HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-03-06; City Council; 16100; Carlsbad Bl And Tamarack Av Zone ChangeI+ CITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL
AB# lb, 100 TITLE: DEPT. HD.
MTG. 3-k0 1 CARLSBAD BLVD/TAMARACK AVENUE ZONE CHANGE CITY ATTY.
ZC 99-081LCPA 00-01
DEPT. PLN %‘f CITYMGR g
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council INTRODUCE Ordinance No. NS -57 7 , APPROVING ZC 99-08 and
LCPA 00-01, and ADOPT Resolution No. D I- 7& APPROVING, (1) A Negative Declara-
tion and Addendum, Zone Change 99-08, and Local Coasial Program Amendment LCPA 00-01 for
the properties owned by the Charles B. Ledger-wood Trust; (2) No change at this time to the zoning
on the property owned by the Mitze H. Eubanks Trust; and (3) The staff processing of the necessary
environmental review and appropriate amendments to the general plan, local coastal program, and
zoning ordinance at public hearings to enable consideration of allowing commercial to remain as a
conforming use on the property owned by the Mitze H. Eubanks Trust.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On January 3 and 17, 2001, the Planning Commission reviewed a city-initiated application to rezone
three contiguous properties along Carlsbad Boulevard from commercial to residential. On the first of
the three properties, owned by the Mitze H. Eubanks Trust, is the Seaside Bistro (formerly Sandbar
Restaurant). On the other two properties, both owned by the Charles B. Ledgerwood Trust, are a
small house and garden. In 1996, the City Council passed a resolution of intention to rezone each
property from commercial to residential to make the zoning consistent with the RH (Residential High
Density) General Plan and Local Coastal Program land use designations.
The Planning Commission concluded that retaining a commercial designation on the Seaside Bistro
property could be desirable and that rezoning of the Ledgerwood properties to residential was
appropriate. The Commission’s recommendation on the rezoning application was as follows:
1. For the Ledgerwood properties, change the zone to residential, and;
2. For the Seaside Bistro property, do not change the zone from commercial at this time
and instead consider allowing commercial to remain as a conforming use, and,
accordingly, direct staff to conduct the necessary environmental review and process
appropriate amendments to the General Plan, Local Coastal Program, and Zoning
Ordinance at public hearings.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
The Planning Director has determined that ZC 99-08 and LCPA 00-01 will not have a significant
impact on the environment and therefore issued a Negative Declaration on June 8, 2000.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The recommended action will require city-initiated applications, staff processing, and related public
noticing and hearings.
EXHIBITS:
1. Ordinance No. fis-,q ‘77
2. City Council Resolution No. a I - ‘1 d-
3. Location Map
4. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4891,4892, 4893
5. Planning Commission Staff Reports, dated January 3,200l and January 17,200l
6. Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated January 3 and 17, 2001.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDINANCE NO. m-577
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 21.05.030
OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY AN
AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP TO GRANT A ZONE
CHANGE, ZC 99-08, FROM C-l AND C-2 TO R-3 AND
BEACH AREA OVERLAY ZONE ON TWO PROPERTIES
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF CARLSBAD
BOULEVARD AND SOUTH OF REDWOOD AVENUE IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BOULEVARD/TAMARACK
ZONE CHANGE
CASE NO.: ZC 99-08/LCPA 00-01
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does ordain as follows:
SECTION I: That Section 21.05.030 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, being the
zoning map, is amended as shown on the maps marked Exhibits “ZC 99-08” and “LCPA 00-01”
attached hereto and made a part hereof.
SECTION II: That the findings of the Planning Commission as set forth in
Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 4891, 4892, and 4893 constitute the findings of the City
Council.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its
adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be
published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation within fifteen days after its
adoption.
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
/II
Ill
Ill c. d
the Carlsb
xmcil held
1 1 INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City
2 2 Council held on the Council held on the 6th dayof March 6th dayof March ,200 1, and thereafter ,200 1, and thereafter
3 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of said City Cc PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the
4 4 day of day of ,2001, by the following vote, to wit: ,2001, by the following vote, to wit:
5 5 AYES: AYES:
6 6
NOES: NOES: 7 7 ABSENT: ABSENT: .- .-
8 8
9 9 ABSTAIN: ABSTAIN:
lo- lo-
ll ll
12 12 CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
13 13
14 14 ATTEST: ATTEST:
15 15
16 16 LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk
17 17 (SE4 (SE4
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28 Page 2 of 2 Page 2 of 2 of of Ordinance Ordinance No. No. NS-577 NS-577 -2- -2- 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-72
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, TO (1) APPROVE A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND ADDENDUM, ZONE CHANGE, AND
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO REZONE TWO
LOTS OWNED BY THE CHARLES B. LEDGERWOOD TRUST;
AND, (2) MAKE NO CHANGE AT THIS TIME TO THE ZONING
ON THE LOT OWNED BY THE MITZE H. EUBANKS TRUST;
AND (3) DIRECT STAFF TO PROCESS THE NECESSARY
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND APPROPRIATE
AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN, LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM, AND ZONING ORDINANCE AT PUBLIC HEARINGS
TO ENABLE CONSIDERATION OF ALLOWING COMMERCIAL
TO REMAIN AS A CONFORMING USE ON THE LOT OWNED
BY THE MITZE H. EUBANKS TRUST. THE THREE
PROPERTIES AFFECTED ARE ON THE EAST SIDE OF
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD, BETWEEN TAMARACK AVENUE
AND REDWOOD AVENUE IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BL/TAMARACK ZONE CHANGE
CASE NO.: ZC 99-08 AND LCPA 00-01
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as
follows:
WHEREAS, on January 3,2001, the Carlsbad Planning Commission held a duly
noticed public hearing, which was subsequently continued to January 17, 2001, to consider a
proposed Negative Declaration, Zone Change, and Local Coastal Program Amendment to
rezone the two lots owned by the Charles B. Ledgerwood Trust from Neighborhood Commercial
(C-l) and General Commercial (C-2) to Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) and Beach Area
Overlay Zone (BAOZ) and rezone the one lot owned by the Mitze H. Eubanks Trust from C-2 to
R-3 and BAOZ; and
WHEREAS, on January 17, 2001, the Planning Commission adopted Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 4891, 4892, and 4893 recommending to the City Council that (1)
the Negative Declaration and Addendum, Zone Change, and Local Coastal Program
Amendment be approved to change the zoning as proposed on the properties owned by the
Charles B. Ledgerwood Trust, and (2) that the Council make no change at this time to the
existing commercial zoning on the lot owned by the Mitze H. Eubanks Trust and instead
consider allowing commercial to remain as a conforming use, and, accordingly direct staff to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
~ conduct the necessary environmental review and process appropriate amendments to the
’ General Plan, Local Coastal Program, and Zoning Ordinance at public hearings; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 6th day of March
2001, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the recommendation and heard all persons
interested in or opposed to ZC 99-08 and LCPA 00-01; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Addendum was prepared for the project and it
was determined that a Negative Declaration could be issued for the project,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for: (1) The
approval of a Negative Declaration and Addendum, Zone Change 99-08, and Local Coastal
Program Amendment 00-01, and; (2) The retaining of the existing zone on the Mitze H. Eubanks
Trust and further study and consideration of an appropriate commercial designation for the
property is approved and that the findings of the Planning Commission contained in Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 4891, 4892, and 4893, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated
herein by reference, are the findings of the City Council.
3. That the City Council is not rezoning the parcel at this time in reliance on
the Seaside Bistro’s representations that it will relinquish its cabaret license and agree to
process a Conditional Use Permit application setting forth the terms and conditions under which
commercial use will continue to exist at this site. Therefore, the Planning Director is directed to
commence the necessary and appropriate rezoning process forthwith which will require a
Conditional Use Permit or other discretionary permits and to return to the City Council through
the Planning Commission with its report and recommendations. The Seaside Bistro is directed
to apply forthwith for a Conditional Use Permit or other discretionary permits under the proposed
zone so that all discretionary actions will be before the Council concurrently.
4. This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council.
The provisions of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, “Time Limits for Judicial
Review,” shall apply:
“The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought
is governed by Code of Civil Procedures, Section 1094.6, which has
been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal
Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial
review must be filed in the appropriate court no later than the ninetieth
day following the date on which this decision becomes final; however,
if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the
record of proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an
amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of preparation of such
record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is
-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1t
15
2(
21
2:
23
24
25
2c
2i
28
extended to not latter than the thirtieth day following the date on which
the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his
attorney of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation
of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City
of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California 92008.”
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 6th day of March 2001, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Finnila, Nygaard and Hall.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
-3-
PROPERTY Z/ONE CHANGE
Exhibit to Ord NS-577
ZC: 99-08
draft El - final k
Project Name: Carlsbad Blvd/Tamarack Zone Change
Legal Description(s):
1 Related Case File No(s): LCPA 00-01
A.: Lot 2 in Block ‘G’ of Palisades in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to
Map thereof No. 1747, filed in the Office of the Recorder of said San Diego County, February 5, 1923.
B.: Lot 1 in Block ‘G’ of Palisades in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to
Map thereof No. 1747, filed in the Office of the Recorder of said San Diego County, February 5, 1923.
C.: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 3713, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County on April 21,
1975 as file/Page No. 75092233 of Official Records.
Zone Change
Property: From: To:
A. 204-253-13 C-l R-3, BAOZ’
B. 204-253-l 4 C-l R-3, BAOZ
C. 204-253-20 C-2 No change
D.
*Beach Area Overlay Zone
Approvals
Council Approval Date:
Ordinance No:
Effective Date:
Signature:
REVISED
LOCAL COAS;AL PROGRAM
Exhibit to Ord. No. NS-577
LCPA: 00-O 1
draft @ fmal z
des in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to
the Office of the Recorder of said San Diego County, February 5, 1923.
tsades in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to
Map thereof No. 1747, filed in the Office of the Recorder of said San Diego County, February 5, 1923.
C.: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 3713, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County on April 21,
1975 as file/Page No. 75-092233 of Official Records.
REVISED
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2o01-72
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, TO (1) APPROVE A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND ADDENDUM, ZONE CHANGE, AND
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO REZONE TWO
LOTS OWNED BY THE CHARLES B. LEDGERWOOD TRUST;
AND, (2) MAKE NO CHANGE AT THIS TIME TO THE ZONING
ON THE LOT OWNED BY THE MITZE H. EUBANKS TRUST;
AND (3) DIRECT STAFF TO PROCESS Tw NECESSARY
ENVIRONMENTAL APPROPRIATE
AMENDMENTS TO T LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM, AND ZON UBLIC HEARINGS
THE THREE
ON THE EAST SIDE OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD,
MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME:
CASE NO.:
nuary 3, 2001, the Carlsbad Planning Commission held a duly
s subsequently continued to January 17, 2001, to consider a
Zone Change, and Local Coastal Program Amendment to
Charles B. Ledgenvood Trust from Neighborhood Commercial
(C-2) to Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) and Beach Area
the one lot owned by the Mitze H. Eubanks Trust from C-2 to
WHEREAS, on January 17, 2001, the Planning Commission adopted Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 4891, 4892, and 4893 recommending to the City Council that (1)
the Negative Declaration and Addendum, Zone Change, and Local Coastal Program
Amendment be approved to change the zoning as proposed on the properties owned by the
Charles B. Ledger-wood Trust, and (2) that the Council make no change at this time to the
existing commercial zoning on the lot owned by the Mitze H. Eubanks Trust and instead
consider allowing commercial to remain as a conforming use, and, accordingly direct staff to
b
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
conduct the necessary environmental review and process appropriate amendments to the
General Plan, Local Coastal Program, and Zoning Ordinance at public hearings; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the day of
, 2001, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the
recommendation and heard all persons interested in or opposed to ZC 99-08 and LCPA 00-01;
and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Addend was prepared for the project and it
was determined that a Negative Declaration could be ed for the project,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RES ED by the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the above recita s are true and correct.
That the reco ation of the Planning Commission for: (1) The approval of a Negative Declaration dendum, Zone Change 99-08, and Local Coastal Program Amendment 00-01, and; (2 retaining of the existing zone on the Mitze H. Eubanks Trust and further study and consi n of an appropriate commercial designation for the
property is approved and that the gs of the Planning Commission contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 489 2, and 4893, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are the findin
final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council.
The provisions of Chapter 1. of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, “Time Limits for Judicial Review,” shall apply:
which judicial review of this decision must be sought
Code of Civil Procedures, Section 1094.6, which has
plicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal
1 .16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial
e filed in the appropriate court no later than the ninetieth
day following the date on which this decision becomes final; however,
if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the
record of proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an
amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of preparation of such
record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is
extended to not latter than the thirtieth day following the date on which
the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his
attorney of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation
of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City
of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California 92008.”
Page 2 of 2 of Resolution No. 2001-72-Z- 7
1 1 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
2 Carlsbad on the day of , 2001, by the following vote, to wit:
3 AYES:
4 NOES:
5 ABSENT:
6
7
8
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, 9 Mayor
10 ATTEST:
11
12 LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk
13 (SEAL)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 -3-
Paan 3 of 3 of Resolution No. 2001-72
City
f
CARLSBAD BLVDITAMARA ,CK AVE
ZONE CHANGE
ZC 99-081LCPA 00-01
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHl6lT 4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4891
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND ADDENDUM FOR A ZONE CHANGE
AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO
CHANGE THE ZONING OF THREE LOTS LOCATED ON
THE EAST SIDE OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD BETWEEN
TAMARACK AVENUE AND REDWOOD AVENUE IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BOULEVARD/TAMARACK
ZONE CHANGE
CASE NO.: ZCA 99-08/LCPA 00-O 1
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has filed a verified application regarding
property owned by the Charles B. Ledgerwood Trust and property owned by the Mitze H.
Eubanks Trust, “Owners,” described as
Lots 1 and 2 in Block ‘G’ of Palisades in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map
thereof No. 1747, filed in the Office of the Recorder of said
San Diego County, February 5, 1923. (property owned by
Charles B. Ledgerwood Trust)
Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 3713, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County on April 21, 1975 as file/Page
No. 75092233 of’Oficia1 Records. (property owned by Mike
H. Eubanks Trust)
(“the Properties”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration and Addendum were prepared in
conjunction with said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of January, 2001,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, which was subsequently continued to
the 17th day of January, 2001, to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimbny
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Negative Declaration and Addendum.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
4
W
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative
Declaration and Addendum according to Exhibit “ND” dated June 8, 2000, and
“PII” dated June 1, 2000, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the
following findings:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A.
B.
C.
D.
It has reviewed, analyzed and considered Negative Declaration and Addendum
for CARLSBAD BOULEVARD/TAMARACK ZONE CHANGE - ZC 99-
OWLCPA 00-01, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project
and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the
project; and
The Negative Declaration and Addendum have been prepared in accordance
with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State
Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad;
and
It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
Based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
9 . .
PC PESO NO. 4891 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of January 2001, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Heineman,
L’Heureux, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Nielsen
ABSTAIN:
1
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
V - MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4891 -3- /a
0 *
City of Carlsbad
Project Address/Location:
Project Description:
3862 and 3878 Carlsbad Boulevard, between Tamarack and
Redwood Avenues (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 204-253-13, 14,
and 20).
Change the City and Local Coastal Program zoning designations of
three contiguous properties from neighborhood and general
commercial (C-l and C-2, respectively) to multiple-family
residential (R-3). The Beach Area Overlay Zone would also be
applied to each property. As proposed, the zoning designations
would be consistent with the General Plan and Local Coastal
Program Land Use Plan designations. No development is planned
or anticipated as part of this project.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Scott Donnell in the Planning Department at
(760) 602-4618.
DATED: JUNE 8,200O
CASE NO: ZC 99-08/LCPA 00-01
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BLVD/TAMARACK ZONE CHANGE
PUBLISH DATE: JUNE 8,200O
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue l Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 - (760) 602-4600 - FAX (760) 602-8559 @
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: ZC 99-08 and LCPA 00-01
DATE: June 1,ZOOO
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Carlsbad Boulevard/Tamarack Zone Change
2. APPLICANT: Citv of Carlsbad, c/o Planning Denartment
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1635 Faradav Avenue. Carlsbad. CA
92008-73 14: (760) 602-4600
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: N/A - Citv project
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Change the City and Local Coastal Program zoning designations of
three contiguous properties, two developed and one vacant, from neighborhood and general
commercial to multiple-family residential. The properties are located at 3862 and 3878 Carlsbad
Boulevard and are between Tamarack and Redwood Avenues. As proposed, the zoning
designations would be consistent with the General Plan and LocaI Coastal Program Land Use
Plan designations. No development is planned or anticipated as part of this project.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
cl Land Use and Planning cl Transportation/Circulation cl Public Services
cl Population and Housing Cl Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
17 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 17’ Aesthetics
lzl Water cl Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
0 Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
El Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03128196
DETERMINATION
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
IXI
0
0
0
0
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Mitigated
Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be
addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier environmental impact
report pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant
to that earlier environmental impact report, including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has
been prepared.
Planner Signature Date
Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
l A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
0 “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
0 “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
l “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
l Based on an “EL4-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but a potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
a When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
l A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
l If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated”
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. -
0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL, EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96 rl
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a>
b)
c>
4
e)
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): #l: Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18. See also
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation section)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l: Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6.18. #2: Pgs 24-55)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#l: Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.4-2,5.13-l - 5.13-9)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or
lllillOl-ity community)? (See Discussion of
Environmental Evaluation section)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6,5.6.10)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l -
5.5-6. See also Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation section.) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6 See also Discussion of
Environmental Evaluation section.)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
a)
b)
cl
d)
e)
f)
expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l :Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1.15)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5. l-l -
5.1-15)
Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1-15) g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15)
Potentially Significant Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q q q
q
q q
q q q
l
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q q q
q
q q
q q q
Less Than Significanl
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q q q
q
q q
q q q
No
Impact
lzl
lxl
lxl
1x1
Ix]
IXI
IXI
Ix1
El
lxl
Ix]
lxl
(XI
lxl
lxl
lxl
(x1
5 Rev. 03128196 lB
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a>
b)
c>
is)
h)
0
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-
1 1. See also Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
section.)
Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11. See also
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation section.)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-
11) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
1 - 5.3-12. See also Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation section.)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l
- 5.3-12)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
a>
b)
cl
4
4
f)
8)
proposal result in: Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (See
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation section)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l -
5.7.22)
6
q
q
0
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
cl
q
0
0
El
q
q
q
D
0
D
q
D
q
u
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
cl
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
0
q
lxl
El
EII
El
El
(XI
El
IXI
lxl
Ix1
ixl
(xl
lxl
lxl
IXI
lxl
lxl
lxl
IXI
lxl
Rev. 03128196 /9
l
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
a>
b)
4
4
e>
VIII.
