions conditions & exceptions - Laserfiche WebLink Icltyofvista.com)
Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks,
John
From: Tony Hutchinson -
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:58 AM
To: John Conley
Subject: Re: Meeting Request
Good morning John,
Is this Zoning Summary current and accurate in regards to set back limits? On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 8:18 AM John Conley wrote
Hi Tony,
The Planning Commission voted to send the staff recommendation to the City Council, so it is through the PC now.

The skate ramp regulations, as drafted, will go to the City Council for adoption on Feb 14. 1 will be sending out public notices the week of Jan 30 for the 2/14 CC meeting.

I will ask Clarence to follow up with you regarding the compliance date for the setback.

Thanks,
John

From: Tony Hutchinson
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 8:12 AM
To: John Conley
Subject: Re: Meeting Request
Good morning John.

Is the ordinance proposal now out of the hands of the Planning Commission? When will this land in the city council members' laps?
My neighbors and I are hoping to start meeting with each city council member before the February meeting.

Also, do you know when Clarence will be revisiting the neighborto check on the status of the setback violation?
We are extremely thankful to you for helping us get this situation one step closer to being resolved.

Talk to you soon.

Tony
On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 8:54 AM Tony Hutchinson � wrote:

Thank you for the information John.

See you tonight.

On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 8:38 AM John Conley wrote
Hi Tony,
Correct, if the ramp violates any code on 3/16, we would have the ability to move forward with an abatement hearing. The owner is still working with code to correct the setback issue.

Your neighbors can request a shorter amortization period, and it is at the discretion of the Planning Commission (and ultimately the City Council) to establish a lesser timeframe, but the staff is recommending 18 months based on the City Attorneys research.

Thanks,
John
From: Tony Hutchinson
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 8:04 AM
To: John Conley
Subject: Re: Meeting Request
John,
It sounds like the soonest we could hope for removal of the ramp under the current proposal would be Fall of 2024. That is 2 more summers of non-stop skateboarding from morning to sunset every warm and sunny day.

If I remember our conversation correctly, would it be correct to say that our only hope for an earlier ramp removal date is if our neighbor is still violating existing code on 3/16/23? Do my neighbors and I have a realistic chance of swaying the planning commission and/or the city council of shortening the proposed abatement/amortization period from 18 months? I know your proposal is based on legal precedent, but could the planning commission or the city council be convinced to set a new legal precedent with a shorter grace period like 6 months?
Thank you for your reply.

Tony
On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 7:15 AM John Conley wrote:

Hi Tony,
Please see responses below.

Please let me know if you have any additional questions or comments ahead of the meeting.

Thanks.

Jahn
From: Tony Hutchinson
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 4:05 PM
To: John Conley
Subject: Fwd: Meeting Request
Hi John,
I was reading the Skate Ramp Amendment from the planning meeting agenda for tomorrow, and had a few questions.

Question 1- Is the date code dept./Clarence issued the code violation notice on Jan. 20 considered the "date of nonconformity"? The date of nonconformity would be 30 days following approval of the ordinance. So, if approved by the City Council on 2/14, the ordinance would become effective on 3/16 which is the date the clock would start ticking for the 18-month amortization period.

