With respect to the Letter to the Editor printed in the Union Tribune last Saturday (3/1/08) I have a couple of comments. Although I appreciate the paper publishing my letter I am concerned that the essence of the letter was edited out. The gist of my letter was that the City Officials have again missed the message that was meant by my appearance before the City Council on February 19, as exhibited by the City Manager's comments. The 50 to 60 people that were in attendance did not show to support my alleged Code Violations but to show the City that they no longer trust them to act in the best interest of the residents. It is a serious misread by the City Officials of the resident's intent. I have attached the full version of the Letter to the Editor and I would appreciate it being forwarded to your full distribution list.

Thank you,



Dear Friends and Supporters:

I am thanking all of you for coming out to “Stand and Be Counted” at the February 19, 2008, City Council Meeting, in support of our rights as citizens and residents of Chula Vista. I know that our large attendance made an impression on the Mayor, City Council and City Staff.

I was disappointed to learn City Manager Garcia made such negative statements on the Record afterwards, demonstrating a continuing lack of respect for our community. I believe his statements belittled our reasons for attending the City Council Meeting showing that the City has again missed the point, which is to let the City know that we no longer trust them to protect our property or our rights as citizens.

To correct the record, I was not cited for “junk cars and illegal structures” or for anything else. I will take City Manager Garcia’s remarks as a continuing threat of retaliation against me for my appearances before the City Council, as learned from the Code Enforcement email messages obtained by Records Request earlier this year.

I guess the ”junk car” comments were directed at my licensed and insured, ‘71 Mach-1 Mustang, which was my daily driver until a nerve injury crippled my left arm and shoulder, making the Mustang difficult for me to drive on a daily basis. When the weather gets better I will drive it to one of the City’s Community Meetings for the City Manager’s edification.

Now, all residents who have a canopy, a boat, a camper, or a classic vehicle should be forewarned that the City is targeting you for Code Violations related to your ”junk.”

Sincerely and with Respect,

Ned Ardagna

(619) 498-0300


 Editor's note: Liz Purcell, the city's Director of Communication, was very busy before, during and after Ned spoke to put the city's spin on his statements for the TV cameraman, Tawny from the Star News and the public. More evidence the city has no intention of treating its citizens in a trustworthy fashion. Unfortunately Code Enforcement still will not admit they were out of line. This entire matter is very disturbing because the city's spin is to attack a life-long professional member of the community instead of to instruct their staff in the 4th Amendment Rights of citizens.

    A retired sheriff's deputy suggested a letter explaining that citizens did not have to allow an officer access to their property in a variety of languages. If they choose to allow access there should be a statement the officer must ask them to sign granting permission. (A simple way to show respect and make sure no one feels intimidated.)

      This is a picture of Ned's home in December. The boat actually is on a paved driveway in his yard. As he says he was never sited for anything but he moved the boat to the other driveway beside the house and took down the canopy. One would think that the 5 employees of the city that went door to door on his block would have better ways to spend their time, especially in this time of budget deficits?



As is apparent the historic house is in great shape, but the road (the property of the city) is a disaster and the overhead lines are unattractive.










This is e-mail exchange I had with City Manager over this matter. (He sent me the photo above.) I added the codes from the city's site at: http://www.codepublishing.com/ca/chulavista_PDF.html: As you can see by reading them and looking at the picture it is hard to see what the supposed violations are.


RE: your comments on Tuesday


Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:43:42 -0800


"David Garcia" <DGarcia@ci.chula-vista.ca.us>  Add Mobile Alert


"THERESA ACERRO" <thacerro@yahoo.com>


"Cheryl Cox" <ccox@chulavistaca.gov>, "Jerry Rindone" <JRindone@chulavistaca.gov>, "John McCann" <JMcCann@chulavistaca.gov>, "Steve Castaneda" <scastaneda@chulavistaca.gov>, "Rudy Ramirez" <rramirez@chulavistaca.gov>, "Jim Sandoval" <jsandoval@ci.chula-vista.ca.us>, "Brad Remp" <bremp@ci.chula-vista.ca.us>

Ms. Acerro,

Thank you for your email and and a copy of your commentary.  I understand that you feel my comments concerning the status of the Mr. Ardagna's property were inaccurate and untrue.  I have attached a photo Mr. Ardagna's property taken by the City Inspectors on November 11, 2007.  This photo shows the following violations on  Mr. Adagna's property:

Sections 10.84.020, 19.62.110, 19.62.150 Off-street Parking: No parking within the front yard; (19.62.110 Limitation on areas to be used.

No part of any front yard or exterior side yard (i.e., street side of a corner lot) shall be used for offstreet parking or access, except as noted in CVMC

10.84.020 and 19.62.150, unless so authorized by the zoning administrator, pursuant to an approved site plan. (Ord. 2743 § 3, 1998; Ord. 2176 § 6, 1986; Ord. 1212 § 1, 1969; prior code § 33.801; 19.62.150 Residential parking – Front setback restrictions – Generally. No required parking spaces or required maneuvering

area may be located in the front or exterior setback area (except as noted in CVMC10.84.020); the total combination of driveways and adjacent parking areas shall not occupy more than 50 percent of the front or exterior side yard. (Ord.2176 § 6, 1986; Ord. 1356 § 1, 1971; Ord. 1212§ 1, 1969; prior code § 33.803(A)).