4
b)
cl
in impacts to:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l :Pgs 5.4- 1
- 5.4-24)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5)
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5)
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
4
b)
c>
4
e)
A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.2-I - 5.10.2-g)
Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.2-l -
5.10.1-9, 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-5,5.12.6-l - 5.12.6-4) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.2-l - 5.10.2-g)
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.2-l - 5.10.2-g)
Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.4-2, 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6, )
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-l - 5.9-
15. See also Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
section) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
1 - 5.9-15. See also Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation section)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the prooosal have an effect _ _
4
b)
4
4
e)
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6)
Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4)
Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (See
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation section)
Other governmental services? (See Discussion of
Environmental Evaluation section)
q
q
0.
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q q q q
q
a
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q q q q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q q q q
q
Ix]
lxl
El
lxl
lxl
lxl
lxl
lxl
El
El
lxl
lxl
El
El
IXI
IXI IXI IXI Ix]
(XI
7 Rev. 03128196 2’0
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
4
b)
cl
4
4
f)
g)
XIII.
4
b)
cl
XIV.
4
b)
cl
d)
e)
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5)
Communications systems? (See Discussion of
Environmental Evaluation section.)
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.2-6)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2.1 - 5.2-l 1)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.12.2-6)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs 5.1 l-l - 5.11-5. See also Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation section.) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.10.3-l - 5.10.3-2)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10 and Appendix H. See also Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation section.) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
4
W
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#I :Pgs 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l :Pgs 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
q q
q
q q q q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q q
q
q q q q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q q
q
q q q q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
El lxl
El
(XI lxl IXI IXI
(XI
lxl
ta
lxl
lxl
lxl
Ix]
lxl
lxl
lxl
8 Rev. 03/28/96 a
XVI.
a)
b)
4
XVII.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)? Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
q q q IXI
q q q lxl
q q q IXI
EARLIER ANALYSES USED/SOURCES CITED IN CHECKLIST.
The Final Master Environmental Imnact Report (Source #l in the checklist) for the 1994
General Plan Update has been used in the analysis of this project since, pursuant to the
tiering process, it has already adequately analyzed all potential environmental effects.
Relevant CEQA sections on use of previous environmental documents can be found in
Guidelines Sections 15063(c)(3)@) and 15 152.
In addition, the Citv of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program (Source #2) was also used to
respond to the question on whether the project would conflict with applicable
environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project
(question I b. of the checklist).
Specific details on each document follow. They are on file in the City of Carlsbad
Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008, (760)
602-4600.
1.
2.
Final Master Environmental Imnact Report for the City of Carlsbad
General Plan Update (MEIR 93-Ol), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad
Planning Department.
Citv of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, approved by City Council on
July 16, 1996 (Ordinances NS 364 and 365), and certified by the Coastal
Commission on October 9, 1996.
9 Rev. 03/28/96 32
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
1. Environmental Setting and Site Description
The project site consists of three contiguous and level lots totaling approximately one-
half an acre. The site is located on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard between
Tamarack Avenue and Redwood Avenue. On the northernmost of the three lots, which
borders Redwood Avenue, is a single-family residence used as a home and business. The
business, known as Ledgenvood Seeds or Mr. Seed, is a small retail seed store that has
operated at this location for years. Store customers must park in the street as no on-site
parking exists. The second of three lots is vacant but features a small garden. Both lots
are approximately 5,200 square feet each, have common ownership (and are referenced
herein as the “Ledgerwood properties”), and are addressed 3862 Carlsbad Boulevard
(Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 204-253- 13 and 14).
On the third lot, which parallels Tamarack Avenue, is the Seaside Bistro (formerly the
Sandbar Cafe) and parking lot (APN 204-253-20) at 3878 Carlsbad Boulevard. The
project site is surrounded by established residential development to the north, south, and
east. To the west of the property is Carlsbad Boulevard and, beyond, Carlsbad State
Beach and the Pacific Ocean.
2. Project Description
A rezone of each property is proposed. City zoning of the Ledgerwood properties would
change from C-l (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-3 (Multiple Family Residential).
City zoning of the Seaside Bistro property would change from C-2 (General Commercial)
to R-3. Furthermore, the project would also apply the Beach Area Overlay Zone to each
property. The project site is within the boundaries of the Overlay Zone, and the Overlay
Zone applies to any residentially zoned property within its boundaries.
The project site is within the Mello II segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program.
The Local Coastal Program zoning for all three properties would also change from C-2 to
R-3. The designation changes would achieve consistency with the General Plan and
Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan land use designations of RH (Residential High
Density). All City and Local Coastal Program zoning and land use designations have the
same meaning.
Based on the approximately one-half acre project site and Growth Management Control
Point of 19 du/ac for the RH designation, a maximum 8-10 residential units could be built
on the entire project site. The proposed R-3 zoning allows both single family and
multiple family residential uses. However, since no development is proposed or
associated with this City-initiated zone change project, it is not known if the existing uses
will remain on the project site
A vicinity map identifying the project site’s location, existing and proposed zoning, and
the zoning of surrounding properties is attached.
10 Rev. 03128196 23
3. Environmental Analysis (Discussion of Checklist)
I. a), b), and e) Land Use and Planning
The proposed zone change from commercial to multiple-family residential would be
consistent with the project site’s existing General Plan land use designation of high
density residential @H). To a large extent, the General Plan has already analyzed
impacts associated with the high density residential use of the property.
The project site is bounded by three streets and is a small part of a residential
neighborhood. The proposed change in zoning from commercial to residential, and the
uses allowed by the proposed zoning, would not disrupt the well-established land use and
circulation network of the surrounding area and would be consistent with all adjacent
zoning, General Plan, and Local Coastal Program land use designations. Please refer to
Chapter 5.6 of the Final Master EIR for additional information and a land use map. It
would also improve the compatibility of future uses on the project site with those on
nearby residential properties.
II. b) and c) Housing and Ponulation
The project site is developed with a commercial use and a single-family home used as
both a residence and business and is surrounded by a well-established residential
neighborhood.
IV. a) and c) Water
Although already developed, construction of new improvements on the project site may
alter current drainage patterns, absorption rates and/or the rate/amount of surface runoff.
However, any proposed development would be conditioned to comply with all applicable
City regulations, including any appropriate National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit requirements.
V. a) Air Oualitv
The primary contributor to air pollution in Carlsbad is motor vehicle emissions. The
residential uses allowed by the proposed zoning would generate less traffic than the
restaurant currently on the project site (see Transportation/Circulation discussion below);
therefore, the proposed zoning will contribute to improved air quality.
Future development of the project site, if it occurs, may produce short-term/temporary
impacts during grading and/or construction. Air quality impacts due to construction
would likely be minor, consider the site’s small size, flat topography, and the existence of
infrastructure already in place. Standard dust control measures would be utilized.
11 Rev. 03128196 24
VI. a) Transportation/Circulation
The proposed residential zoning would allow uses that produce less traffic than the
current commercial uses on the project site. Considering the existing Seaside Bistro use
only, staff estimates the restaurant produces approximately 400 to over 700 average daily
trips. Staff calculates development of the project site with 10 multi-family dwelling units
would produce 80 average daily trips (condominiums) and 60 average daily trips
(apartments). Ten multi-family dwelling units is a realistic maximum based on the
proposed zoning and existing General Plan designation and growth management control
point. Furthermore, in most cases, residential uses produce significantly less traffic than
commercial uses.
All estimates are based on the “estimated weekday vehicle trip generation rate
(driveway)” developed by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) in
July 1998. The City of Carlsbad utilizes these estimates to determine traffic impacts. To
determine the Seaside Bistro’s traffic impacts, city staff employed the trip generation rate
for both a “quality” and a “sit-down, high turnover restaurant,” considered to be 100 or
160 average daily trips/l,000 square feet of building, respectively. Trip generation rates
for fast food eateries with and without drive-through are substantially higher. Staff
determined the Seaside Bistro’s building size as 4,000 to 4,400 square feet, based on
County Assessor’s and City Planning Department records.
X. a) and b) Noise
Noise levels from Tamarack Avenue and Carlsbad Boulevard traffic may impact
residential development allowed by the proposed zoning on the project site. Section 5.9.4
of the Final Master EIR states “traffic noise will increase as the City approaches buildout.
These noise impacts can be reduced with proper design and mitigation.”
The Final Master EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce noise impacts
to a less than significant level. Among them, mitigation measure 5.9.5.7 requires
submittal of a noise study for all discretionary applications proposing more than four
single family units or any number of multi-family units that are located within the 60
dBA noise contour. The project site is within this noise contour. There is significant,
older residential development along parts of Carlsbad Boulevard within the 60 dBA noise
contour.
From a noise standpoint, the residential neighborhood around the project site likely would
benefit from the proposed zone change. Potentially incompatible aspects of commercial
uses, such as noise from business traffic and operations during the day and at night,
would not be a factor under the proposed residential zoning. Additionally, considering
the proposed zoning and project site’s size and proximity to busy streets, it is likely that a
comprehensive redevelopment of the project site would be with multi-family units as
opposed to single-family units. As noted in the preceding paragraph, any multi-family
development would be subject to a noise study and resulting incorporation of any
necessary noise mitigation measures.
All applicable and appropriate General Plan noise mitigation measures will be
incorporated either into the design of improvements that may be built on the project site
or as conditions of approval of future development.
12 Rev. 03128196 CF-
XI. d) and e) Public Services
Other than as identified in Chapter 5.12, “Utilities and Pubic Services,” of the Master
EIR, no additional impacts to public services or facilities, including maintenance, are
described. The project site is in a developed area adequately served by all public services
and facilities. The proposed project will not result in significant new demands on those
services. The project will be conditioned to comply with the City’s Growth Management
regulations, which require that all necessary services be provided concurrent with
development. Therefore, there will be no potentially significant impact to public
services.
XII. b) Utilities and Service Systems
No impact to communications systems is identified in the Master EIR. The project site is
in a well-established area with all necessary infrastructure, including telephone and cable
services, in place. Therefore, there will be no potentially significant impact to
communication systems.
13 Rev. 03128196 a6
XIII. a) Aesthetics
The project site is along a designated scenic corridor, Carlsbad Boulevard. It is already
developed with buildings. However, future improvements will be required to comply
with all applicable standards to ensure no significant impacts to this scenic roadway and
generally no negative aesthetic effect. Among these standards are the provisions of the
Beach Area Overlay Zone (BAOZ), which affects the subject property. The intent and
purpose of the BAOZ is, in part, to ensure neighborhood compatibility and protection of
the aesthetic quality of the beach area. Additionally, since the neighborhood around the
project site is residential, the proposed zone change from commercial to residential will
also contribute to compatibility among buildings and uses.
XIV. c) Cultural Resources
It should be noted that Appendix H of the Final Master ElR is a cultural resources survey
prepared for the City of Carlsbad in 1990. The survey identifies the residence on the
project site at 3862 Carlsbad Boulevard as an historic structure because of its age (now
approximately 70 years) and Spanish architecture. However, the City has not adopted or
endorsed this or any other cultural resource survey or list. Furthermore, compliance with
the City’s historic preservation ordinance is strictly voluntary. The proposed zone change
will neither affect the building nor its potential designation as an historic structure.
14 27 Rev. 03128196
ADDENDUM TO THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ZC 99-08 & LCPA 00-01
- CARLSBAD BOULEVARD/TAMARACK ZONE CHANGE
The original environmental analysis of this project considered the impacts of
rezoning both the ‘Ledgewood Parcels’ and the ‘Seaside Bistro Parcel’ from
commercial to residential. This addendum has been prepared to document that
the current proposed Planning Commission recommendation is to consider
rezoning only the Ledger-wood Parcels as described in the environmental impact
assessment form - part II. The current proposed Planning Commission
recommendation regarding the Seaside Bistro Parcel is to recommend the City
Council consider allowing it to remain commercial and direct staff to process
appropriate land use changes to allow a commercial designation. These future
actions will be subject to separate environmental review. Thus, no action is
proposed at this time to amend the zoning of the Seaside Bistro Parcel.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4891, the resolution recommending
approval of the Negative Declaration, has been amended to reference this
addendum.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4892
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE
CITY COUNCIL: (1) CHANGE THE ZONING FROM C-l
(NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) TO R-3 (MULTIPLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) AND BAOZ (BEACH AREA
OVERLAY ZONE) ON THE TWO LOTS OWNED BY THE
CHARLES B. LEDGERWOOD TRUST, AND; (2) NOT
CHANGE THE ZONING ON THE LOT OWNED BY THE
MITZE H. EUBANKS TRUST AT THIS TIME AND INSTEAD
CONSIDER ALLOWING COMMERCIAL TO REMAIN AS A
CONFORMING USE AND ACCORDINGLY DIRECT STAFF
TO PROCESS APPROPRIATE LAND USE AMENDMENTS
AND CONDUCT NECESSARY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.
THE THREE LOTS AFFECTED ARE ON THE EAST SIDE OF
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD, BETWEEN TAMARACK
AVENUE AND REDWOOD AVENUE IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BOULEVARD/TAMARACK
ZONE CHANGE
CASE NO: zc 99-08
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has filed a verified application to change the
zoning of property owned by the Charles B. Ledgerwood Trust and property owned by the
Mitze H. Eubanks Trust, “Owners”, described as
Lots 1 and 2 in Block ‘G’ of Palisades in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map
thereof No. 1747, filed in the Office of the Recorder of said San
Diego County, February 5,1923. (property owned by Charles B.
Ledgerwood Trust)
Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 3713, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County on April 21, 1975 as file/Page
No. 75-092233 of Official Records. (property owned by Mitze H.
Eubanks Trust)
(“the Properties”); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Zone Change as shown on
the draft ordinance Exhibit “X” attached hereto and made a part hereof, dated January 17,
2001, and on file in the Planning Department, CARLSBAD BOULEVARD/TAMARACK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ZONE CHANGE, ZC 99-08, as provided by Chapter 21.52 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of January, 2001,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, which was subsequently continued to
the 17th day of January, 2001, to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to a Zone Change; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
9 That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS the following:
1. That both lots owned by the Charles B. Ledgerwood Trust bordered by Redwood
Avenue on the north and Carlsbad Boulevard on the west be rezoned from C-l to R-
3, BAOZ based on the following findings;
2. That the City Council not change the zoning on the property owned by the Mitze H.
Eubanks Trust, and, instead, donsider allowing commercial to remain as a
conforming use based on the following findings, and, accordingly, direct staff to
conduct the necessary environmental review and process appropriate public hearing
amendments to the General Plan, Local Coastal Program, and Zoning Ordinance.
Findings:
1. That the proposed Zone Change for the Charles B. Ledger-wood Trust properties from
C-l and C-2 to R-3 and Beach Overlay Zone is consistent with the goals and policies of
the various elements of the General Plan, in that the proposed zoning is consistent with
the General Plan Residential Density Land Use Designation applied to the subject
properties and is compatible with adjacent land uses.
2. That the Zone Change for the Charles B. Ledgerwood Trust properties from C-l and C-
2 to R-3 and Beach Overlay Zone is consistent with the goals and policies of the various
elements of the General Plan and will provide consistency between the General Plan and
Zoning as mandated by California State law and the City of Carlsbad General Plan Land
Use Element, in that the Zone Change brings the properties’ zoning designation into
compliance with the General Plan and fulfills a General Plan policy calling for
PC RESO NO. 4892 -2- 36
1
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
inconsistent zoning designations to be brought into conformance with the General
Plan.
3. That the proposed Zone Change for the Charles B. Ledgerwood Trust properties from
C-l and C-2 to R-3 and Beach Overlay Zone is consistent with the goals and policies of
the various elements of the General Plan and will also provide consistency with the Local
Coastal Program as mandated by California State law for properties in the Coastal Zone
in that the Zone Change brings the properties’ zoning designation into conformance
with the Local Coastal Program land use map and the proposed Local Coastal
Program zone change (LCPA 00-01).
4. That the proposed Zone Change for the Charles B. Ledgerwood Trust properties from
C-l and C-2 to R-3 and Beach Overlay Zone is consistent with the goals and policies of
the various elements of the General Plan, is consistent with the public convenience,
necessity and general welfare, and is consistent with sound planning principles in that it
would implement the subject properties’ General Plan designation, would be
compatible with surrounding zoning designations, and would permit land uses the
same as those in the surrounding area.
5. That the proposed Zone Change for the Charles B. Ledgerwood Trust properties from
C-l and C-2 to R-3 and Beach Overlay Zone is consistent with the goals and policies of
the various elements of the General Plan, which will be applied to the properties as part
of the proposed zone change, in that it provides the City with discretionary review to
ensure development standards are properly applied and beach area concerns, such
as neighborhood compatibility and parking, are adequately addressed.
6. That for the Mitze Eubanks Trust property, allowing commercial to remain as a
conforming use has the potential, subject to necessary and appropriate
environmental and public hearing review, to be consistent with the goals and
policies of the various ‘elements of the General Plan in that it could provide an
orderly balance of both public and private land uses within convenient and
compatible locations and ensure that such uses serve to protect and enhance the
character and image of the City.
7. That for the Mitze Eubanks Trust property, allowing commercial to remain as a
conforming use has the potential, subject to necessary and appropriate
environmental and public hearing review, to be consistent with the goals and
policies of the various elements of the General Plan in that it could create a
distinctive sense of place and identity for the surrounding community and
neighborhood of the City through the preservation of existing varied land uses.
8. That for the Mitze Eubanks Trust property, allowing commercial to remain as a
conforming use has the potential, subject to necessary and appropriate
environmental and public hearing review, to be consistent with the goals and
policies of the various elements of the General Plan in that it could provide for the
social and economic needs of the community.
9. That for the Mitze Eubanks Trust property, allowing commercial to remain as a
conforming use has the potential, subject to necessary and appropriate
PC RESO NO. 4892 -3- 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
environmental and public hearing review, to be consistent with the goals and
policies of the various elements of the General Plan is consistent with sound
planning principles in that the property has historically been used as a commercial
property and a bona fide eating establishment and thus could be found to be
consistent with the public convenience, necessity, and general welfare.
10. That for the Mitze Eubanks Trust property, allowing commercial to remain as a
conforming use has the potential, subject to necessary and appropriate
environmental and public hearing review, to be consistent with the goals and
policies of the various elements of the General Plan in that it would allow
continuance of such likewise historical use and thereby preserve the community
identity, character and convenience that the use provides to the public and
surrounding neighborhood.