Question 2-According to Chapter 18. 72, Nonconformity Regulations could the 18 month abatement period be shortened at a future planning commission meeting? This means that, at the point a ramp becomes illegal (i.e., the amortization period has run), the Planning Commission would have to hold a public hearing on the abatement of the ramp before we could force its removal. ("Should the city pursue abatement of a nonconforming structure under these amendments, it would be subject to the abatement procedures established in Development Code Section 18. 72. 110, which requires a public hearing at the Planning Commission to determine the appropriate date of abatement. The Planning Commission's action would be appealable to the City Council.") Question 3- Could the abatement period be shortened if there is evidence that the structure can be determined to be a public nuisance? The day after the October planning commission meeting, my neighbor made sure to be extra loud and obnoxious with his skateboard guests out of spite. If he knows he has only 18 months left to enjoy his ramp, his spiteful behavior could get worse and definitely be defined as "public nuisance". Yes, this is possible; however, the City Attorney's office would have to obtain enough evidence to prosecute the matter as a public nuisance. So a sufficient number of verified complaints and/or violations of the code would be needed to pursue this option ahead of the amortization period. (ORDINANCE NO. 2023- CITY COUNCIL OF THE CHARTERED CITY OF VISTA PAGE 2 A. Residential Zoning Districts. Every nonconforming building or structure in the subject zoning districts, with the exception of residential, church and school ( public or private) buildings, which nonconforming building or structure was designed or intended for use no longer permitted in the subject zoning district in which it is located, shall be completely removed or altered to structurally conform to the uses permitted in the zoning district in which it is located within the herein specified times upon notice from the Planning Commission, which time is measured from the date of construction unless otherwise specified herein. For buildings, In no case shall this period of time be less than five years from the date of construction.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the building or structure can be determined to constitute a public nuisance or a detriment to the health, safety and welfare, then abatement can be set at any reasonable time as may be determined by the evidence received at the public hearing. Unless determined at a public hearing to be a nuisance or other detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, the following abatement amortization periods are applicable: 1. If property is unimproved except for structures of a type for which the existing Building Code does not require a building permit: one year. 2. Non-

agricultural accessory recreational structures: 18 months from the date of construction or the date upon which said structure becomes nonconforming, whichever comes later.) Hope to hear back from you before tomorrow night's meeting.

Tony
------ Forwarded message From: Clarence Rich
Date: Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 4:37 PM
Subject: RE: Meeting Request
To: Tony Hutchinson -
Hi Tony,
Your neighbor was issued a Notice of Code Violation with the Compliance date of January 20, 2023. When the re -inspection is conducted and he is not in compliance, we will be contacting our City Attorney. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate in contacting me.

From: Tony Hutchinson
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2023 3:17 PM
To: John Conley
Cc: Clarence Rich
Subject: Re: Meeting Request
Thank you for getting back to me John. Look forward to hearing from Clarence.

On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 11:24 AM John Conley wrote:

Hi Tony,
Clarence and Derek were directly involved in the inspection and the direction provided on setbacks. I am copying Clarence here.

Thanks,
John
From: Tony Hutchinson
Sent: Monday, January 9, 202311:17 AM
To: John Conley
Subject: Re: Meeting Request
Happy New Year John. Hope you had a relaxing vacation. I definitely ate too much with the rain keeping me inside so much.

It looks like my neighbor made some attempts to modify his ramp structure but the ramp itself has not moved.

Did you or Derek give him specifics on what it would take to come into compliance with the setback code? Will you be going back out to inspect his changes, or will it be just code going out? My neighbors and I are hoping Clarence and yourself can be involved with this situation Looking forward to the planning commission meeting next week.

Talk to you soon.

Tony
On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 6:47 AM John Conley wrote:

Hi Tony,
The property owner will be given 30 days to correct the violation from the date of the notice.

If the correction is not made within that timeframe, we can cite them, up to four times before it can be referred to a court for abatement.

We will not be able to force removal immediately unless: (1) they do not fix the setback by the time we establish new rules, or (2) the matter is referred to court (absent fixing the setback) and the judgement requires removal of the ramp.

Please let me know if you have any additional questions.

Thanks,
John
From: Tony Hutchinson
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2022 8:23 PM
To: John Conley
Subject: Re: Meeting Request
Thanks for the info John.

What is the due process now for the notice of violation? Is Code giving them a timeframe in which to comply?
If so, is the timeframe going to be set in a way that might create the perfect opportunity for the city to immediately deal with this rather than allow for the amortization period to take place? Talk to you soon.

Tony
On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 8:14 AM John Conley wrote:

Hi Tony,
Code Enforcement staff was let onto the property on Tuesday and documented the location of the ramp — it does not meet the required setback.