19.62.160 Residential parking – Front setback restrictions – Exceptions. In those cases where street improvements are at their ultimate width, the front setback area, for parking purposes, may be measured from the back of the sidewalk. (Ord. 1356 § 1, 1971; Ord. 1212 § 1, 1969; prior code § 33.803(B)); 10.84.020 Parking prohibited on portions of private property. No vehicle, vacation trailer, camping trailer, boat, boat trailer, camper or recreational vehicle may be parked or placed within the front yard or exterior side yard (i.e., street side of a corner lot) setback, except as follows: A. In a garage or carport. B. On a paved driveway.

C. On a dust-free area adjacent to a paved driveway. “Adjacent” shall mean within 10 feet of the edge of the driveway. (Refer to CVMC 19.62.150 for further limitations.) Note: “Dustfree” shall mean grass or decomposed granite/paving per city standards adopted to accomplish a dust-free surface.

D. When parking is not available under subsections (A) through (C) of this section, then consideration shall be given by the zoning administrator to select a parking area on the opposite side of the lot or other appropriate locations on the property as per CVMC 19.62.110. The applicant or other interested persons may appeal the decision of the zoning administrator to the planning commission. The appeal shall be filed in writing with the planning department within 10 days of the administrator’s

action, and accompanied by the required appeal fee(s). Appeals to the city council from the actions of the planning commission shall follow the same procedure.

Unmounted campers and camper shells may not be placed in the front yard, driveway, or unscreened (by solid six-foot-high fence or hedge) exterior side yard setback area for a period of more than 72 hours. (Ord. 2670 § 1, 1996; Ord. 2506 § 1, 1992; Ord. 2176 § 3, 1986; Ord. 1676 § 2, 1976).

Section CVMC 19.58.020  Access or y Structures;  19.58.020 Accessory buildings. A. An accessory building may be erected detached from the principal building or, except when a stable, may be erected as an integral part of the principal building or it may be attached thereto by a breezeway or similar structure.

B. Any accessory building attached to the main building shall be made structurally a part of the main building and shall comply in all respects withthe requirements of this title applicable to the main building. Unless attached, an accessory building in an R zone shall be at least six feet from any dwelling existing or under construction on the same lot or any adjacent lot. Except in the R-3-T zone, the following shall apply: 1. No building may occupy any portion of a required yard; except, that a detached garage or carport, covered patio enclosed on not more than two sides, or other accessory one-story building may disregard any rear or side yard requirements if located in the rear 30 percent of the lot, or back of the front 70 feet of the lot; 2. An accessory building or covered patio located 70 feet or less from the front property line shall have the same side yard as that required for the main building, regardless of whether said accessory building is detached from the main

building; 3. A covered patio, detached garage or carport, or other accessory one-story building, may cover an area not to exceed 30 percent, except as allowed for parking structures in multiple-family zones (see CVMC 19.28.100), of the area of any required rear yard; except, that no accessory building in a rear yard shall be required to have less than 400 square feet; 4. A covered patio or detached accessory building located in the rear 30 percent of the lot, or back of the front 70 feet of the lot, shall be located either on a property line or not less than three feet from such line. C. All accessory buildings shall be considered in the calculation of lot coverage; garden shelters, greenhouses, storage shelters and covered patios shall be permitted as accessory buildings; provided, that these uses are not equipped for use as living quarters. D. Guest house accessory buildings shall not be closer than 10 feet to the nearest point of the main building. (Ord. 2145 § 2, 1986; Ord. 2124 § 7, 1985; Ord. 1356 § 1, 1971; Ord. 1212 § 1, 1969;prior code § 33.901(B)(1)).

and possibly Section CVMC 19.58.Inoperable Vehicles. (appears to be the wrong citation, since this whole section deals with accessory dwelling units.)

The Castle Park Community Appearance Program is designed to be a proactive compliance program to identify Code Enforcement violations that contribute to neighborhood blight and lower the quality of life in this Community.


The goals of this program are to remove blight and improve the appearance of the Castle Park Neighb or hood.


As you noted, when Mr. Ardagna was notified of the violations he corrected the problems.  Our hope is that all property owners in this community will address building code violations on their property and thereby improve the appearance and quality of life in the neighborhood.


I hope that you will communicate this information to your members and urge them to support this important neighborhood improvement program.


Thank you,


David R. Garcia

City Manager

City of Chula Vista

276 4th Avenue

Chula Vista, CA  91910

(619) 691-5031 (office)

(619) 409-5884 (fax - main)

(619) 207-8962 (business cell)

(928) 941-6163 (personal cell)



From: THERESA ACERRO [mailto:thacerro@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 2:28 PM
To: David Garcia
Subject: your comments on Tuesday

David, I was extremely disappointed in your comments about Ned on Tuesday night. Considering the current smear campaign in the form of a bogus survey about Earl and Crossroads, it is unfortunate that you would stoop this low as well.