11. That for the Mitze Eubanks Trust property, allowing commercial to remain as a
conforming use has the potential, subject to necessary and appropriate
environmental and public hearing review, to be consistent with the goals and
policies of the various elements of the General Plan in that the application of
appropriate zoning, use, and development standards will ensure the continued
compatibility of commercial uses with the surrounding neighborhood by addressing
such concerns as traffic flow, parking, noise and architectural compatibility.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 17th day of January 2001, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Heineman,
L’Heureux, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Nielsen
ABSTAIN:
a
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J.~LZM&LER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4892 -4- 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has tiled a verified application to amend the
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4893
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE
CITY COUNCIL: (1) CHANGE THE CARLSBAD LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM TO BRING THE DESIGNATIONS ON
THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, GENERAL PLAN, AND
ZONING MAP INTO CONFORMANCE ON THE TWO
PROPERTIES OWNED BY THE CHARLES B. LEDGERWOOD
TRUST, AND; (2) NOT CHANGE THE EXISTING LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM ZONING DESIGNATION ON THE LOT
OWNED BY THE MITZE H. EUBANKS TRUST AND
INSTEAD CONSIDER ALLOWING COMMERCIAL TO
REMAIN AS A CONFORMING USE ON THE LOT AND
ACCORDINGLY DIRECT STAFF TO PROCESS A LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT AND THE
NECESSARY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. THE THREE
AFFECTED LOTS ARE ON THE EAST SIDE OF CARLSBAD
BOULEVARD, BETWEEN TAMARACK AVENUE AND
REDWOOD AVENUE IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BOULEVARD/TAMARACK
ZONE CHANGE
CASE NO: LCPA 00-01
WHEREAS, California State law requires that the Local Coastal Program,
General Plan, and Zoning designations for properties in the Coastal Zone be in conformance; and
Local Coastal Program by changing the zoning designations on property owned by the
Charles B. Ledger-wood Trust and property owned by the Mitze H. Eubanks Trust,
“Owners,” described as
Lots 1 and 2 in Block ‘G’ of Palisades in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map
thereof No. 1747, tiled in the Office of the Recorder of said San
Diego County, February 5,1923. (property owned by Charles B.
Ledgerwood Trust)
Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 3713, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County on April 21, 1975 as tile/Page
No. 75-092233 of Official Records. (property owned by Mitze H.
Eubanks Trust)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(“the Properties”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Local Coastal
Program Amendment as shown on the draft ordinance Exhibit “X” attached to Planning
Commission Resolution No. 4892 and made a part hereof, dated January 17, 2001,
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD/TAMARACK ZONE CHANGE - LCPA 00-01, as provided in
Public Resources Code Section 30574 and Article 15 of Subchapter 8, Chapter 2, Division 5.5 of
Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations of the California Coastal Commission
Administrative Regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of January 2001, hold
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, which was subsequently continued to the
17th ‘day of January, 2001 to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Local Coastal Program Amendment.
WHEREAS, State Coastal Guidelines requires a six week public review period
for any amendment to the Local Coastal Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
W At the end of the State mandated six week review period, starting on June 29,
2000, and ending on August 10, 2000, staff shall present to the City Council a
summary of the comments received.
c> That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS the following:
1. That both lots owned by the Charles B. Ledger-wood Trust bordered by Redwood
Avenue on the north and Carlsbad Boulevard on the west be rezoned from C-2
PC RESO NO. 4893 -2- 354
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(General Commercial) to R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential), BAOZ (Beach Area
Overlay Zone) based on the following findings;
2. That the lot owned by the Mitze H. Eubanks Trust not be rezoned at this time, and,
instead, that the City Council consider allowing commercial to remain as a
conforming use on the property, and, accordingly, direct staff to conduct the
necessary environmental review and process appropriate public hearing
amendments to the Local Coastal Program.
FindinPs:
1. That the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment for the Charles B. Ledgerwood
Trust properties meets the requirements of, and is in conformity with, the policies of
Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act and all applicable policies of the Mello II segment of the
Carlsbad Local Coastal Program not being amended by this amendment, in that the
Amendment is consistent with the properties’ Local Coastal Program Land Use
designation, does not propose any development, does not affect access, recreational
opportunities, or coastal dependent uses, and does not involve property with any
sensitive habitat.
2. That the proposed amendment to the Mello II segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal
Program is required to bring the Local Coastal Program Zoning Map designation for
Charles B. Ledgerwood Trust properties into consistency with the General Plan and
Local Coastal Program land use maps and the accompanying proposed zone change
(ZC 99-08).
PC RESO NO. 4893 -3- 3s’
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting to the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 17th day of January 2001, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Heineman,
L’Heureux, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Nielsen
ABSTAIN:
CARLSBAD PLANN&G COMMISSION
ATTEST:
h4mmL J. hdL~h4ktLER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4893 -4- 36
Tae City of Carlsbad Planning Department EXHIBIT 5
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
P.C. AGENDA OF: January
,
Item No. 1 0
17,200l
Application complete date: N/A
Project Planner: Scott Donnell
Project Engineer: N/A
SUBJECT: ZC 99-OWLCPA 00-01 - CARLSBAD BOULEVARD/TAMARACK ZONE
CHANGE - A city-initiated project that would: (1) Change the City and Local
Coastal Program zoning of two properties owned by the Charles B. Ledgerwood
Trust from C-l (Neighborhood Commercial) and C-2 (General Commercial) to
Multiple-family Residential (R-3) and Beach Area Overlay Zone, and; (2) Make
no change at this time to the zoning on the lot owned by the Mitze H. Eubanks
Trust. The affected properties are at 3862 and 3878 Carlsbad Boulevard. No
development is proposed with this amendment.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4891
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a Negative Declaration and Addendum and ADOPT
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4892 and 4893 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
ZC 99-08 and LCPA 00-01 based upon the findings contained therein.
II. BACKGROUND
On January 3, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider Zone Change
99-08 and Local Coastal Program Amendment 00-01, city-initiated applications to rezone three
contiguous properties along Carlsbad Boulevard between Tamarack Avenue and Redwood
Avenue. On one of the properties is the Seaside Bistro restaurant (the ‘Seaside Bistro Parcel’);
on the other two properties are a small garden and house (the ‘Ledgerwood Parcels’). The
rezoning was instigated by a 1996 City Council Resolution of Intention declaring the Council’s
intent to change the zoning designation of each property from commercial to residential to be
consistent with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program as required by State law. Specifics
about the three properties affected and the proposed rezoning are as follows:
ZC 99-08/LCPA 00-01 - CARLSBAD BOULEVARD/TAMARACK ZONE CHANGE
January 17,200l
Property
‘Seaside
Bistro
Parcel ’
‘Ledger-wood
Parcels ’
(2 lots)
Address
3878
Carlsbad
Blvd
3862 Charles B.
Carlsbad Ledgerwood
Blvd Trust
Owner
Mitze H.
Eubanks
Trust
Use Lot Size General
Existing
Zoning
Proposed
Zoning
(City &
(in square Plan & LCP
feet) Designations
City
Restaurant 1 I I with
parking
lot
14,000 RH c-2
Small
House,
Vacant
4,650
(each lot) RH C-l
--I LCP)
Local
Coastal
Program
No
c-2 Change
Proposed
t
c-2 R-3,
BAOZ
Key LCP = Local Coastal Program RH = Residential High Density, 15-23 dwelling units per acre
C- 1 = Neighborhood Commercial Zone
C-2 = General Commercial Zone
R-3 = Multiple Family Residential Zone BAOZ= Beach Area Overlay Zone
Following the January 3 public hearing, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to:
1. Deny the staff recommendation to rezone all three properties from commercial to
residential.
2. Recommend the City Council:
a. Rezone the two Ledgerwood lots from commercial to residential (C-l and C-2
to R-3,and BAOZ), and;
b. Keep the current commercial zoning on the Seaside Bistro Parcel at this time
and instead consider allowing the property to remain commercial with an
appropriate commercial land use designation and land use controls (such as a
conditional use permit that runs with the land) to ensure compatibility with the
surrounding neighborhood.
Following is an analysis of the potential consequences of retaining a commercial zoning on the
Seaside Bistro property and rezoning the Ledgerwood properties to residential.
III. ANALYSIS
Determining an Appropriate Commercial Designation
The proposed rezoning of the Ledgerwood Parcels to R-3 is clearly consistent with the
properties’ existing General Plan and Local Coastal Program land use designations of RH, or
high density residential. The Planning Commission proposal to retain a commercial zoning for
the Seaside Bistro Parcel, on the other hand, is not consistent with the property’s existing
38
ZC 99-08/LCPA 00-01 - URLSBAD BOULEVARD/TAMARACK ZONE CHANGE
January 17,200l
General Plan and Local Coastal Program designation, also RI-I. Therefore, both the General
Plan and Local Coastal Program would need amendment to match the desired commercial
zoning.
Complicating the matter is the current processing of an amendment to revise the General Plan’s
commercial policies and land use designations. The Planning Commission reviewed the
amendment in December 2000 and the City Council is expected to hear it within the next few
months. Before a commercial General Plan and Local Coastal Program designation can be
considered for application to the Seaside Bistro property, this amendment process needs to be
completed. Changes to the General Plan brought forth by the amendment process may also
trigger changes to the Zoning Ordinance commercial designations. In short, because of the
ongoing review of the policies and standards for commercial development in Carlsbad, it is
neither feasible nor prudent to recommend an appropriate General Plan land use designation at
this time.
Therefore, the proposed Planning Commission recommendation is for the City Council to (1)
proceed with the rezoning of the Ledgetwood properties and (2) maintain the existing zoning on
the Seaside Bistro property at this time while considering allowing commercial to remain as a
conforming use. The recommendation also requests the Council direct staff to process the
appropriate General Plan, Local Coastal Program, and Zoning amendments and environmental
documents through the public hearing process to implement that direction of retaining a
commercial zoning. The attached resolutions for both the zone change and Local Coastal
Program Amendment incorporate this proposed recommendation.
Limitations on the Commercial Use and Development of the Property
There are a number of limitations to the successful commercial use and development of the
Seaside Bistro property. These limitations are as follows:
l Parking - Presently, the Seaside Bistro business lacks adequate parking. By staff
estimate, the business is 20-25 spaces short of the amount required by the Zoning
Ordinance for a restaurant. This causes the restaurant to be nonconforming in terms of
parking requirements. There is little, if any, room to add parking on the property as it is
presently developed. Previously with the Sandbar Restaurant, surrounding residents
complained about the restaurant’s patrons parking on the nearby streets.
Zoning Ordinance parking standards would permit locating a business’ parking lot in the
R-3 zone, the proposed zoning of the Ledgerwood properties. This could be reviewed as
part of a conditional use permit for a restaurant on the Seaside Bistro property. This
discretionary review would provide the opportunity for the surrounding property owners
to participate in the development of potential mitigation measures as well as to comment
on the proposal itself. However, vehicle access to the Ledger-wood properties from the
Seaside Bistro property would be impossible without demolition of part of the restaurant
building. Additionally, the prospective purchasers of the Ledger-wood properties have
indicated they wish to deif4op the properties residentially.
0 Setbacks - The existing C-l (Neighborhood Commercial) and C-2 (General Commercial)
zones require commercial buildings to be set back ten feet from the rear property line if “,f 3
ZC 99-08/LCPA 00-01 - CMU-SBAD BOULEVARD/TAMARACK ZONE CHANGE
January 17,200l
this property line borders a residentially-zoned parcel. The Seaside Bistro property is
presently zoned C-2, its rear property line backs up to the Ledger-wood property, and the
restaurant building today has no setback from this rear property line. If the Ledger-wood
property is rezoned as residential and the Seaside Bistro property retains a commercial
designation, it is likely the Seaside Bistro building would be nonconforming in terms of
providing an adequate rear setback. In addition, the building has a zero foot setback from
the interior side (east) property line, which abuts an existing residentially zoned lot.
While neither the C-l nor the C-2 zone require a setback for commercial uses from an
interior side property line, a future commercial designation with an intent and purpose of
providing neighborhood compatibility may require such a setback to provide separation
between commercial and residential uses.
0 Lot Size - Whether the property remains essentially as is or if it is totally redeveloped,
staff believes it will be difficult to successfully resolve setback and parking problems -
and perhaps meet other development standards - on the Seaside Bistro parcel due
primarily to its small size (14,000 square feet). The small size is accentuated by the fact
the property has frontages on two major streets which dictate that adequate setbacks and
landscaping be provided.
0 Future Land Use Controls - Retaining a commercial zoning designation on the Seaside
Bistro property will require that appropriate land use controls are available so the City
may ensure commercial uses are compatible with their surroundings and be able to
regularly monitor certain uses. The existing C-l zone, for example, requires restaurants
serving alcohol to acquire a conditional use permit subject to findings that parking is
adequate and that all measures have been taken to ensure neighborhood compatibility.
Conditional use permits may be reviewed annually, have specified approval “lifes,” and
may be conditioned as necessary to fit the use with its neighborhood.
At its January 3, 2001, meeting, the Planning Commission recommended the removal of
the Seaside Bistro’s cabaret license as a way to help ensure neighborhood compatibility.
Staff believes discussion about the cabaret license should occur as part of future hearings
on Seaside Bistro land use controls.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff has prepared an addendum to the Negative Declaration for ZC 99-08 and LCPA 00-01.
Since the Negative Declaration and supporting environmental documents reference the rezoning
of both the Ledgerwood and Seaside Bistro properties, the addendum is necessary to reflect that
the Planning Commission is taking action only to propose rezoning of the Ledgerwood
properties. This addendum does not require the Negative Declaration to be recirculated for
public review because it does not constitute a substantial revision according to California
Environmental Quality Act Guideline 15073.5.
Should the City Council direct staff to begin the process of proposing a commercial land use
designation for the Seaside Bistro property, an environmental analysis will be performed at that
time.
ZC 99-08/LCPA 00-01 - CARLSBAD BOULEVARD/TAhMRACI( ZONE CHANGE
January 17,200l
Page 5
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4891 (Neg Dee)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4892 (ZC)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4893 (LCPA)
Public correspondence received on ZC 99-08 and LCPA 00-01
January 3, 2001, Planning Commission staff report and attachments on ZC 99-08 and
LCPA 00-01
SD:cs:mh
12/28/00
Dennis Turner c/o
Carlsbad City Planning Division,
We have become reguiar customers of the Seaside Bistro on Tamarack in Carlsbad. We recall
the problems with the prior owner’s and the late night rowdiness of customers. However, since
the current owners have been managing the establishment, they have done an outstanding job
cleaning up the restaurant while maintaining a high level of service. We have found their menu
selection to be excellent and service very good.
In the North County Times on 12128 there was an article regarding the proposed zoning change
of the restaurant property. We realize that the city has a zoning plan to follow, however, this is
one exception that should be seriously considered. There are alreacj, numerous condo ‘s and
housing in the area. Conversely, there are few local restaurants that carry the beach culture
that so well defines Carlsbad. We feel the community at large would miss the Seaside Bistro
should it ever close. The future plans to enlarge the restaurant to a European Inn and restaurant
by the sea wouid add a touch of class to the neighborhood.
We hope to be one of the many residents whose opinions will be considered before any changes
take place.
Thank you for your time,
Sue and Stephen St&wart
3975 Linmar Lane
Carlsbad, CA.
(760)434-3918
‘,-j
L-
i- 7
MaqUl la Management, Inc. )
1101 First Street #407
Coronado, CA 92 118
(619-435-8900
December 28,200O
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Ave.,
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Sirs,
As a property owner at 144 Sequoia # 1, Carlsbad, CA., I am responding to your
notification of Hearing regarding a Zoning Change for property Carlsbad Blvd., at
Tamarack Ave., Case file ZCA 99-08LCPA 00-O 1.
Although 1 may have been annoyed by noises emanating from the restaurant over the
past, I strongly protest the sneaky way the Planning Commission is going about the timing of the notification of the public and the hearing itself. First, the notice is mailed
so that it arrives during the Christmas rush. Secondly, the information package is not
available until Dec. 28ti, only two business days before the hearing. Third, the holding of
the meeting so soon after the data is available for review.
My strongest objection to the zoning change is that it seems to be a ‘<taking” of property
to re-zone and downgrade without proper compensation to the owner.
Please note my objections to this re-zone.
Maquila Management, Inc.,
J President
Janet D. Robinson
Attorney At Law
772 Corinia Court
Olivcnhain, California 92024
Tel: (760) 632-0494 Fax: (760) 632-0497
December 2 1,200O
Mr. Jeff Segall, Chairman
City of Carlsbad Planning Commission
1635 Faraday Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008-73 14
Re: Seaside Bistro
Dear Mr. Segall and Members of the Planning Commission,
I am writing to urge you to retain a commercial zoning designation for
the property at Carlsbad Boulevard and Tamarack Avenue known as the
“Seaside Bistro.” You will be considering the rezoning of this site from C-2
to R-3 at your January 3rd meeting.
The Seaside Bistro Is not the Sandbar. Unlike the former business
on this site, the Seaside Bistro is a neighborhood friendly, family restaurant.
My clients, Monika and Jim DiMaggio, own and operate the restaurant. The
DiMaggios purchased the business just over a year ago. They have an
option to buy the property.
As you may be aware, the DiMaggios inherited a difficult situation.
The former establishment (the “Sandbar”) created numerous nuisance
problems and code violations, including trespassing, noise and overflow
parking on neighborhood streets. The City Council initiated a rezoning
action in 1996 in response to the problems generated by the use at that time.
The DiMaggios, on the other hand, have altered the nature of the business
and have operated as a good neighbor since they moved in.
Circumstances Have Chawed Since The City Initiated This
Rezoning. Circumstances have completely changed since the DiMaggios
bought the restaurant in 1999. They run a family restaurant, not a nightclub.
Monika is the chef, and brings many years of experience from their
restaurants in Vista and Manhattan Beach. The DiMaggios have cleaned up
the building, limited their evening hours and halted evening entertainment.
Jim has walked the neighborhood to survey residents on their feelings about
his business. Complaints about noise and other problems have ceased. (See
attached letter from neighbor Seth Sharon) In fact, many of the Seaside
Bistro patrons are “walk-in” customers. The DiMaggios intend to maintain
their business in a manner compatible with the surrounding residences.
The DiMaggios Are Williw To Work With The City To
Guarantee That Their Restaurant NEVER Becomes A Neiphborhood
Nuisance. The DiMaggios are willing to do whatever is necessary to be
good neighbors. They will give up their cabaret license. They will
reconfigure the restaurant to provide for adequate parking. In fact, the
DiMaggios would like to rebuild and create a larger parking lot or
underground parking to solve the neighborhood parking issue. In the long
term, the DiMaggios actually encourage the City’s placement of a
conditional use permit requirement on their property for any type of major
improvement or change in use.
The DiMaggios have had a long time dream of creating a European
style inn, with the restaurant portion open to the public. They would offer
only a small number of charming rooms adjacent to, or above, a cozy
restaurant. This would certainly be compatible with a multi-family
residential neighborhood, and would serve beach-going visitors, as well. An
inn would require a conditional use permit, which the DiMaggios welcome.