Notice of the setback violation is being sent to the property owners this week.

I hope you have a good week as well, I will keep you posted on our progress.

Cheers,
John
From: Tony Hutchinson
Sent: Monday, December
To: John Conley
Subject: Re: Meeting Request
Good morning John,
Do you know if the code inspection happened on my neighbor's property last week? Have a great Monday. Finals week starts today. All half days, so it is a great Monday.

Talk to you soon.

Tony
On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 8:38 AM John Conley wrote:

Conformed, thanks Tony. See you then.

John

From: Tony Hutchinson -
Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2022 8:02 AM
To: John Conley
Subject: Re: Meeting Request
Good morning John,
I should be at city hall around 4:30pm today.

Look forward to seeing you then.

Tony
On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 10:13 AM John Conley wrote:

Sounds good, thanks Tony.

John
From: Tony Hutchinson
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 9:16 AM
To: John Conley
Subject: Re: Meeting Request
Good morning John,
Soundsgood.

I will confirm with you either the night before or the day of.

Have a great Monday.

On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 3:28 PM John Conley wrote:

Hi Tony,
4:30 on Thursday r works for me. I'll see you then unless I hear back.

I will meet you in the lobby and we can review everything in my office.

I appreciate your time.

Thanks,
John
From: Tony Hutchinson -
Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2022 3:26 PM
To: John Conley
Subject: Re: Meeting Request
Hey John,
I am done with school in Escondido at 3:30. 1 can be at city hall by 4:15-4:30 on Monday or Thursday.

Otherwise it would have to be a phone oil.

Let me know what works for you.

Tony
On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 11:27 AM John Conley wrote:

Hi Tony,
We should set up a time to discuss this over the phone, or meet.

Can you let me know your availability in the next couple days?

I'd like to explain all of our options here —and would be better to give you the opportunity to discuss any questions.

Thanks,
John
From: Tony Hutchinson
Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2022 9:15 AM
To: John Conley
Subject: Re: Meeting Request
Goad morning John,
Thank you for this information. I am disappointed that the City Attorney doesn't want to recommend a shorter timeframe forthe code compliance. My neighbor has yet to show any effort or respect to comply with any law/code of any type, and this amount of time I feel will embolden him to become a bigger public nuisance than he already is.

In regards to the Dec 10 date Derek cited for compliance with the set back code, I have seen no effort on his part to begin making any adjustments to his ramp location. If he refuses to comply and not let code enforcement on his property to inspect, could that be enough for a court orderto be issued to allow the city to inspect his property? Also, why can't the photos that I gave Kathy, which are public record now, be used to examine the set back distance? As much as I am thankful to the city for bringing this issue this far, I still have concerns about any finality being reached within a timely manner of there being an actual change in the situation, and ultimately, my quality of life.

I appreciate all that you have done and communicated with me.

Have a great Thursday.

Tony Hutchinson
On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 12:53 PM John Conley wrote:

Hi Tony,
I see Derek responded, so will leave the enforcement timeframes with him.

On a separate note, I received confirmation from our City Attorney on the amortization timeframe for the ramps. It will be recommended as 18 months, but ultimately will be at the discretion of the Planning Commission and City Council when the code amendment is presented to them in the public hearings.

I am planning to take the code amendment to the Planning Commission on Jan 17 and the City Council on Feb 14.

Let me know If you have any questions related to the process.

Thank you,
John Conley
Director of Community Development & Engineering
City of Vista
200 Civic Center Ddve
Vista, CA 9201J4
(760) 643-5388

CITY OF VISTA
From: Tony Hutchinson
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 202212:11 PM
To: John Conley
Cc: Derek Clemente
Subject: Re: Meeting Request
Hi John,
Hope you had a great Thanksgiving break with your family.

I still have not heard back from Derek with this information.

I would appreciate some contact from him as soon as possible on this matter.

There has been zero change to my neighbors skate activity, noise level, and skate lesson business behavior.