Under these circumstances, I urge you to take another look at the
residential rezoning proposal for this property.
A Restaurant Or European Stvle Inn On This Site Would Be An
Asset To The Citv And The NeiPhborhood. A restaurant has served
beach-goers, tourists and residents on this site for decades. The Seaside
Bistro is an asset to the community. Visitors can enjoy a meal overlooking
the ocean, or just the use of the phone or restrooms. The DiMaggios are
happy to accommodate these requests. Neighbors appreciate a local cafe
within walking distance, and a number of patrons make it a morning routine
2
to stop in for a cup of coffee, a paper or breakfast. (see Attachment)
Carlsbad is a richer, more diverse community due to the mixture of uses that
enhance the beachfront area.
The General Plan Supports Pedestrian-Friendlv Neighborhood
Commercial Areas. A number of Carlsbad General Plan policies support
the concept of small, neighborhood-friendly commercial uses that enhance
residential neighborhoods. The Commercial Land Use Implementing
Policies and Action Programs encourage neighborhood commercial uses to
be spaced so as to serve residential neighborhoods, preferably by pedestrian
access. (General Plan Land Use Element, Policies C.3 and C.7, p. 32.)
Commercial recreation or tourist destination facilities are promoted, so long
as the residential character of the community is protected. (Id., Policy C.8).
Importantly, one of the underlying principles of the City’s Land Use
Element is that “The intent of the land use plan is to provide a full-service,
balanced community where the needs of all the residents can be provided
for, yet still have a cohesive urban form.” (General Plan Land Use Element,
p. 2). The plan calls for residential communities “to be designed and
developed, and to function as relatively self-contained entities in terms of
community services.” (General Plan Land Use Element, p. 4). A bistro, or
an inn and restaurant combination, is a useful amenity in a high-density
residential neighborhood.
In The Event of Rezoning, A Lower Abatement Period Is
Appropriate. While the DiMaggios hope that the property can retain a
commercial zoning designation, if the City rezones to R-3, the potential
abatement period should not begin until at least 2039. Staff has solicited,
and received, materials from the property owner that support the
establishment of 1989 - 1996 as the date of construction of the restaurant
building. The owner essentially rebuilt the building in 1989, at the behest of
the City, in order to protect the property against seismic activity. She spent
over $230,000 in this process. The building continued to be altered until
1996. Therefore, the 40 year timefkame for removal of non-conforming
structures (Zoning Code section 21.48.060) should begin somewhere around
that time.
While the DiMaggios appreciate staffs effort to leave the restaurant
in place for the time being by not recommending the establishment of an
abatement period, my clients cannot obtain financing to purchase or improve
3
the property without knowing for certain how long they can operate as a
restaurant. They have a 12 year lease on the property, starting in 1999.
They would hope to be able to operate the restaurant for at least that period
in order to finance any future purchase and alternative development of the
property. The possibility of a five or even ten year abatement period that
could be imposed at any time creates a cloud on the property that hinders
financing. The establishment of a long term amortization period would give
my clients the security that they need.
The DiMaggios are also faced with another “Catch-22” created by a
rezoning coupled with an open abatement period. The Staff Report states
that the “City will always have the option of establishing an abatement
period should conditions warrant.” One of the conditions that would trigger
immediate abatement is “customer parking in the surrounding area.” (Staff
Report, page 12). But the DiMaggios cannot solve the problem of
inadequate parking by building a larger adjacent or underground parking lot
if their parcel is rezoned to R-3. In fact, they can make no major
improvements on a nonconforming use and building.
The establishment of a 40+ year abatement period starting from a date
within the period of 1989 to 1996 is both appropriate and fair, should the
Commission decide that the property must be rezoned to R-3.
Conclusion. The DiMaggios respectfully request that the City leave
the Seaside Bistro property in its current C-2 zone, and amend the General
Plan to a TR (Travel/Recreation) or N (Neighborhood Commercial)
designation to bring the parcel into conformity. The Local Coastal Program
designation should be brought into conformity, as well. The Seaside Bistro
is an asset to the neighborhood and community and should be retained.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
!$incerely, ,
q&y#?7$~bm
I
4 47
3-29- 1995 7 : 2LlAM FROM P. 1
l ’
SETH SHARON l 130 TAMARACK PVE #4 l CARLSBAD, CA 92008
December 20,200O
Dear Friends & Ne@&cns,
As I’m sure you’re aware, we all received notice of a Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday, January 3,200l to consider rezcning the Seaside Bistro & neighboring
property for residential uses. If this action is suoxssll, it could ultimately lead to the
issuance of a Notice of Abatement by the Carlsb.id City Council, f@ing the B&o to shu; its doors.
Since I have only lived here a little over a year, it is hard for me to make a case for bow much things have changed since the Bistro restructured its hours of operation, remove the stage, etc. You have a much clearer perspe&ve as to how things have improved over
the past several years.
The fact of the matter is, I feel that the Seaside Bistro is an integral part of our
neighborhood and community. and one of the reasons our iocation is so desirable. Where else can one walk to get a cup of cofie, a newspaper, a bite to ear or something to drink? ln
my opinion, the highest and best purpose of the 13istro property is to be a place we all can gather and meet with &ends and neighbors, not a place for a few exclusive condominiums
(or. other expensive housing) that serves only the wealthiest portion of the City’s populace.
That is why I am asking for your support at the coming Planmng Commission
meeting. I intend to speak, but my single voice is not nearIy enough to sway the juggernaut of City politics. As members of our tkghhrhotd and community, I f&l it is our duty to
suppca this lad business by appear& at the meeting, and qeaking our mind. Our united
voices as neigbbors of the Seaside Bistro have thz strongest chance of overturning this
course of events.
In closing, I call on all of us as members of the coxnmuni~ to attend the Planning
Commission meeting Wednesday, January 3v a: 6 P.M. in the City Council chambers at
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive. We need to Gll the council chamber with like-minded
individuals that share our views and opinions. Iiow will elected officials know that they are
not acxing in the interests of their constituents if we do not make our voices heard? This is
our time to make a di&ence and take a leaderslip role in our community-don’t let it slip away.
Lookii Forward To Many Years With the Se&de Bistro as Our Neigh&
Seth R. Sharon 130 Tamarack Avenue
Voice: 760-730-3068 l Fu; 760-7299625 l IWile: 7604454419 l e-mad: sfsWon@neboxcom
To the members of the Planning Commission, January 17,200l
We are opposed to the commercial zoning for the Ledgenvood property, on Carlsbad
Blvd. for the following reasons:
l.Redwood Ave is not wide enough to handle any more traffic than it currently has. The
La Playa Apartment building has too few parking spaces for their tenants, and they use up
half of Redwood Ave. for parking.
2.Traffrc would be greatly increased, disturbing the residents of the area.
3. Al and Pam Corbin have spent a lot of money for house plans, having been told by the city planner, Scott Donnell, that the land was changed over to R3, and that nothing
commercial could be planned for those 2 lots on Carlsbad Blvd. We have received at least
2 letters to that fact, and we proceeded with that plan. We are in escrow, which is soon to
close.
Since 1996, it has been a known fact, that the property would revert back to R3 to satisfy
the compliance of the general plan.
The original restaurant building did not encroach on the Ledger-wood property setbacks.
When the Sand Bar was remodeled years back, it was built into the setbacks, and in fact,
may be on the Ledgenvood property. Was this ever permitted? This area is the kitchen.
Without the proper setbacks, it could be a health, and fire hazard next to the proposed
house that will be built. Also, the lot behind the Seaside Bistro is residential, and that
will not have the proper setbacks either. Do you propose to change all the lots to
accommodate the Bistro?
It appears that the only reason this is being proposed is to accommodate someone who
does not want to have the expense, or bother that complying with the setbacks would
bring. For the planning commission to go back on what they have been stating for the last
9 months, in word, phone calls, and letters, is totally irresponsible, and not acceptable.
It would be nice to have the Bistro updated and remodeled, and maybe tear down some of
the unused structures, and use that for parking. To make that beachfront lot into a
parking lot would be a negative for the neighborhood, and Carlsbad, not to mention
increased noise, and traffic for the area.
What if the restaurant as it is now fails, and it reverts back to the previous type of
business, such as the Sand Bar with all of its problems for the surrounding neighbors?
We were informed of this proposal only 24 hours before the planning meeting, and
made arrangements to be out of town for the day.
Someone told us at the last meeting, that he was going to be partners with the Bistro, and
that he knew people in the city of Carlsbad planning dept. and he could get things
changed. We find this upsetting to see the planning commission changing their plans, and
for who? If you persist in pursuing this, we will not be in agreement to have shared parking, and we would put some sort of convenience store on the property. Two
beautiful houses will be far more attractive than anything commercial on that property.
Look at Ted Viola’s house, on Carlsbad Blvd, it has certainly upscaled that area.
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION 5&Q-
Item No. 0 13
Application complete date: N/A
P.C. AGENDA OF: January 3,200l Project Planner: Scott Donnell
Project Engineer: N/A
SUBJECT: ZC 99-OWLCPA 00-01 - CARLSBAD BOULEVARD/TAMARACK ZONE
CHANGE - A city-initiated amendment to change the City and Local Coastal
Program zoning map designations of three contiguous properties from
Neighborhood Commercial and General Commercial (C-l and C-2, respectively)
to Multiple-family Residential (R-3) and Beach Area Overlay Zone. The affected
properties are at 3862 and 3878 Carlsbad Boulevard and include the Seaside
Bistro. No development is proposed with this amendment.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4891
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a Negative Declaration and ADOPT Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 4892 and 4893 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of ZC 99-08
and LCPA 00-01 based upon the findings contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
The City requests approval of a Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment that
would affect three contiguous beach area properties on Carlsbad Boulevard between Tamarack
Avenue and Redwood Avenue. No development is associated with this request. The three
properties have different land uses, zoning designations, and owners. The following table
provides the details on the city-initiated amendment and the properties involved.
ZC 99-085CPA 00-01 - CARLSBAD BOULEVARD/TAMARACK ZONE CHANGE
January 3,200l
PaPe 2
Property
‘Seaside
Bistro
Parcel’
‘Ledger-wood
Parcels ’
(2 lots)
Address Owner
I- 3878 Mitze H.
Carlsbad Eubanks
Blvd Trust
3862 Charles B .
Carlsbad Ledgerwood
Blvd Trust
Use I I Existing
Zoning
Lot Size General
(in square Plan & LCP
feet) Designations t
(City &
LCP)
Local
Coastal
Program
Proposed
Zoning
City
Restaurant I I with
parking
Small
House,
Vacant
4,650
(each lot) RH C-l
c-2 R-3,
BAOZ
c-2 R-3,
BAOZ
LCP = Local Coastal Program RH = Residential High Density, 15-23 dwelling units per acre Key
C- 1 = Neighborhood Commercial Zone
C-2 = General Commercial Zone
R-3 = Multiple Family Residential Zone BAOZ= Beach Area Overlay Zone
The primary purpose of the City’s request is to bring the properties’ zoning, presently
commercial, into compliance with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program, both of which
designate each property as High Density Residential (RI-I). In 1996, the City Council passed a
resolution declaring its intention to rezone the three properties so they would comply with the
General Plan and Local Coastal Program designation of RH, as listed above. A fundamental state
planning law requires a property’s zoning designation to be consistent with its General Plan
designation.
Rezoning of the Seaside Bistro (formerly the Sandbar Restaurant) property will cause the
restaurant building and use to become legally nonconforming with city standards. The building
will become nonconforming because it does not comply with the development standards (e.g.,
setbacks) of the proposed R-3 zone. The use will become nonconforming since a restaurant is
not permitted in any residential zone. When a building or use is nonconforming, the Planning
Commission may or may not, on its initiative, establish a time period by which the building must
be removed and the use discontinued. Further discussion on nonconforming aspects will be
provided later in the report.
Since this is a city-initiated project, staff notified all parties affected or potentially affected by the
proposed zone change well in advance of the Planning Commission hearing and in a manner
more informative than just a public hearing notice. On June 7, 2000, staff sent a letter (included
as Attachment 6) to the affected property owners. Subsequently over the summer, that same
letter and its attachments were sent to attorneys representing the operators of the Seaside Bistro
and to the prospective purchasers of the Ledgerwood parcels.
ZC 99-08/LCPA 00-01 - CARLSBAD BOULEVARD/TAMARACK ZONE CHANGE
January 3,200l
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Surrounding the three properties to the north, south (across Tamarack Avenue) and east are a mix
of detached homes with yards, multi-story condominiums, and older apartments. Carlsbad
Boulevard and the Pacific Ocean are to the west. The General Plan and Local Coastal Program
land use designation for the subject and surrounding properties and most of the beach area
between Agua Hedionda Lagoon and the Village is RH. And, except for the subject lots, all
zoning designations for this area are residential. The nearest commercially designated properties
to the subject site are located approximately % mile to the north at Carlsbad Boulevard and
Walnut Avenue and to the east at Tamarack Avenue and Jefferson Street. Please refer to the
Location and Surrounding Zoning Map provided as Attachment 5.
In the General Plan, Land Use Element Policy C. 16 states, “Amend Title 21 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code (zoning ordinance and map), as necessary to be consistent with the approved
land use revisions of the General Plan and General Plan Land Use Map.” The proposed zone
change from commercial to residential would accomplish that. This proposal is also part of a
systematic and comprehensive Planning Department program to fix such inconsistencies
citywide. Recommended changes to other properties will be scheduled for public hearing over
the coming year.
To implement the General Plan on the Ledgerwood and Seaside Bistro properties, staff
specifically recommends the R-3, Multiple Family Residential Zone. Since it allows high-
density uses, this zone is consistent with the RH, Residential High Density General Plan
designation. The R-3 zone is also the majority zoning in the beach area, including the properties
east and north of the project. In addition, given that the Ledgerwood and Seaside Bistro parcels
are within the boundaries of the Beach Area Overlay Zone, staff proposes applying the Overlay
Zone to each of the properties. Zoning Ordinance Section 21.82.020 requires the Overlay Zone
to apply to any residentially zoned property within its boundaries.
Besides the requirement for consistency with the General Plan, past activities on the Seaside
Bistro parcel have also led to this zone change proposal. Staff has summarized these activities in
this report to provide tiher background on the proposal, a description of the compatibility
problems a restaurant/bar can have in a residential area, and a demonstration of the time, effort,
and difficulties in trying to correct the compatibility problems. For clarity’s sake, descriptions
and backgrounds on both the Ledgerwood and Seaside Bistro parcels are provided separately
below.
Ledgerwood Parcels
These two, small properties are north of the Seaside Bistro. One of the lots borders the
restaurant and is vacant except for the remnants of a garden. The other lot, at the comer of
Carlsbad Boulevard and Redwood Avenue, features a small, Spanish style house built in the
1930s. “Charles Ledgerwood Seeds” operated from this house for decades until this spring,
following Mr. Ledgerwood’s death in December 1999. The seed business has since been sold
and in the future will likely oper& outside Carlsbad. Though at least part of the house was used
for the seed business, the lot was not developed commercially; customer parking, for example,
was located in the street.
ZC 99-08/LCPA 00-01 - CARLSBAD BOULEVARD/TAMARACk ZONE CHANGE
January 3,200l
Staff believes the Ledgerwood parcels are now in escrow. The prospective purchasers are aware
of the proposed zone change, and have indicated they would like to develop both lots
residentially,
Seaside Bistro
According to City Building Department information, an eatery has been on the Seaside Bistro
property since at least 1970. At that time, development on the property included the eatery,
likely a hamburger stand, a parking lot, and a detached home. Although not clear as to which
was built first, County Assessor’s information indicates construction of a building occurred on
the property in 1946.
In 1975, the small home was demolished and the snack bar expanded to become the Captain’s
Anchorage, a steak and seafood restaurant. That same year the Captain’s Anchorage also
received City approval of a zone change Tom C-l to C-2 to permit alcohol sales and State
Department of Alcoholic and Beverage Control (ABC) approval of a liquor license. It appears
the restaurant was renamed the Sandbar in 1986. In 1989, a City business license was issued to
Mitze Eubanks and Carlos Almendra, the new owners of the Sandbar Restaurant. In 1995, Ms.
Eubanks became sole owner. While retaining ownership of the property, Ms. Eubanks sold the
restaurant business, along with the alcoholic beverage license, to Jim and Monika DiMaggio in
1999. Earlier this year, the DiMaggios changed the name of the restaurant to Seaside Bistro.
One aspect that has hampered the past and current owners of the restaurant is its lack of adequate
on-site parking. Building Department and County Assessor’s data indicate the restaurant has a
floor area of approximately 4,000 to 4,400 square feet; according to the Zoning Ordinance, 40 to
48 parking spaces should be provided for this restaurant. The Seaside Bistro has approximately
20 to 25 spaces. A lack of adequate on-site parking has contributed to problems between the
neighborhood and the Sandbar because some customers have parked on the nearby streets.
In the early 199Os, the City received numerous complaints from residents surrounding the
Sandbar about the restaurant’s operations and patrons. Sometime prior to that point, staff
believes the business changed from a restaurant with the incidental serving of alcohol to
predominantly a bar with live music and dancing. Residents complained about the noise from
the live music that sometimes lasted until after 1:OO A.M. and inebriated or boisterous patrons
who would leave the bar and yell, fight, litter, deface property, and generally disturb the peace.
Adding to the problem was the fact that some Sandbar customers parked on surrounding streets,
including Redwood Avenue and Garfield Street, and thus would carry the negative behavior into
the adjacent neighborhood. According to the ABC, Carlsbad police at various times between
1994 and 1996 responded to fights both inside and outside the restaurant and arrested several
Sandbar patrons for public intoxication and driving under the influence of alcohol.
In November 1995, city staff met with the Sandbar Restaurant to seek a voluntary reduction in its
business hours as a way to curb or eliminate late night noise and other complaints. Although the
Sandbar apparently had already implemented other voluntary measures to mitigate the
complaints about the impacts of its operations, such as hiring additional security and making
noise-attenuating building improvements, it would not agree to alter its hours of operations.
Despite the measures taken by the Sandbar, problems related to its operations and patrons
continued. d-3
ZC 99-08/LCPA 00-01 - CARLSBAD BOULEVARlYTAMARACk ZONE CHANGE
January 3,200l
Other methods were considered by the City as a way to regulate excessive noise from the
Sandbar and other businesses that serve alcohol and provide entertainment. In 1996, the City
Council reviewed an ordinance that would have required such establishments, beginning at 1O:OO
P.M., to not exceed a specified exterior noise level deemed compatible with residential uses. At
the public hearing, many residents and business owners opposed the proposed ordinance.