Sincerely,
Tony Hutchinson
On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 8:50 AM John Conley wrote
Hi Tony,
I'm copying Derek Clemente; he is working with the owner on the 5-foot setback.

He can provide the timeframe they were given for compliance, and the process if they do not comply.

Derek is back in the office on Saturday.

Apologies, code enforcement is not under my authority here.

Thank you,
John Conley
Director of Community Development & Engineering
City of Vista
200 Civic Center Drive
Vista, CA 92084
(760) 643-5388
11 CITY OF VISTA
From: Tony Hutchinson
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2022 8:03 AM
To: John Conley
Subject: Re: Meeting Request
Good morning John,
Thank you again for taking time out of your weekly schedule to meet with me and my neighbors last night.

We really appreciate getting 1st hand information from the source; it helps us to understand the city's perception of the situation and builds knowledge and wisdom.

Amidst the exchange of information I don't remember you identifying a timeline for our skate neighbor to move his ramp off the 5 foot set back, and/or the consequential process for failure to comply. How long is the city giving him to comply with the set back code? And, what happens if he refuses to comply?
Again, thank you for answering our questions and receiving our concerns.

Have a great Thursday.

Tony Hutchinson
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 7:41 AM Tony Hutchinson � wrote:

Will do.

On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 6:19 AM John Conley wrote:

Hi Tony,
Lisa is at the receptionist desk in the lobby, she'll let me know. If she is not there, please ask for me at the building/planning counter and they'll get me.

See you this evening.

John
From: Tony Hutchinson -
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 9:56 PM
To: John Conley
Subject: Re: Meeting Request
Hi John, we are looking forward to our meeting with you at 5 PM tomorrow.

Will the receptionist be at her post to let you know when we arrive at City Hall? Let us know the best way to find you when we arrive.

Tony
On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 10:25 AM Tony Hutchinson � wrote:

That works for us.

See you then.

On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 6:39 AM John Conley wrote:

That works for me Tony, 5:00 would be great.

I will hold a conference room here at the Civic Center for us.

Thanks,
John
From: Tony Hutchinson
Sent: Monday, November 7, 2022 8:01 PM
To: John Conley
Subject: Re: Meeting Request
My neighbors and I are free next Wednesday November 16 after work. 5 o'clock, 530, or 6 o'clock? Let me know.

Also let me know where you would like to meet.

We don't want to take up a lot of your time, we just want an opportunity to meet you and talk to you in person.

Tony
On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 4:52 PM John Conley wrote:

Tony,
I apologize, I am out that week for vacation since my wife is a teacher too.

If afternoons would work better for you, or evenings, please let me know and I will schedule something that won't interfere with your work schedule.

I'm happy to stay late any night it works for a neighbor meeting. Next week, any night but Tues 15'h I am available, or the week of the 28`h any evening.

Thanks,
John
From: Tony Hutchinson
Sent: Monday, November 7, 2022 4:45 PM
To: John Conley
Subject: Re: Meeting Request
Hi John,
Would you be able to meet in 2 weeks during the week of November 217 I am a school teacher and I have that entire week off and that would save me taking a personal day from work to meet with you.

Any time during Monday 11/21, Tuesday 11/22, or Wednesday 11/23.

Let me know.

Have a great day.
13 On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 7:34 AM Tony Hutchinson � wrote Ok. I will email you later.

Have a good day.

On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 7:34 AM John Conley wrote
I am headed down to San Diego this morning at 8 to go to a LAFCO hearing at the County Administration building.

From: Tony Hutchinson -
Sent: Monday, November 7, 2022 7:32 AM
To: John Conley
Subject: Re: Meeting Request
Are you available this morning?
I will be at city hall at 8 obtaining permits. After that I could meet with you. I don't need to take up a lot of your time, if your schedule presents a few free minutes.

On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 7:30 AM John Conley wrote
Hi Tony,
Absolutely, I am open to meeting with any neighbors.

I can send some additional dates if these don't work as well Thanks,
John
From: Tony Hutchinson
Subject: Re: Meeting Request
Good morning John,
I will have to get back to you later in the day.

I am actually going to be at city hall this morning obtaining a permit for an Inspection of a gas leak SDGE found on my property Friday night.

I hope this process goes smoothly and I can get the gas turned back on today.

I also wanted to know if one ortwo of my neighbors, who are directly affected by the skate ramp issue, might be able to come to the meeting if their schedules allow? Talk to you soon.

Tony
On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 7:03 AM John Conley wrote:

Good Morning Tony,
I am available tomorrow Tues 11/8 from 8-10am, or Wed 11/9 from loam -noon.

Would either of those times work?
Thank you,
John Conley
Director of Community Development & Engineering
14 City of Vista
200 Civic Center Drive
Vista, CA 92084
(760)643-5388

CITY OF VISTA
From: Tony Hutchinson
Sent: Friday, November 4, 202212:42 PM
To: John Conley
Subject: Meeting Request
Hi Mr. Conley,
I live next door to Evandro Menezes who has the large backyard skateboard ramp on Oak Drive.

I would like to request a meeting with you regarding the current status of the planning commission's ordinance proposal on the backyard skate ramps in Vista, as well as having an opportunity to meet you in person and have a live conversation about the topic in general and my concerns as a homeowner.

Please let me know some times that work for you so I can work a meeting into my schedule.

Sincerely,
Tony Hutchinson
1280 Oak Dr Vista CA 92080.
15 Claire Lopez
From: Kathy Valdez
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 3:31 PM
To: Claire Lopez
Subject: FW: Backyard Ramp
Sent from myT-Mobile 4G LTE Device
------- Original message ----
From: John Conley
Date: 2/14/233:25 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Kathy Valdez
Subject: FW: Backyard Ramp
From: candy bs
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 3:05 PM
To: John Conley ; John Franklin ; Corinna Contreras
; Joe Green ; Katie Melendez ; Dan
O'Donnell
Subject: Backyard Ramp
y
t you don't often get email from- Learn why this is lmoortant Good afternoon,
I'm writing in support of an issue that has been brought to the City of Vista's attention regarding a backyard ramp off Oak Drive. As a home owner on a neighboring street, i want to startoff by stating that we have not experienced any side effects from the usage or attendance of this ramp.

Furthermore, over the last few years, there has been an increase in community engagemeant with the local neighbors regarding the ramp and its usage in a positive manner. Many of the children have been exposed to the sport of skateboarding the the usage if the ramp as well as many professionals who are associated with the sport. I have witnessed that safety rules are observed at all times and many of the children in the neighborhood have been allowed to use the ramp and have been learning how to skateboard under the direction of the homeowners who own the ramp out of the kindness of their heart.

As a social worker and a dedicated public servant, allowing our children a positive and monitored environment as the above stated ramp adds to the overall community and requesting its removal would be doing a disservice to our neighborhood.

Warmly,
Candice Lee

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

CITY- OF VISTA ,C A L I F 0 P F I A PH1 : Skateboard Ramps in Residential Zones
Development Code Amendments
Planning Case No. P22-0353 — City of Vista
City Council Public Hearing
February 14, 2023

0*0
PHI : Skate Ramps

CITY OF VISTA
• On October 18, 20221 Planning Commission discussed skateboard ramps in residential zones and directed staff to prepare code amendments regulating the development and use of large skate ramps in single-family residential zones • Staff has prepared the corresponding code amendments and a City Council policy addressing the review and approval of skateboard ramps in residential neighborhoods

0*0
PHI : Skate Ramps

CITY OF VISTA
• Project would amend the E-1, A-1 and R-1 zones to permit skateboard ramps exceeding 6 feet in height with a minor use permit
• Height of ramps measured from flat bottom of the ramps to the highest deck of the structure
• Project would amend Nonconformity Regulations within the Development Code to address amortization of such structures as "non-agricultural accessory recreational structures"