Ultimately, the Council took no action on this proposal, with some members noting that the
proposed ordinance did not fully resolve the issue of compatibility between such an
establishment and its nearby residential uses. A shortcoming of the proposed ordinance was that
it did not address customer-parking impacts in surrounding residential neighborhoods, a concern
with the Sandbar.
However, on May 2 1, 1996 the Council did approve Resolution of Intention (ROI) No. 96- 168,
in which the Council declared its intention to:
1. Change the zoning of the Seaside Bistro and Ledgerwood parcels from commercial to
residential to be consistent with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program; and
2. Directed staff to process the intended rezoning for hearing before the Planning
Commission and City Council.
A copy of the ROI and its accompanying staff report are included as Attachment 7. Zone
Change 99-08 and Local Coastal Program Amendment 00-01 are proposed to fulfil1 the
Council’s directive.
At the same time the City was receiving and responding to complaints about the Sandbar
Restaurant, the ABC was also monitoring the situation. In 1993, it issued a warning letter to the
Sandbar regarding noise, loud music, and clainis of disturbances from nearby residents.
Following additional complaints, a 1995 ABC letter placed the Sandbar on notice that
disciplinary action could occur should further complaints be received. More complaints and the
Department’s own investigations led to the ABC filing an “Accusation against Respondents” in
1996. In brief, this filing alleged the Sandbar:
1. Kept a “disorderly house;”
2. Permitted the business to operate in a manner that caused a law enforcement problem;
3. Permitted the business to operate in a manner disruptive to the neighborhood;
4. Allowed a public nuisance to exist after written notice from the City of Carlsbad City
Attorney to discontinue the same, and;
5. Failed to take reasonable steps to correct objectionable conditions on the premises of the
restaurant.
Following an administrative hearing on the above allegations, the ABC in 1997 revoked Ms.
Eubank’s alcohol license. However, this revocation was stayed for a two-year period upon the
Sandbar demonstrating compliance with a number of conditions. If the conditions were
successfully followed during the two-year period, the stay would become permanent. These
conditions, imposed on the license, prohibited, among other things, live entertainment and
alcohol after midnight on Friday and Saturday and entertainment noise audible beyond the
Sandbar parking lot. Although the Sandbar appealed this decision, the stayed revocation and the
conditions became effective in March 1999. Attachment 8 to this staff report is a copy of the
ZC 99-08/LCPA 00-01 - CARLSBAD BOULEVARD/TAMARAC~ ZONE CHANGE
January 3,200l
Page 6
ABC order and list of these conditions. Though Ms. Eubanks’ has sold the alcohol license along
with the restaurant business, the conditions are still applicable to its new owners, Jim and
Monika DiMaggio.
Since 1997, complaints regarding the Sandbar Restaurant and Seaside Bistro have generally
ceased. According to the attorney representing the DiMaggios, the Seaside Bistro is a restaurant,
not a nightclub, and consequently does not offer nighttime entertainment nor stay open late at
night. Further, the attorney notes that much of the Bistro’s business is walk-in traffic. Ideally,
the DiMaggios hope to operate the restaurant for a sufficient number of years to recoup their
investment in the business, the lease, improvements they have made, and financing for their
planned future purchase of the Bistro property still owned by the Mitze H. Eubanks Trust.
IV. ANALYSIS
The project requires approval of the following legislative actions:
A. Zone Change from C-l and C-2 to R-3 and Beach Area Overlay Zone, and;
B. Local Coastal Program Amendment to implement the zone change in the Local Coastal
Program.
The following regulations are applicable or relevant to this proposal
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
Section 65860 of the State Government Code - Zoning Consistency with the General
Plan;
Section 30108.5 of the State Public Resources Code - Zoning Consistency with the Local
Coastal Program;
Carlsbad General Plan and the General Plan land use designation of Residential High
Density (RI-I) designation;
Beach Area Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.82 of the Zoning Ordinance);
Local Coastal Program for the Mello II segment;
Growth Management (Chapter 2 1.90 of the Zoning Ordinance), and;
Nonconforming Buildings and Uses (Chapter 21.48 of the Zoning Ordinance);
Staff developed its recommendation for approval upon determining the proposed zone change
and local coastal program amendment was consistent with the applicable City regulations and
policies. The project’s compliance with each of the above regulations is discussed in detail in
the sections below. Furthermore, while the zone change is not subject to the nonconforming
buildings and uses section of the Zoning Ordinance, a discussion of this section is included
because of its relevance to the use of the Seaside Bistro and Ledgerwood parcels.
ZC 99-08/LCPA 00-01 - CXRLSBAD BOULEVARD/TAMARACK ZONE CHANGE
January 3,200l
Ledslative Actions
A. Zone Change
Consistent with the City Council Resolution of Intention No. 96-168, staff proposes to rezone
three properties from C-l (Neighborhood Commercial) and C-2 (General Commercial) to R-3
(Multiple Family Residential) and BAOZ (Beach Area Overlay Zone). The C-2 zone applies to
the Seaside Bistro parcel. The C-l zone applies to the two Ledgerwood parcels. Neither of these
existing designations is consistent with the properties’ Residential High Density (RH) General
Plan designation. The C-l zone permits office, retail, and service uses such as restaurants and
gas stations. The C-2 zone, a more liberal commercial designation, also allows automobile
repair, and with a conditional use permit, bars and car washes. Development of new
commercial uses, or significant expansion of existing ones on the properties, however, would not
be possible since such improvements could not be found to be consistent with the properties’
residential General Plan and Local Coastal Program designation. The proposed rezoning of the
Ledgerwood and Seaside Bistro parcels for residential uses will enable a clear determination of
the uses that can be built.
Resolution 96-168 recommends giving consideration to rezoning the properties either R-3 or
RD-M (Residential Density-Multiple) as both implement the RH General Plan designation. Staff
believes the R-3 zone is more appropriate for the following reasons:
. By far, most properties in the beach area between Carlsbad Boulevard, the
Village, the railroad, and Agua Hedionda Lagoon are zoned R-3;
n All properties fronting Carlsbad Boulevard between Tamarack Avenue and
Walnut Avenue are zoned R-3 ;
. Except for lots facing Garfield Street, all properties in the same block as the
Seaside Bistro and Ledgerwood parcels are zoned R-3.
n R-3 and RD-M development standards differ somewhat (e.g., setback
requirements, lot size). Most of the lots in the beach area between Carlsbad
Boulevard and Garfield Street are similarly sized and configured (long, narrow
rectangles approximately 4,500 - 7,500 square feet). Applying the R-3 zone to
the subject properties will maintain development consistency.
. The RD-M zone in the beach area mainly has been applied to condominium
developments and larger parcels of land (l/2 acre or more).
In addition to recommending the R-3 zone, staff has also proposed that each of the three
properties be designated with the Beach Area Overlay Zone given that the properties are within
its boundaries. As previously mentioned, Zoning Ordinance Section 21.82.020 requires the
Overlay Zone to apply to any residentially zoned property within its boundaries. The purpose
and intent of the overlay is to supplement the underlying residential zoning by providing
additional regulations to ensure compatible development, adequate parking and public facilities,
and to protect the unique mix of residential development and the aesthetic quality of the beach
area.
ZC 99-08/LCPA 00-01 - CARLSBAD BOULEVARIYTAMARACk ZONE CHANGE
January 3,200l
B. Local Coastal Program Amendment
Presently, the Local Coastal Program has zoned each of the affected properties as C-2 (General
Commercial). The Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) is required to implement the
proposed zone change from C-2 to R-3 and Beach Area Overlay Zone. The LCPA will result in
consistency with the Local Coastal Program land use designation of RH.
No comments were received during the required six-week LCPA public notice period.
Repulatory ComDliance
C. California Government Code Section 65860 - Zoning Consistency with the General
Plan
State law requires that a jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance be consistent with its general plan. In
the event that a zoning ordinance becomes inconsistent with a general plan by reason of
amendment to the plan, the law requires the zoning ordinance to be amended accordingly within
a reasonable time. This means development standards, land uses, and land use categories in the
zoning ordinance must all be consistent with the land use policies and designations specified in
the general plan. A primary objective of this rezone proposal is to bring the zoning designations
of the affected properties into compliance with the General Plan.
D. California Public Resources Code 30108.5 - Zoning Consistency with the Local
Coastal Program
The Public Resources Code regarding the California Coastal Act refers to the Local Coastal
Program as part of the City’s General Plan. The requested rezoning will cause compliance with
the General Plan and thus the Local Coastal Program.
E. General Plan
The existing General Plan designation for all three properties - and most of the beach area - is
RH, or Residential High Density. This designation permits a density range of 15 - 23 dwelling
units per acre (du/ac) with a Growth Management Control Point of 19 du/ac. The General Plan
Land Use Element describes the RH designation as a “High density residential classification
characterized by two and three-story condominium and apartment development . . .‘I As
evidenced by the different types of residences in the beach area, the proposed R-3 zone
implements the RH designation by permitting such multi-family development, as well as single
family homes.
The General Plan seeks to ensure compatibility between adjacent uses. The proposed
amendment will establish zoning, use, and development standards for the subject properties that
are consistent with their surroundings. Moreover, from a noise standpoint, as demonstrated by
past experiences with the Sandbar Restaurant, the residential neighborhood around the subject
properties would likely benefit from the proposed zone change.
5-7
ZC 99-08/LCPA 00-01 - CARLSBAD BOULEVARD/TAMARACK ZONE CHANGE
January 3,200l
The proposed zone change is consistent with the following General Plan provisions:
Land Use Element - Overall Land Use Pattern - Policy C. 16: Amend Title 2 1 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code (zoning ordinance and map), as necessary to be consistent with the approved
land use revisions of the General Plan and General Plan Land Use Map.
Land Use Element - Residential - Objective B.2: To preserve the neighborhood atmosphere and
identity of existing residential areas.
Land Use Element - Residential - Policy C.7: Locate higher density residential uses in close
proximity to open space, community facilities, and other amenities.
Noise Element - Land Use - Objective B.2: to achieve noise impact compatibility between land
uses through the land use planning/development review process.
F. Beach Area Overlay Zone
The Ledgerwood and Seaside Bistro parcels are within the boundaries of the Beach Area Overlay
Zone. Zoning Ordinance Section 21.82.020 requires the Overlay Zone to apply. to any
residentially zoned property within its boundaries. Therefore, staff recommends the application
of the Overlay Zone along with the proposed R-3 zone.
The application of the Overlay Zone to the subject properties does not affect the types of
residential uses that may be permitted by the proposed R-3 zone; however, the Overlay does
require a project’s density to be at the lowest end of the density range established by the General
Plan designation unless a greater density is determined justifiable by the decision making body.
Under the proposed zoning, a single unit could be built on each of the approximately 4,650
square foot Ledgerwood parcels at the lowest end of the RH density range (15 du/ac), and two
units could be built on each parcel at a density of 18 du/ac. The larger, roughly 14,000 square
foot Seaside Bistro parcel could potentially accommodate 4-5 units at the low end of the density
range and 6 units at just under the Growth Management Control Point of 19 du/ac.
Determination of precise density yields, however, is impossible without analysis of a proposed
project in relation to City development standards such as setback and parking requirements.
G. Local Coastal Program
The subject properties are within the Mello II segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program
(LCP). The proposed rezoning is consistent with the LCP. It will not affect or conflict with LCP
policies regarding access, recreational opportunities, views, or coastal dependent land uses. The
rezoning also does not involve property with sensitive topography or natural resources. Finally,
the proposed rezoning is compatible with the existing LCP land use designation of the subject
properties and the LCP land use and zoning designations of surrounding properties.
H. Growth Management
The Ledgerwood and Seaside Bistro parcels are located within Local Facilities Management
Zone 1 in the northwest quadrant of the City. Review of the 1987 Local Facilities Management
5
ZC 99-08/LCPA 00-01 - CARLSBAD BOULEVARD/TAMARACK ZONE CHANGE
January 3,200l
Page 10
Plan (LFMP) for Zone 1 shows the subject properties were designated as commercial to
determine their existing and future impacts on public facilities. The Plan indicates 5,000 square
feet of existing commercial development and the potential for 5,000 square feet more on the
subject parcels.
The 1994 update of the General Plan analyzed the impacts of the subject properties’ Residential
High Density (RH) designation. The proposed rezoning is consistent with that designation. As
reflected in the attached environmental analysis, staff does not believe the proposed rezoning to
allow residential development will produce any significant impacts that would cause the
performance standards of the LFMP for Zone 1 to not be met. Of course, absent an actual
development proposal, a completely accurate determination of impacts to public facilities and
thus compliance with the LFMP cannot be made.
One aspect of growth analyzed by the Local Facilities Management Plan is traffic. In general,
residential uses produce less traffic than commercial uses. Additionally, the proposed residential
zoning would allow uses that produce less traffic than the current commercial uses on the project
site, based on trip generation rates developed by the San Diego Association of Governments.
Considering the existing Seaside Bistro use only, staff estimates the restaurant produces
approximately 400 to over 700 average daily trips. Staff calculates development of the project
site with 10 multi-family dwelling units would produce 80 average daily trips (condominiums)
and 60 average daily trips (apartments). Less traffic also contributes to reduced pollution and
noise. A more detailed explanation of this traffic analysis may be found in the attached
environmental analysis.
I. Nonconforming Buildings and Uses
If the proposed rezoning is approved, the Seaside Bistro building and use will become legally
nonconforming. The Zoning Ordinance defines nonconforming building and nonconforming use
as follows:
Nonconforming b&ding (Zoning Ordinance Section 2 1.04.275): A building, or
portion thereof, which was lawfully erected or altered and maintained, but which,
because of the application of this title to it, no longer conforms to the use, height
or area regulations of the zone in which it is located.
Nonconforming use (Zoning Ordinance Section 21.04.280): A use which was
lawfully established and maintained but which, because of the application of this
title to it, no longer conforms to the use regulations of the zone in which it is
located. A nonconforming building, or nonconforming portion of the building
shall be deemed to constitute a nonconforming use of the land upon which it is
located.
Chapter 2 1.48 of the Zoning Ordinance, which regulates nonconforming uses and buildings, is
provided with this staff report as Attachment 9. The Seaside Bistro building will become
nonconforming because it will not comply with all of the development standards of the proposed
R-3 zone, including setbacks. The use will become nonconforming since a restaurant is not
permitted in the R-3 or any residential zone. It is not clear if the home on the northernmost
Ledgerwood parcel would be considered a nonconforming building since staff has no plans or 5-9
ZC 99-08/LCPA 00-01 - CAFUSBAD BOULEVARD/TAMARACK ZONE CHANGE
January 3,200l
information on the structure. Because of its age (approximately 70 years) it may not meet
current setback requirements. Undoubtedly, there are homes throughout the City that do not
meet all of today’s standards. Since the seed business no longer operates on the Ledgenvood
parcel, we believe the property would not contain a nonconforming use.
While recognizing that nonconforming uses and buildings may continue to exist, Chapter 2 1.48
establishes several restrictions on their use and expansion so, ultimately, they are either brought
into conformity or eliminated to promote the public health, safety, and welfare and comply with
the objectives of the General Plan. A summary of these restrictions follows.
1. While a nonconforming use is on a lot, no other use, even a conforming one, may be
established on the lot.
2. If a nonconforming building is removed, future use of the land on which the building
was located must be conforming.
3. Another like nonconforming use may replace an existing nonconforming use only if the
degree of nonconformity does not increase (e.g., a sit-down restaurant use could be
replaced by another sit-down restaurant use, but not by a drive-through restaurant).
4. A nonconforming building or use shall not be altered, improved, intensified or expanded.
However, generally acceptable are limited, incidental repairs necessary because of
ordinary wear and tear.
5. A nonconforming building destroyed by fire or an act of God to no more than 25% of its
replacement value may be restored.
6. The Planning Commission may grant limited expansions of nonconforming uses or
buildings only upon approving a conditional use permit, requiring improvements to meet
current standards and be designed for easy removal, and by establishing a date for which
the nonconforming uses and structures will be removed or brought into conformance.
7. If a building is nonconforming due only to inadequate setbacks or open spaces, it may be
increased in size subject to certain setback and floor space enlargement limitations.
This is only a summary list; please refer to Attachment 9 for the complete Zoning Ordinance
requirements. In addition, please note that a change in ownership does not cause a building or
use to lose its legal nonconforming status.
According to Section 21.48.070 of Chapter 21.48, the Planning Commission may establish a
period of time and conditions for abatement of a non-conforming use or building. This is a
discretionary procedure that the Commission would have to initiate. If the Planning Commission
were to consider this option, it would need to determine the date the building was established and
the period of time before abatement would occur. Section 2 1.48.060 establishes various
abatement periods based on different types of building construction (e.g., wood frame or
masonry buildings, offices and warehouses), and states any abatement period would have to be a
minimum five years. In addition, the section allows the Planning Commission to establish, if it
determines appropriate, a period of time greater than the minimum abatement period to allow for
ZC 99-08/LCPA 00-01 - CARLSBAD BOULEVARD/TAMARACK ZONE CHANGE
January 3,200l
Page 12
amortization of significant investments due to structural alterations or enlargements or the
installation of major equipment designed into the building.
Another option is to take no action on establishing a time period for abatement. Thus, there
would be no mandated deadline by which the nonconforming building or use would have to be
removed or brought into compliance. While this may permit a nonconforming use to remain for
a longer time than if an abatement period was established, the standard Zoning Ordinance
restrictions limiting the use, improvement, and expansion of nonconforming buildings and uses
would still apply.
Staff has prepared no analysis of the Seaside Bistro building type or any major improvements to
the restaurant’s structure or its interior in an effort to recommend an abatement period. Instead,
staff advises the Planning Commission not to establish an abatement period. Upon rezoning of
the affected properties to residential, the City will always have the option of establishing an
abatement period should conditions warrant. Whether associated with the current or another
business, such conditions might include customer parking in the surrounding neighborhood,
failure to comply with the conditions placed on the alcohol license, incompatible hours or noise,
and lack of building or property upkeep.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff conducted an environmental analysis of the proposed rezoning and determined the change
in land use designation from commercial to residential would not have an adverse impact on the
environment. Because the General Plan has designated the properties for high-density residential
development, it has already considered impacts associated with the rezoning, to a large extent. In
its analysis, staff found that residential uses on the properties would, in general, generate less
traffic, air pollution, and noise than would commercial uses. Additionally, the proposed
rezoning would allow uses compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood.
Staffs environmental analysis also noted that traffic noise from Tamarack Avenue and Carlsbad
Boulevard might impact residential development on the subject properties. However, the
analysis documents that traffic noise can be mitigated to a level of insignificance with proper
project design and mitigation, such as placement of garages toward the street, use of specific
building materials, and incorporation of certain architectural elements such as patio walls and
Plexiglas sound barriers. For further information, please see page 12 of the Environmental
Impact Assessment Form - Part II included with Attachment 1. When and if a project is
submitted under the proposed zoning, a full environmental analysis will be performed.
The project falls within the scope of the City’s MEIR for the City of Carlsbad General Plan
update (EIR 93-01) certified in September, 1994, in which a Statement of Overriding
Considerations was adopted for cumulative impacts to air quality and traffic. An MEIR may not
be used to review projects if it was certified more than five years prior to the filing of an
application for a later project except under certain circumstances. The City is currently
reviewing the 1994 MEIR to determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects.
Although the MEIR was certified more than five years ago, the City’s preliminary review of its
adequacy finds that no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under
which the MEIR was certified. The only potential changed circumstance, the intersection failure
at Palomar Airport Rd. and El Camino Real, is in the process of being mitigated to below a level
ZC 99-08/LCPA 00-01 - CARLSBAD BOULEVARD/TAMARACK ZONE CHANGE
January 3,200l
of significance. Additionally, there is no new available information, which was not known and
could not have been known at the time the MEIR was certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains
adequate to review later projects.
Since the project could not have a significant effect on the environment, the Planning Director
has issued a negative declaration. No comments were received during the required 30-day public
review period of the negative declaration.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4891 (Neg Dee)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4892 (ZC)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4893 (LCPA)
Background Data Sheet
Location and Surrounding Zoning Map
June 7,200O letter to property owners affected by the zone change
May 21, 1996 Agenda Bill and Council Resolution No. 96-l 68 declaring Council’s
intention to rezone the affected properties
Copy of ABC order placing conditions on the alcohol license of Sandbar
Restaurant/Seaside Bistro
Zoning Ordinance Chapter 21.48, “Nonconforming Buildings and Uses”
SD:cs:mh
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: ZC 99-08/LCPA 00-01
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BOULEVARD/TAMARACK ZONE CHANGE
APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD
REQUEST AND LOCATION: A Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment to
amend the zoning designation of three properties on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard between
Tamarack and Redwood Avenues. No development is proposed.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 1 and 2 in Block ‘G’ of Palisades in the Citv of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, according; to Map thereof No. 1747. filed in the Office
of the Recorder of said San Dieno County, Februarv 5, 1923; and Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 3713,
filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County on April 21, 1975 as file/Page
No. 75-092233 of Official Records.
APN: 204-253-13, -14. -20 Acres: ‘/2 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: N/A
GENERAL PLAN’ AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: RI-I (Residential High Density)
Density Allowed: 15-23 dwelling units/acre (Growth Management Control Point of 19 du/acI
Density Proposed: N/A
Existing Zone: C- 1 (Neinhborhood Commercial) and C-2 (General Commercial)
Proposed Zone: R-3 (Multiple Family Residential Zone)
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use:
Site
North
Zoning
C-l & c-2
R3, BAO Zone
General Plan Current Land Use
RH
RH
Restaurant, house
Apartments
South RD-M, BAO Zone RH Condominiums
East R-3, BAO Zone
West OS
RH
OS
House, apartments
Carlsbad State Beach
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: CUSD Water District: CMWD Sewer District: CMWD
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): N/A
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
w Negative Declaration, issued June 8.2000
0 Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
0 Other,
Attachment 5 - Location and Surrounding Zoning Map
CITY ZONING LCP ZONING
EXISTING C-l : LEDGERWOOD C-Z: LEDGERWOOD
C-2: SEASIDE BISTRO C-2: SEASIDE BISTRO
PROPOSED R-3, BEACH AREA R-3, BEACH AREA
OVERLAY ZONE: ALL OVERLAY ZONE: ALL
PARCELS PARCELS
CARLSBAD BLVD/TAMARACK AVE
ZONE CHANGE
ZC 999OBILCPA 00-01
.
c -itachment 6 - June 7,200O le. ,r to property owners
City of Carlsbad
June 7‘2000
Mitze H. Eubanks
2061 Oak Glen Drive
Vista, CA 92083 ’
RE: PROPOSED REZONING OF THE SEASIDE BISTRO PROPERTY
Dear Ms. Eubanks:
In May 1996, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 96-168 (copy attached),
declaring its intention to change the zoning designations of three neighboring
parcels along Carlsbad Boulevard to conform to the parcels’ General Plan and
Local Coastal Program land use designations. One of these parcels is the
Seaside Bistro (Sandbar) property at 3878 Carlsbad Boulevard (Assessor’s
Parcel Number 204-253-20). The other two parcels are at 3862 Carlsbad
Boulevard (APNs 204-253-13 and 14) and are owned by the Charles
Ledgerwood Trust. Since current County Assessor’s information shows you as
owner of the Seaside Bistro property, I want to inform you that the Planning
Department has begun the process to propose a rezoning as intended by the
Council. The relevant case numbers are Zoning Amendment ZC 99-08 and
Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 00-01.
As proposed, the existing zoning designations on both the City Zoning Map and
Local Coastal Program Zoning Map would change from either neighborhood or
general commercial to multiple-family residential and Beach Area Overlay Zone
(see below). In compliance with state planning law, this would cause the zoning
to be consistent with both the General Plan and Local Coastal Program, both of
which designate the parcels as highdensity residential. As you may know, the
proposed change also would be compatible ,with all surrounding zoning
designations. The chart below details the proposed changes:
General Local Coastal
Plan Program Existing 7--S-- Lorllny l - .-.
Design-..W.1P Proposed ronmg ~+l.-hmr I m--I---.:--- Property Designation Designation uesignanons
(no change (no change
proposed) m=ed) Local Coastal City Local Coastal City
Program Program
Seaside Bistro RH RH c-2 c-2 R-3 R-3, BAOZ
!dgerwood
Parcels RH RH c-2 C-l R-3 R-3, BAOZ
Key RH = Residential High Density, 15-23 dwelling units per acre
C-l = Neighborhood Commercial Zone
C-2 = General Commercial Zone
R-3 = Multiple Family Residential Zone BAOZ= Beach Area Overlay Zone
1635 Faraday Avenue l Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 l (760) 602-4600 - FAX (760) 602-8559
d PROPOSED REZONIN OF THE SEASIDE BISTRO PROPER1 b June 7,200O
Besides the Council resolution, I have enclosed the following items:
1. The description of the General Plan RH land use designation
2. Zoning Ordinance Chapter 21.16, containing the R-3 Zone standards
3. Zoning Ordinance Chapter 21.82, containing the Beach Area Overlay
Zone standards
4. The Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Part II and the
Negative Declaration prepared for the proposed zone change
The Negative Declaration mentioned above is a declaration by the City that the
proposed zone change will not have a significant impact on the environment.
The potential impacts analyzed and the reasons for the conclusion are contained
in the Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Part II. Currently, the Negative
Declaration is undergoing public review and comment. Thereafter, staff will
schedule the proposed zone change for public hearing review before the
Planning Commission and City Council. Finally, some time after Council action,
the California Coastal Commission must also consider the rezoning proposal
since it is an amendment to the Local Coastal Program Zoning Map change. I
expect the entire process may be completed toward the end of the year.
Before each public hearing, staff will mail you meeting notices, agendas, and
staff reports. If you have any questions about this letter or the proposed zone
change, I welcome your call. My phone number is 602-4618.
Scott Donnell
Associate Planner
SD:cs
66
Attachment 7 - May _ 1, 1996 Agenda Bill and Co cil Resolution No. 96-168
, c CITY OF CAR&BAD - AGENDA BILL
.r AB# 13 6 (I. (0 1
MT& T-2 i-9 b
DEPT. CA
INTENTION AMENDING THE ZONING FOR THREE PARCEL
RD-M AND/OR R-3, TO CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLA
AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
If Council concurs, your action is to adopt Resolution No. ‘)6-IQr, expressing an intention to
amend the zoning of the three parcels of real property along Carlsbad Boulevard from C-2,
general commercial zone, to RD-M or R-3, residential multiple family zone to conform to the
General Plan and Local Coastal Program designation for the property.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
One of the alternatives to the proposed entertainment ordinance the Council wished to discuss
was the consideration of adoption of a Resolution of Intention to begin the process of rezoning
of the properties that are the subject of this agenda bill. At its meeting of Aprit 9, 1996, it
directed staff to return with documents enabling the process to begin.
At its meeting of May 7, 1996, the Council continued this item to May 21, 1996, at the request of
one of the affected property owners.
The recommended action sets in motion a process which will begin the study of the three
affected properties and direct the Planning Director, upon completion of those studies, to return
through the Planning Commission with a recommendation to the City Council as to whether or
not a rezoning is appropriate. The recommended action in this agenda bitl’does not make any
changes to the underlying zoning at this time. Public hearings before both the Planning
Commission and City Council are’ required prior to taking any final action on rezoning.
Appropriate notice of- these hearings will be given to all affected properties and parties as
required by law.
I The current zoning designation of C-2 for the subject property, hereafter listed, is inconsistent
l with the City’s General Plan and Local Coastal Program which designate the property RH,
I residential high density (15-23 du/ac).
Parcel No. 204-253-13 - Lot Two (2) in Block ‘G” of PALISADES in the County of San Diego,
State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1747, filed in the Office of the Recorder of
said San Diego County, February 5,1923. The property owner is Charles Ledgemod.
I4
G
Parcel Nd. 204-253-14 - Lot one (1) in Block “G” PALISADES as per Map thereof No. 1747 filed
5
in the Office of the Recorder of said San Diego County, February 5, 1923. The property owner
u”
is Charles Ledgerwood. Parcels 13 and 14 are used currently as a retail seed store.
‘., Parcel No. 204-253-20 - Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 3713, filed in the Offipe of the County
Recorder of San Diego County on April 21, 1975 as file/Page No. 75-09!2233 of Official
Records. The property owner is Mitze Eubanks. The property is used current19 as a restaurant
and bar. ca?
Government Code &ion 65860 requires that under the “consistency doctrine” local
governments must maintain their zoning in a manner consistent with their general plans. Thus,
the existing zoning designation for this property should be amended to conform to the General
Plan. In addition, the Mello II land Use Plan of the City’s Local Coastal Program is consistent
with the General Plan (designating the site RH) and the zoning designation for the property
should also be consistent with the LCP. The zoning designations that implement the RH
classifications are RD-M (Residential Density-Multiple Zone) and/or R-3 (Multiple-Family
Residential Zone). As part of the zone change process, staff will be making a recommendation
as to which designation would be the most appropriate.
This resolution directs the Planning Director to conduct all necessary studies, notices, and
reports regarding the recommended zone change, and bring the matter without undue delay
before the Planning Commission for public hearing and recommendation to the City Council.
Upon rezoning, CMC Q 21.48.050 requires that all nonconforming uses and nonconforming
buildings in any R-Zone shall be discontinued within a designated amortization period set forth
in the municipal code. It is the responsibility of the Plahning Commission to determine whether,
by reason of structural alterations or the installation of m&jor equipment prior to the date of the
ordinance, it is deemed necessary to establish a later date-for abatement in order to ensure that
the investment represented by such alterations may be amortized. The Planning Director has
prepared a summary of the department’s scheme to implement a program to resolve identified
inconsistencies in zoning and the General Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit
“A “. This summary inctudes a more detailed discussion ofthe restrictions-imposed on a legal,
nonconforming use.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The suggested action will require staff time for processing, and the actual cost of notice and
publication.
EXHIBITS:
1. Resolution No. %--l~~
2. Parcel Location Map.
3. Exhibit “A”.
?L. -z--r=: I’-: 1 :il.l:t,l- -9DOP “T.. c et-L :-EC -2; ES - =
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
I 9
10
11
12
Pr$ da 13
SE f !sg, ‘4
zig ,6 9 e:;s= gyra aauti 16
ggij
5 >sq 0 17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 96-168
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITV COUNCIL OF THE CllY OF 9 CARLSBAD, CALlFORNlA DECIARING THE INTENTION TO DESIGNATION FOR -&@JZ
PROPERTY.
s WHEREAS, three parcels of real property, located at
the northeast comer of Carlsbad Boulevard and Tamarack Avenue is
currently zon@ C-2, genykl commercial, according to the City of Carlsbad
zoning map; and
WHEREAS, the current’Ikls&a@ Land Use General Plan and Local Coastal
Program both designate the prope@v as ROM, tisidential multiple family zone; and
WHEREAS, Public RemCode section 30108.5 refers to the vocal
Coastal Program as a portion of the CWS General Plan and Government Code section
65860 provides that the zoning designation for a property shall be consistent with the
General Plan Land Use designation,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and axrect.
. 2. That it is the intention of the City Council to amend the zoning designation
for the above referenced property to be consistent with the Local Coastal Program and
General Plan for tha property by rezoning the property to RDM or R-3, as appropriate.
3. The City Council directs the Planning Director to conduct the necessary
studies, notices, and reports and bring the matter without undue delay before the Planning
Commission for public hearing and recommendation to the Council.
. . . . I . . . . 1
19
,“--L:-Ui,.I”.,,~,r,.C*I Ne”a” LJ L*CJv.
,
I-
*
1
?
3
4
5
6
7
8
I 9
10
11
12
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 2 1 s t day of MAY 1996 by the following
vote, to wit: :
AYES: Council Members Lewis,' Nygaard, Kulchin, Finnila
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAINED: Count
ATTEST:
ALU-HA L. RAUTE
.
F
LOCATION MAP
SI
NOT TC SCALE
\hl -/-
l ..., #W
I\ \ r\ D J
PROJECT NAME EXHIBIT CARLSBAD BOULEVARD 2. +
.
I , +
l
4
4
4
4
4
As part of the rt dnt General Plan update, se\. ~1 properties were identified
where the zoning and the General Plan designation are inconsistent (e.g.
Zoning is commercial, General Plan designation is residential)
The properties on which the Sandbar and the adjoining seed business a&
located are one of these (there are 4 other properties with similar situations)
One of the implementation programs of the General Plan is to resolve these
identified inconsistencies (Program C.16, Page 28)
Regardless of the present controversy regarding the Sandbar, the property
would have been considered for rezoning as part of the General Plan
implementation program
If rezoned from commercial to residential, the Sandbar and the Seed business
would become Leoal, Non-Conforming Uses
As a Legal, Non-Conforming Use:
1) No new, additional uses can be established on the property until the non-
conforming use is removed
2) No expansions, alterations or repair of the nonconforming use can occr
unless:
. al it is destroyed by a fire or an act of God to an extent not more than
25% of the replacement value
W incidental reconstruction, repair or rebuilding not to exceed 10% of
the building replacement value
c) A conditional use permit is granted by the Planning Commission
allowing up to maximum of 50% of the replacement value. In
granting this conditional use permit, an abatement date must be
established for the use
3) If the non-conforming use vacates or closes for more than six months, it
loses it’s legal nonconforming status
4 The Planning Commission may establish a period of time and conditions
for abatement of a non-conforming use. This is a discretionary procedure
under Chapter 21.48 for consideration of removal of non-conforming uses
and buildings, and would have to be initiated by the city; it is not
automatic.
,. . . - ---. -- -- ..-.. .--_ ____ -., -_. W .--.I_ ,Y -f r. ~3
Arnendn. cad08 and ihltzc Bubank8 47-227354 96037655 Page11 Attachment 8 - ABC order with conditions on alcohol license
V
I;FCS= &at on or about Ntmmb 14.1995, Rrqmdam WCR mifid of rc=anabk sbcps to wrrect o@eotionabkcon&tions on& licesroed jLlremises. ‘hlcldng tbc inrmcdiat* djacmt arca that is owllod, lcascd, or xer.ed by the licensee,~~~anuisascc~~a~nabletimelffcrnotioetoroake~ ccmcctlons, in ~5cWicn1 of Business and Pn6s&~ Co& rtction 24200(c) as ti fiti in l%Kiin& vu. AldJongtl EdlIIC Isteps were take& &ey wen ill&fmivc
Cause for suqmGcm 09: mmat&m of Respond&t$ liceslse was estabiishod Continnationoftht~cuu#wonMbc~tbpublirc~and~plnonantm Article Xx, Section 22, af the Cautitutian of the Sta8e of California, and Bushwss aud Professions Code Sc&uns 242QO(a), (b) and (a] in wnjunctloa with Se&an 25601 of raid Code, Sections 370 and 373a of the Pe& code and Section 3479 of the Civil Co& by reason ofthe Flmdings andDemmimn&ons made bczcin.
.
Respondents’ liaxsc is her&y revoked, pruv&& howo~ar, &cl rev- is stayed for
PpcdDdobtwoyaars~thcdatcofthc~~~s~upon~~Fpitb the folbwing clmdifim:
1. Tbeliaezueuhaube~edft)rtwen~-five[25)~yB.
2, VAtififteen(l5)daysfTomtRtdattoftheD~~Deciriom,Rcsprndezlts shollp;ritionthrrttheliccnoebcb;rrbjccrtath6f~~~~~
A. salts, saviccd ‘an0falcoholiibnt~~~paarpictEdouly bawam~houxsof9~&dl23O~
B. L#ivefxa’ -
0 -i
3.
4.
74
Attachment 9 - Zoning Ordinance Chapter on “Nonconforming
Buildings and Uses”
Chapter 21.48 nonconforming, the degree of nonconformity
may not subsequently be increased by changing
to a less restricted use. (Ord. 9060 9 1701) NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS AND
USES
Sections:
21.48.010
21.48.020
21.48.030
21 M.040
21 A8.050
21 l .060
21 M.070
21 J8.080
21 M.090
21.48.100
Limitation on other uses.
Removal of nonconforming
buildings or change in status of
nonconforming use.
Application of chapter.
Nonconforming land use when
nostructure involved.
Nonconforming use of a
conforming building.
Removal of nonconforming
buildings.
Commission to determine
conditions of abatement.
Alteration, repair or expansion
of nonconforming uses.
Alteration of building when
nonconforming by reason of
inadequate yards.
Public utility exemptions.
21.48.010 Liriritation on other uses.
While a nonconforming use exists on any lot,
no additional use may be established thereon,
even though such use would be a conforming
USC. (Ord. 9060 0 1700)
2148.020 Removal of nonconforming
buildings or change in status of
nonconforming use.
If any nonconforming building is re;oved,
every future use ofthe land on which the building
is located shall conform to the provisions of this
title. If a nonconforming use vacates and is suc-
ceeded by another and more restrictive use, it is
evidence that the heavier nonconforming use
was ended and thereupon immediately loses any
vested right as such. If the substitute use is itself
21 l .030 Application of chapter.
The provisions of this chapter shall apply to
buildings, lands and uses which hereafter
become nonconforming due to any reclassifica-
tion of zones under this title. (Ord. 9060 9 1702)
21.48.040 Nonconforming land use when no
structure involved.