0*0
PHI : Skate Ramps

CITY OF VISTA
Proposed Development Code Amendments:
• 18.08 (E-1 Zone), 18.10 (A-1 Zone), and 18.28 ( R-1 Zone):
amends the list of minor uses in each zone to permit skateboard ramps exceeding 6 feet in height with a minor use permit, subject to new City Council Policy (300-16) • Skateboard ramps meeting this criteria would not be permitted in any other residential zone

2 m "prate �'s
o�
Zoning Cade
A-1(Agricultural)
C-1(Commercial) ° ■r
C-2(Commercial)
C-3(Commercial) ON
C-A(Civic Activity)
All
E-1(Estates Residential;
M-1(Light Manufacturing)
M-U(Mixed Use) Uwr kr •� I `
s `
MHP(Mobile Home Perk) 4'`'+e, � „�•
Late 61vJ
d(Open Space)
o'.

TyTyd Kd - �-ILL
a .

O-R(Open Space Res id a ntie l; "9• °, `P�
•.n•Jvntacem '� -
u 6.

O-P(Office Professional) a
R-1(Single-Family Residential)
R-1-6(Single-Family Residential)
a
R-M(Multi-Family Residential)
S P I(Specific Plan)
r•.�1
A � �
$a
K roa�NJ
___p SxYmcoc B,ra Q'+ h
. Palw�ai Ai,PwtR J 5 S
d

0*0
PHI : Skate Ramps

CITY OF VISTA
Proposed Development Code Amendments:
• 18.72 ( Nonconformity Regulations) : amends various sections of the chapter to address "structures" that do not fit within the definition of a building and the amortization of such structures • Amortization period is recommended as 18 months from the date of construction or the date of nonconformity, whichever comes later

0*0
PHI : Skate Ramps

CITY OF VISTA
Proposed City Council Policy 300-16:
• M U P for skate ramps exceeding 6 feet in height would be considered by the Planning Commission
• Clarifies such ramp structures would not be permissible in any other residential zone
• Establishes criteria for the Planning Commission's review (based on input from the Commission received on 10/18/22) and application requirements

0*0
PHI : Skate Ramps

CITY OF VISTA
Proposed City Council Policy 300-16
• MUP review criteria :
o Landscaping/screening of structure
o Soundproofing
o Materials
o Special events
o Parking
o Hours of operation
o Lighting
o Setbacks

0*0
PHI : Skate Ramps

CITY OF VISTA
Staff Review:
• Amendments follow the Planning Commission's
recommendations
• Permits such structures subject to discretionary review under the MUP process, fee for MUP is approximately $3,400 • Enables approval with conditions pertaining to location and use of structure
• Compliant with General Plan policies

0*0
PHI : Skate Ramps

CITY OF VISTA
• Development Code Amendments are subject to approval of the City Council following a formal recommendation from the Planning Commission
• The Planning Commission reviewed the staff recommendation on January 17, 2023 and unanimously recommended approval

0*0
PHI : Skate Ramps

CITY OF VISTA
Staff Recommendation :
• Introduce and adopt Ordinance No. 2023- , amending chapters

18.08, 18. 10, 18.28, and 18.72 of the Vista Development Code related to skateboard ramps in single-family residential zones and nonconforming accessory structures
• Adopt Resolution No. 2023- , approving City Council Policy No. 300-16, Skateboard Ramps in Single-Family Residential Zones

CITY- OF VISTA ,C A L I F 0 P F I A PH1 : Skateboard Ramps in Residential Zones
Development Code Amendments
Planning Case No. P22-0353 — City of Vista
City Council Public Hearing
February 14, 2023

�
�
�
�w
2 � ` - \
x
-
Wiki .

7/
i=
✓f
7 a t 31 t
de �flf h �c, &ioyiv
;za�,f iE VY ii z,-'r Y l
am
WOW
a = 1 2/1 3/2022 1 0:04:54 AM

Vista City CouncilFebruary 14, 2023

Vista City Council
February 14, 2023