In any zone the nonconforming use of land
wherein no structure is involved shall be abated
within one year from the date the ordinance
codified in this title becomes applicable, and any
future use of such land shall conform to the
provisions of this ordinance. If the nonconform-
ing use of land existing at the time this ordinance
takes effect is thereafter discontinued for six
months or more, any future use of such land shall
conform to the provisions of this title. (Ord. 9060
0 1703)
21 M.050 Nonconforming use of a
conforming building.
(a) IN R ZONES. All nonconforming uses of
a conforming building in any of the R zones shall
be discontinued within three years from the date
of formal notice to the owner from the planning
commission, or not later than five years from the
date the piovisions of this ordinance becomes
applicable to it.
(b) IN C ZONES. Every nonconforming use
of a conforming building in a C zone which use is
first permitted in a less restrictive zone shail be
completely removed before the expiration of a
ten-year period measured from the date the ordi-
nance codified in this title btcomes applicable to
it.
(c) IN M ZONES. The nonconforming use of
a conforming building which is devoted to any
residential purpose, hdspital (except emergency
hospitals), hotel, institution or home for the
treatment of convalescent persons, alcoholics,
731
3 5
21.48.050
the wounded or mentally infirm. lodginghouses.
schools. trailers used for human habitation. or
trailer parks. shall be completely removed before
the expiration of a ten-year period measured
from the date the ordinance codified in this title
becomes applicable to it. (Ord. 9060 $ 1704)
21.48.060 Removal of nonconforming
buildings.
(a) IN R ZONES. Every nonconforming
building in any of the R zones, except residential
buildings. churches and schools. which noncon-
forming building was designed-or intended for a
use not permitted in the R zone in which it is
located. shall be completely removed or altered
to structurally conform to the uses permitted in
the zone 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. In no case shall this period
of time be less than five years from the date of
notification by the planning commission. As
used in this section the designations “Type I
Building”. “Type 2 Building”. “Type 3 Build-
ing . .’ “Type 4 Building*’ and “Type 5 Building”.
are employed as defined in the existing building
ordinance:
( 1) ‘If propeny is occupied by stntctures of a
type for which the existing building ordinance
does not require a building permit - One year:
(2) Type 4 or Type 5 buildings (light com-
bustible frame and wood frame) - Forty years:
(3) Type 2 or Type 3 buildings (heavy timber
construction and ordinary masonry):
(A) Apanments. offices. hotels or residences
having stores or offices below and apanments or
offkes above - Thirty-five years.
(B) Warehouses. stores. garages. lofts - Thir-
tyfive years.
(0 Factories and industrial - Forty-five
years:
(4) Type I Buildings (fire resistant):
(A) Offices and hotels - Forty-five years.
(B) Theatres - Fifty years,
(C) Warehouses. lofts. stores. garages -
Forty-five years.
(D) Industrial - Thirty-five years:
(b) IN C ZONES.
(1) Residential structures in a “c” zone exist-
ing on the effective date ofthe ordinance codified
in this title shall be considered as nonconforming
uses and as such; shall be subject to those provi-
sions of this ordinance which provide that a non-
conforming building removed or destroyed may
not be replaced by other than a conforming
building. Structural alterations or enlargements
may be made: provided. that the degree of non-
conformity may not be increased by changing to
a less restricted residential use or by reducing
yard widths less than the prescribed minimum
required in R-3 zone:
(2) Every nonconforming building in a C
zone which is designed for a use first permitted in
an M zone shall be completely removed or
altered to conform to those uses permitted in the
C zone in which such building is located within
the herein specified times. upon notice from the
planning commission. which times are measured
from the date of construction except that in no
case shall this period of time be less than five
years from date of such notice by the planning
commission. As used in this section. the designa-
tions “Type 1 Building”. “Type 2 Building”.
“Type 3 Building”. l ’ Type 4 Building” and “Type
5 Building” are employed as defined in the exist-
ing building ordinance:
(A) Where property is unimproved except for
structures of a type for which the existing build-
ing ordinance does not require a building permit
- One year. .
(B) Type 4 or Type 5 buildings (light com-
bustible frame and wood frame) - Forty years.
(C) Type 2 or Tyne 3 buildings (heavy timbe,
construction and ordinary masonry):
(i) Apartments: offices. hotels or residences
having stores or offices below and apanments or
oflices above - Thirty-five years
(ii) Warehouses. stores. garages. lofts -
Thirty-five years
732
(iii) Factories and industrial - Forty-five
yean
(D) Type 1 buildings (fire resistant):
(i) Offices and hotels - Fony-five years
(ii) Theatres - Fifty years
(iii) Warehouses. lofts. stores, garages -
Forty-five years
(iv) Industrial - Thirty-five years.
(c) IN “M” ZONES.
( 1) Residential structures in an “M” zone
existing on the effective date of the ordinance
codified in this title shall be considered as non-
conforming uses and assuch, shall be subject to
those provisions of this ordinance which provide
that a nonconforming building removed or
destroyed may not be replaced by other than a
conforming building. Structural alterations or
enlargements may be made: provided. that the
degree of nonconformity may not be increased
by changing to a less restricted residential use or
by reducing yard widths less than the prescribed
minimum required in R-3 zone.
(2) Every nonconforming building in the
“IM” zone which is used for, or devoted to. any
hospital (except emergency hospitals). hotel.
institution or home for the treatment of con-
valescent persons. alcoholics. the wounded or
mentally infirm. lodginghouses. schools. trailers
used for human habitation. or trailer parks, and
which nonconforming building was designed or
intended for a use not permitted in the “M” zone
in which it is located. shall be completely
removed or altered to structu.rally conform to the
uses permitted in the zone in which it is located
within the herein specified times upon notice
from the planning commission. which times are
measured from the date of construction. except
that in no case shall this period of time be less
than five years from the date of such notice. As
used in this section the designations “Type 1
building”. ” Type 2 building”. “Type 3 building*‘.
“Type 4 building”, and “Type 5 building” are
employed as defined in the existing building
ordinance:
‘1.48.060
(A) Where propeny is unimproved except for
structures of a type for which the existing build-
ing ordinance does not require a building permit
- One year.
(B) Tyne 4 or Type 5 buildings (light com-
bustible frame and wood frame) - Forty years.
(C) Type 2 or Type 3 buildings (heavy timber
construction and ordinary masonry):
, (i) Apartments. offices. hotels or residences
having stores or offices below and apanments or
offices above - Thirty-five years
(ii) Warehouses, stores, garages. lofts -
Thirty-five years.
(iii) Factories and industrial - Forty-five
years,
(D) Type 1 buildings (fire resistant):
(i) Offices and hoteis - Forty-five years
(ii) Theatres - Fifty years
(iii) Warehouses. lofts. stores. garages -
Fony-five years
(iv) Industrial - Thirty-five years. (Ord.
9088 $6 1.2: Ord. 9060 $ 1705)
21.48.070 Commission to determine
conditions of abatement.
When any nonconforming condition exists in
any zone. other than the nonconforming use of
land when no structure is involved. it shah be the
responsibility of the planning commission. on its
own initiative. to fix a date upon which the non-
conforming building was established. It shall also
be the responsibility of the planning commission
to determine whether. by reason of structural
alterations or enlargements, or the installation of
major equipment designed into the building
prior to the date the ordinance codified in this
title becomes applicable thereto. it is deemed
necessary to establish a later date for abatement
than that prescribed herein for the building itself
in order to assure that the investment repre-
sented by such structural alterations. enlarge-
ments or equipment installations may be
amonized. In performing this function the com-
mission shall consider all peninent data in con-
nection therewith to provide the opportunity for
733
73
21.48.070
the owner of record, or lessee if there be such. to
present such evidence as they may possess and
which properly relate to such case. When the date
of abatement has been determined. the commis-
sion 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 foilowing the date ofsub-
ject action by the planning commission. (Ord.
9060 5 1706)
21.48.080 Alteration, repair or expansion of
nonconforming uses.
(a) Except as provided in this section. a non-
conforming use or building shall not be altered.
improved. reconstructed, restored. repaired,
intensif$. expanded or extended.
d--X A nonconforming building destroyed to
the extent of not more than twenty-five percent
of its replacement value as determined by the
building and planning director at the time of its
destruction by fire. explosion. or other casualty
or act of God. or public enemy. may be restored
and the occupancy or use of such building, or
part thereof. which exists at the time of such
panial destruction may continue subject to all
other provisions of this chapter. Such restoration
shall not extend the time of abatement as estab-
lished by this chapter.
(c) Incidental reconstruction. repair or
rebuilding of a nonconforming building ren-
dered necessary by ordinary wear and tear and
which does not increase the degree of nonconfor-
mity of a nonconforming building, nor increase
the degree or size of a nonconforming use may be
made. provided that:
(I) The aggregate value of such repairs or
alterations shall not exceed ten percent of the
building’s replacement value at the time the
building permit is applied for as determined by
the building and planning director: 7
(2) That such reconstruction. repair or
rebuilding complies with the provisions of Title
18 of this code;
(3) Such repairs. reconstruction or rebuilding
shall not extend the time of abatement estab-
lished by this chapter.
(d) A nonconforming use or building may be
altered, improved, reconstructed. restored.
repaired or extended as may be permitted by the
planning commission upon granting of the con-
ditional use permit, processed according to the
procedures established in Chapter 21.50 of this
code. Before a conditional use permit may be
granted all provisions of Chapter 21.50 shall be
met and it shall be shown that:
(1) The aggregate value of the proposed altera-
tion. improvement. reconstruction. restoration,
repair or extension shall not exceed twenty-five
percent of the total replacement at the time the
conditional use permit is applied for as deter-
mined by the building and planning director of
all improvements on the site unless the building
or structure is changed to a conforming use. Such
aggregate value may be increased up to fifty per-
cent of total replacement for those uses which
provide a pubbic service traditionally provided
by the city:
(2) The proposed alteration. improvement.
reconstruction. restoration. repair or extension is
of a .type of structure that is specifically designed
tb be easily removed:
(3) The proposed alteration. improvement,
reconstruction. restoration. repair or extension
meets all construction setback. coverage. plan-
ning and all other applicable requirements of this
code.
In approving such conditional use permit, the
planning commission shall establish a date by
which all nonconforming structures and uses
shall be made conforming or removed from the
site. In no event shall the date for such removal or
compiiance extend beyond the date set according
to the provisions of this title for abatement of the
existing nonconforming use. Extensions of said
date for abatement ihall be permitted only upon
: / 734 /_. ,_ .
21.48.080
approval of amendment of the conditional use
permit and. then. only upon showing of good
cause. A conditional use pennit or amendment
shall be effective only upon execution by the
applicant of written acceptance of the condi-
tional use pennit. or amendment. Such accept-
ance shall include an agreement by the applicant
to remove all nonconforming uses and buildings
or structures. or make them conforming, on or
before the date for removal established by the
conditional use permit or amendment in
exchange for permission to alter, improve,
reconstruct, restore. repair or extend.
The land use planning manager shah cause
such conditional use permit, complete with
abatement date, or any amendment to the condi-
tional use permit. extending an abatement date.
to be recorded at the offtce of the county recorder
within five days after the issuance of the permit
or amendment. Any alteration. improvement.
reconstruction, restoration. repair or extension
undertaken pursuant to the conditional use per-
mit shall be commenced within three months
after the issuance of the permit unless an exten-
sion is granted by the planning commission.
(e) No nonconforming building, structure. or
use shall be changed to any other nonconforming
use, building or structure. (Ord. 1261 8 50. 1983:
Ord. 1256 9 7 (part), 1982: Ord. 9538 4 2. 1979:
Ord. 9060 4 1707)
21.48.090 Alteration of building when
nonconforming by reason of
inadequate yards.
Where a building or buildings. and customary
accessory buildings are nonconforming only by
reason of substandard yards or open spaces. the
provisions of this title prohibiting structural
alterations or enlargements shall not apply; pro-
vided. that any structural alterations or enlarge-
ments of an existing building shall conform to
the following:
(1) That such nonconforming structure may
be enlarged or extended to the same degree of
nonconformity as may exist but in no event shall
such addition or enlargement encroach closer
than three feet to any side yard lot line.ten feet to
‘any front tine or five feet to any rear lot line:
(2) That any such enlargement shall not
increase the floor space more than forty percent
of that existing prior to such enlargement. (Ord.
9060 $1708)
21.48.100 Public utility exemptions.
The foregoing provisions of this chapter con-
cerning the required removal of nonconforming
buildings and uses and the reconstruction of
nonconforming buildings panialiy destroyed,
shall not apply to public utility buildings and
structures when such buildings and structures
penain directly to the rendering of the service or
distribution such as power generating plants and
electrical distribution substations: water wells
and pumps: gas storage. metering and valve con-
trol stations. Nor shall anything in this article be
construed or applied so as to prevent the expan-
sion. modemization or replacement of such pub-
lic utility buildings, structures. equipment and
features as are used directly for the delivery of. or
distribution of. the service: provided the provi-
sions of this section shall not exempt from the
provisions covering nonconformity of such
buildings. structures. or uses as do not immedi-
ately relate to the direct service by consumers.
such as warehouses, storage yards and the like.
(Ord. 9060 9 1709)
735
79
PLANNING COMMISSION January 3,200l Page QgH’B’T 6
13. ZC 99-081LCPA 00-01 - CARLSBAD BOULEVARD/TAMARACK ZONE CHANGE - A city-
initiated amendment to change the City and Local Coastal Program zoning map designations of
three contiguous properties for Neighborhood Commercial and General Commercial (C-l and C-2
respectively) to Multiple-family Residential (R-3) and Beach Area Overlay Zone. The affected
properties are at 3862 and 3878 Carlsbad Boulevard and includes the Seaside Bistro. No
development is proposed with this amendment.
Project Planner, Scott Donnell presented the staff report as follows: This is a request for a Zone Change
and Local Coastal Program Amendment to re-zone from commercial to residential. The re-zoning is
consistent with General Plan and the Local Coastal Program designations. It affects the Seaside Bistro and
the Ledgerwood parcels. The Seaside Bistro is a single parcel, approximately 14,000 square feet, at the
corner of Tamarack Avenue and Carlsbad Boulevard. Just to the north of the Seaside Bistro parcel are two
parcels owned by the Charles Ledger-wood Trust, at the corner of Carlsbad Boulevard and Redwood
Avenue. This is a City initiated amendment and there is no development proposed or other physical
changes proposed to the existing uses on the properties. These lots are similar (rectangular) to the other
lots in the area and are approximately 4,600 square feet in size. Adjacent to the Ledgerwood property are
some large, single-family homes and behind the Seaside Bistro is an apartment building. The Seaside
Bistro has a long history. The property began as a snack shop, was eventually expanded to become the
Captain’s Anchorage, purchased by Mitze Eubanks in 1986 and the name was changed to the Sandbar
Restaurant. In 1999, Ms. Eubanks sold the business, but not the property, to the current owners, Jim and
Monica DiMaggio. In the year 2000, the DiMaggio’s changed the name of the restaurant to the Seaside
Bistro. The Seaside Bistro has both Local Coastal and City Zoning designations of C-2 for General
Commercial. On the other hand, the Ledgerwood parcels have designatiQns of C-l and C-2. Nevertheless,
the existing zonings are commercial and the proposal is to change all of those zonings to Multiple-family-
Residential or R-3 and also Beach Area Overlay. All of the properties in the beach area have this Beach
Area Overlay zoning designation. The proposed zoning will provide consistency with State Planning law.
There is a fundamental planning law that requires all Californiajurisdictions to have zoning that is consistent
with the General Plan. The re-zoning will also achieve neighborhood zoning in terms of compatibility with
the surrounding zoning as well as the surrounding land uses. Currently, development on the property is
stymied; you have a General Plan that calls for residential and the zoning, on the other hand, that calls for
commercial. The Seaside Bistro, for example, cannot expand. Any expansion could not be found to be
conforming with the General Plan. The proposed re-zoning also enables implementation of the General
Plan Policy that says that the city is to correct any inconsistency between the zoning and the General Plan.
Finally, it also implements the City Council Resolution of Intention that the City Council passed back in
1996. This resolution declared the Council’s intention to change the zoning of the Seaside Bistro and the
Ledgerwood parcels from commercial to residential, primarily to be consistent with the General Plan. The
resolution also directed Staff to begin processing that re-zoning. Reasons for the passage of the Resolution
of Intention to fix the zoning and consistency and also to address the problems occurring at the Sandbar,
now the Seaside Bistro. Sometime in the late 1980’s or early 1990’s, the Sandbar Restaurant changed from
a primary use of a restaurant to a bar use with live music. The problems that the city, the Alcoholic
Beverage Control Department (ABC), and the neighbors experienced occurred primarily in the early to mid
1990’s. Some of the problems were loud music, activity beyond midnight and past I:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m.,
fighting both inside and outside the restaurant, public drunkenness, and vandalism. One of the problem the
Seaside Bistro and the prior restaurant had and still has, is a lack of adequate parking. They are
approximately twenty to twenty-five spaces short. That contributed to the problem of the Sandbar patrons
parking in the surrounding neighborhood on Redwood Avenue and Garfield Street. That was a problem,
mainly because the problems associated with fighting and public drunkenness were carried forward into the
residential neighborhoods. They weren’t concentrated on the premises of the Sandbar. Of course these
problems contributed to neighborhood complaints and there were also several arrests by Carlsbad Police.
In response, the Sandbar hired extra security and they also made improvements to the building to try to
attenuate some of the noise. The city sought a voluntary reduction in the Sandbar’s business hours. The
Sandbar did not reduce its hours and the city also considered passing an entertainment ordinance that
would restrict noise after IO:00 p.m., but there was no action taken on that ordinance. Parking studies were
also considered and the final option, the Resolution of Intention, was what was actually done. While the city
PLANNING COMMISSION January 3,200l
Corrected
Page 30
and the Sandbar were considering these responses, the ABC was also looking at the situation. They
received a number of complaints and in the early 1990’s the ABC sent letters to the Sandbar saying that it
had received complaints and if the problems weren’t satisfactorily addressed, it might have to take
disciplinary action. In 1996, the ABC actually filed an Accusation Against Respondents in which the ABC
alleged several problems such as; 1. The Sandbar kept a disorderly house; 2. The restaurant wasn’t
responding to the problems that it was causing; 3. That it was creating a Police enforcement problem; and
4. That it was basically not being a good neighbor. Finally the ABC took the action after holding a local
hearing here in the Council Chambers to revoke the Sandbar’s alcohol license. Along with that revocation
there was a requirement that said that revocation could be stayed, subject to some conditions. One of the
conditions was that if the Sandbar could demonstrate, over a two year period, that they could comply with
the conditions, the revocation would be stayed permanently. The ABC action was appealed by the Sandbar
and became effective in March, 1999. Some of the conditions placed on the alcohol license were; no live
entertainment or alcohol sales beyond midnight; no audible entertainment at any time beyond the Sandbar
premises; no use of the outside trash dumpster after 9:00 p.m.; and finally, if live entertainment was
provided, that the Sandbar provide patrolling security, both on the premises and in the surrounding
neighborhood. Since 1997, complaints against the sandbar have generally ceased. In 1999, the Sandbar
and it’s alcohol license with the conditions, were sold, and in the year2000, the Sandbarwas re-named The
Seaside Bistro. The current owners of the Seaside Bistro indicate that it is a restaurant use and is no longer
a nightclub with live entertainment. If the parcels are rezoned, high density residential development will be
permitted. The Beach Area Overlay Zone and also the recommended additional zoning restricts building
heights and densities and the re-zoning will enable uniform zoning use and development standards to be in
place throughout the neighborhood. Most of the adjacent properties have the R-3 designation as well as
the RH General Plan designation. What is being done now is clearly consistent with the surroundings. If
the properties were to develop, residentially, under the proposed zoning, it is possible that each
Ledgerwood parcel could build one to two units each. The Seaside Bistro parcel, since it is larger, could
have up to four to six units. With residential development there is generally less pollution, less traffic, and
less noise. Standard traffic formulas indicate that traffic generated by a restaurant use is significantly higher
than generated by a residential use. The facts of the re-zoning are; if the re-zoning goes through, the
Seaside Bistro would become legally non-conforming. Commercial uses, such as a restaurant, are not
permitted in a residential zone. Staff does not think re-zoning will effect the Ledgerwood parcel because the
seed business that was formerly housed on the property was sold and relocated outside of Carlsbad. For
the Seaside Bistro, because it would become a non-conforming use, it could not improve, expand, or
intensify. An addition could not be added on that would intensify or expand the restaurant. If the restaurant
were to be destroyed, a new non-conforming use could not take its place. However, if the restaurant were
sold, the restaurant could remain and would still be considered legally non-conforming. In addition, repairs
can be made to repair ordinary wear and tear to the restaurant building. Because it is a non-conforming
use, the city has the option to abate, or order a time when the use is to be terminated. That decision to
abate is entirely up to the Planning Commission on its own initiative. To determine an abatement schedule
some things would have to be determined about the building, such as the date it was established, the type
of building it was, and what significant improvements have been made to the building. If a decision is made
on abatement, the code requires a minimum five year abatement period. Staffs recommendation on
abatement is that no abatement period be established. Without an abatement, restrictions will still remain
on the use, expansion, and improvement of the property. As always, the city maintains the option to abate if
it determines that abatement is necessary. Finally, with the environmental review, Staff found that there are
no environmental impacts associated with the re-zoning. When development occurs on the properties, the
environmental review for the type of development proposed will be performed at that time.
Commissioner Nielsen stated that it is his understanding that even if there was no expansion restriction, the
Bistro would not have the room to expand, especially since they are currently under-parked. He further
commented that all the Commission is doing is allowing the city to abate the restaurant, if the Commission
so chooses.
Mr. Donnell replied that he is correct.
Commissioner Baker asked if there is a way to leave the restaurant zoned as Neighborhood Commercial.
PLANNING COMMISSION January 3,200l Page 31
Mr. Donnell explained that the restaurant is currently zoned General Commercial. He added that the city
has both State law and General Plan policy that requires the city to bring the zoning into conformance with
the General Plan.
Ms. Mobaldi interjected and stated that there is a way and that way is to change the General Plan
Designation in order to be consistent.
Commissioner Baker asked how the General Plan is changed.
Ms. Mobaldi replied that it is changed with a General Plan Amendment.
Commissioner Baker asked if that is a long and involved process.
Ms. Mobaldi replied that it would begin with the Planning Commission and move on to the City Council.
If a General Plan Amendment was affected, Commissioner L’Heureux asked if the two properties would be
dealt with separately.
Ms. Mobaldi replied that, theoretically, they could be dealt with separately. One could be left commercial
and change the General Plan Designation could be changed for one and not en the other. As part of this
process, the Commission could take an action on this resolution. Assuming that the resolution were denied,
the Commission could request that a resolution for a General Plan Amendment be prepared, take whatever
action you wish, and then send that recommendation forward to the City Council.
Responding to Ms. Mobaldi’s last response, Commissioner L’Heureux asked if the Ledgerwood property is
changed to residential and the restaurant is left as commercial, would the Ledgerwood property then be
able to be developed.
Ms. Mobaldi replied that if the Commission can make the appropriate findings either property can be re-
zoned to be consistent with the General Plan or vice versa. The two properties can be considered
individually because the histories are different and the uses are very different.
Commissioner Compas asked if “spot” zoning is completely out of the question.
Ms. Mobaldi replied that “spot” zoning is illegal but “spot” zoning is a legal term of art. Just because there is
a unique designation for a property doesn’t necessarily mean it is spot zoning, particularly if there is
justification for whatever the zoning and General Plan is for that specific property, such as historical use,
etc.
Chairperson Segall asked if it was the Council’s intention, in 1996, to change the zoning or make the zoning
consistent with the General Plan.
Ms. Mobaldi replied that it is her understanding that the primary concern was to make it consistent because
the California government code requires that they be consistent as well our General Plan. Also, the other
issue was the problem activity going on at the Sandbar and the compatibility with the neighborhood.
Chairperson Segall stated that problem activity doesn’t appear to be an issue at this time and it seems that
the issues before the Commission are the General Plan and zoning.
Commissioner Nielsen asked if it is possible for the Commission, in this action, to prohibit abatement on that
property.
Ms. Mobaldi replied that abatement is discretionary and that the code allows the Planning Department to set
a time for abatement but it is not mandatory.
PLANNING COMMISSION January 3,200l Page 32
Commissioner Nielsen also asked that even if the Commission voted in favor of the zone change, could the
city still abate the restaurant at some time in the future.
Ms. Mobaldi replied that if it is a non-conforming use, yes.
Chairperson Segal pointed out that if that were to happen, and the restaurant continued to be a non-
conforming use, financing issues and other matters could be severely impacted.
Ms. Mobaldi replied that she would have to assume that that is true.
Chairperson Segall opened Public Testimony and admonished those wishing to testify to be as brief as
possible in deference to the lateness of the hour.
Janet Robinson, Attorney for the restaurant operator, 772 Corinia Court, Encinitas, stated as follows:
everything has changed since this re-zoning was initiated some four years ago and that re-zoning this site,
in her opinion, would not be a good planning decision. The DiMaggios have thoroughly cleaned and
upgraded the interior of the restaurant, redecorated, halted the evening entertainment, limited the evening
hours, and generally did everything that could possibly be done in an effort to become a good neighbor.
They have a twelve year lease on the property and they hope to operate the restaurant long enough to
finance the purchase of the property. It is true that a re-zone of this property would create a cloud that
would make it almost impossible for them to get financing for the purchase of the property. The long range
plan for this restaurant is to eventually rebuild it, add parking (perhaps underground), and possibly add a
few rooms to create a European style inn. The result would be a beautiful inn with a restaurant that is open
to the public. This restaurant creates a lot of community cohesiveness in that there is pedestrian access to
services and a twenty-four hour life that discourages crime and encourages a feeling of neighborhood. The
problems of the past have now been solved and should not cause the Commission to take the extreme
measure of re-zoning this property. If there is a problem with the use, that should be addressed by
nuisance abatement and code enforcement. Mr. DiMaggio is willing to live with any kind of condition that
the Commission might wish to impose, whether it is an overlay or something else. He is also willing to give
up his cabaret license, entirely, and would like to work with the city, ensuring that his business will never be
a problem to anyone, ever again. The Seaside Bistro upholds so many of the city’s and Coastal
Commission’s policies that promote public use of the coastline. Re-zoning the property to R-3 simply adds
the last brick in a private wall of residential uses that reserves the relaxed enjoyment of the ocean view for a
handful of property owner that can afford to live on the waterfront. With the restaurant in this place, the
public, as well as the neighborhood residents, can enjoy the restaurant and its view. Regarding an
abatement period, should the Commission approve the zone change, an indefinite abatement period would
be a definite problem for the owner. Mr. DiMaggio does want to finance the purchase of the property and
being in a Limbo (of sorts), would create huge problems. Regarding the environmental analysis of the re-
zone, there are concerns about the growth inducing effect of the re-zone triggering at least a potentially
cumulative significant environmental impact. The re-zone may create a significant aesthetic impact and its
proposal could have a significant adverse recreational impact for the same reasons. In conclusion, please
send this back to the City Council for their reconsideration based on very changed circumstances. If that is
done, it may well be that they will take another look at this and change their minds. There is no currently
existing problem(s) at the restaurant that would be resolved with this re-zone. Please give the DiMaggios
an opportunity to retain their business and work with the city to provide a great amenity for the City of
Carlsbad. A General Plan Amendment would solve this problem and a Beach Overlay Zone could also help
control uses. Any other overlays or conditions, that the Commission may deem applicable, will be
welcomed.
James DiMaggio, Restaurant Owner, 29042 Vista Valley Drive, Vista, stated that the restaurant, as it stands
today, is a “used car” and there is only so much that can be done with it under current code conditions. He
added that he would eventually like to put a first rate establishment on that site; perhaps not as big but
something that conforms with the neighborhood, the city codes, etc.
Kevin McCann, 2755 Jefferson St. Suite 211, Carlsbad, Attorney representing the land owner, Mitze
Eubanks, expressed concern for an item in the staff report that suggests an error of fact. He stated that fact
83
PLANNING COMMISSION January 3,200l Page 33
is that this was a snack-bar, turned restaurant (for a short time), turned bar and it understates the history of
this business as a component of this community. Also, this is a fifty year, plus, business and there are
many people who have resided here long enough to remember the way it was and has been over the years.
Mr. McCann further stated that to identify this business as merely a snack-bar, turned restaurant, turned
bar, is unfair and that there are many places that make Carlsbad a special place to live, and this restaurant
is one of them. He agreed with Ms. Robinson, in that to re-zone the Bistro property is not a good use of a
community resource. He pointed out that much has been said about the necessity to change the use of this
property to conform with the General Plan and that he has to disagree with that idea. He stated that he
does not agree with the concept that things must be changed, retroactively, because there has been a
General Plan Amendment. Mr. McCann further stated that to take away a valuable opportunity, on such a
questionable basis, simply does not make good common sense.
Commissioner Compas asked Mr. McCann who owns the cabaret license.
Mr. McCann replied that the cabaret license has been sold to James DiMaggio.
By consensus, the Commission once again agreed to extend the Meeting to 1l:OO p.m.
Margaret Bonus, 231 Olive Avenue, Carlsbad, stated that she has been a resident of Carlsbad since 1965
and expressed her wish to go on record with the following statement: “I request a denial, or continuance, or
a zone-change to multiple-family residential condos, high density, in the area. There is no benefit, unless
they are single-family and one story, so the people up the hill . . . The original meeting for the Beach
Overlay group was held at my home and the original plan was to have the homes on the lower lots, one-
story homes so the people, up the hill, would not lose their views. That hasn’t happened. Views and air
space need to be protected. The intent of the Beach Overlay has been abused and since the inception of
the plan there has been more traffic, less parking, and lower quality of life. Safety hazards to the cars and
pedestrians have increased, and with the higher density, some setbacks are encroaching on Carlsbad
Boulevard’s sidewalks. As the condos and other multiples increase, west of the railroad tracks in the
Overlay Zone, so does the voltage and power lines that line Garfield Avenue, from Chinquapin Avenue to
Pine Avenue. The utilities should be put underground to protect the health and safety of the residents as
well as the tourists.”
Commissioner Compas asked Ms. Bonus what all this has to do with the question of re-zoning and she
replied that it has to do with adding more people to the neighborhood by building larger places on smaller
lots.
Ms. Bonus continued: “This area is more of a tourist area; there are already several condos and we don’t
need any more there. Quality of life should be considered with regard to the increased use of water and
electricity. I am in favor of the restaurant.”
Chairperson Segall stated that letters regarding this item have been received from Seth Sharon, Mr. Winter,
and Mrs. Stewart, copies of which are on file in the Planning Department.
Joyce James, 3931 Garfield Street, Carlsbad, stated that she would like to retain and continue with a
neighborhood commercial zone and believes that such zoning helps to retain the village character and that
the family atmosphere is needed now, more than ever. She further stated that she wants the restaurant to
continue. Ms. James added that the site of the Bistro has not only been a site for Sunday afternoon
Dixieland concerts but has hosted charitable fund raisers, book signings for children’s books, and other
neighborhood style activities. Ms. James concluded by requesting that the Commission please keep the
restaurant.
Seth Sharon, 130 Tamarack Avenue, #4, Carlsbad, Manager of the apartment building directly adjacent to
the Seaside Bistro property, stated that his experience (he is the person perhaps most impacted by the
Bistro since his apartment windows face the restaurant) with the Bistro has been extremely pleasant and
there have been absolutely no problems. He further stated that he fully supports a zone-change for the
PLANNING COMMISSION January 3,200l Page 34
Ledgerwood property but also supports the retention of the commercial zone for the Bistro. Mr. Sharon
strongly urged the Commission to reject this resolution.
Robert Mantz, 125 Chesterfield, Cardiff by the Sea, requested the Commission oppose the resolution for a
zone-change and keep the property as commercial. He pointed out that he is a commercial property owner
and, in his experience, it is entirely possible to take an older property and change it to a mixed use
development. Mr. Mantz indicated that the Bistro property, as testified by some of the surrounding
residents, is best kept in its current zone. In this case it appears that the Bistro should remain as a
restaurant and the City of Carlsbad should be able to find a way to balance its use and to avoid proscribing
law to the development of land and, in his opinion, is not the way a property should evolve.
Commissioner Trigas asked Mr. Mantz what his interest is in the issue.
Mr. Mantz replied that his property is very similar to the one at issue, and that he is considering entering into
an agreement with the DiMaggios regarding the development of the property.
Diane Lantz, 144 Redwood Avenue, Carlsbad, stated that since the DiMaggios have taken over the
restaurant, they have operated the business as good neighbors and that keeping the restaurant zoned as
commercial and changing the zoning to residential for the Ledgerwood property makes perfect sense. She
expressed her only concern that although the DiMaggios have good intentions (and so far they have
exhibited those good intentions), would it be possible to do something that would ensure that the restaurant
will never revert back to what it was when it was the Sandbar.
Bennie Rodriguez, 1000 Chinquapin Avenue, Carlsbad, stated that he is a Marine, currently stationed at
Camp Pendleton and that he has found
Bistro. He continued by saying that Corrected a second home at the Seaside
each time he returns from a
deployment, he is welcomed back to the Bistro as an old friend by management, the employees, and even
the customers. Mr. Rodriguez further stated that he would hate to see all that go away and asked the
Commission to deny this resolution.
Ms. Mobaldi stated that if the zoning were to remain in some form of commercial, it is her opinion that they
can look into mechanisms for requiring a CUP. In addition, she stated that she believes that the DiMaggios
have indicated a willingness to obtain a CUP, which runs with the land so that if the business is sold at any
time in the future, the conditions of the CUP would apply to the new owner. The nature of those conditions
would remain to be seen. Conditions would be based on whatever is appropriate at the time. Also, the
DiMaggios have mentioned giving up the cabaret license, which would give some assurances.
Commissioner Trigas referred to a comment by Mr. McCann in which he stated that the government code
does not require the retroactive changing of a use to conform with the General Plan.
Ms. Mobaldi responded by stating that she does not agree with Mr. McCann in that statement. Further, the
government code does require consistency. However, there can be a legal, non-conforming use which
doesn’t necessarily mean that because the zoning or the General Plan has changed, that v
-the business is instantly or automatically forced out of business. She pointed out that,
as Mr. Donnell explained, that business can continue but cannot expand or intensify, etc.
Commissioner Baker commented that she would like to see the Seaside Bistro remain a commercial
property and suggested that the Commission find a way to make that happen.
Commissioner Nielsen stated that he believes that his fellow Commissioners would agree with him that the
Bistro should be stayed and not change the zoning.
Chairperson Segall asked for a consensus of the Commission regarding a continuance of this item.
PLANNING COMMISSION January 3,200l Page 35
Ms. Mobaldi advised the Commission to make a motion on the resolution as proposed and if it is not
approved, to direct the City Attorney’s Office to come back with a new resolution reflecting the intentions of
the Commission.
Commissioner Compas, believing this resolution to have two parts, stated that he will support the re-zoning
of the Ledgetwood property, to residential, but will not support the re-zoning of the Seaside Bistro property.
Chairperson Segall asked the Commissioners if anyone has any objection to the zone-change for the
Ledgerwood property. The unanimous response was negative.
MOTION:
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Trigas, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 4891, recommending approval of a Negative
Declaration and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4892 and 4893,
recommending approval of ZC 99-08 and LCPA 00-01, based upon the findings
contained therein.
Commissioner Baker expressed concern for the neighbors who are/or may be concerned about any future
change of ownership of the Bistro and stated that she wishes to make sure that the Commission is able to
adequately address those concerns.
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
O-7-0
None
Segall, Trigas, Nielsen, Baker, Heineman, L’Heureux, Compas
None
By consensus, the Commission directed Staff to return to the Commission, at the next Regular Meeting,
with a resolution to re-zone the Ledgerwood Property to residential and to leave the Seaside Bistro property
with the commercial designation, without a cabaret license, and require a Conditional Use Permit or some
type of controls which will run with the land.
PLANNING COMMISSION January 17,200l DRAFT page 3
1. ZC 99-08/LCPA 00-01 - CARLSBAD BOULEVARD/TAMARACK ZONE CHANGE - A city-
initiated amendment to change the City and Local Coastal Program zoning map designations of
three contiguous properties for Neighborhood Commercial and General Commercial (C-l and C-2
respectively) to Multiple-family Residential (R-3) and Beach Area Overlay Zone. The affected
properties are at 3862 and 3878 Carlsbad Boulevard and includes the Seaside Bistro. No
development is proposed with this amendment.
Chairperson Segall opened the Public Hearing.
Chairperson Segall advised the applicant that there were only six Commissioners present and asked of the
applicant wished to proceed with the hearing or wished to have the item continued to the next meeting,
when it is likely that all seven Commissioners will be present.
Representing the City of Carlsbad (the applicant), Assistant Planning Director, Gary Wayne replied that the
City wished to proceed with the hearing at this time.
Mr. Wayne introduced the item and pointed out that there is a letter regarding the subject properties, from
Mrs. Eldean Ledgerwood-Bratton, and Al and Pam Corbin, a copy of which is on file in the Planning
Department.
Project Planner, Scott Donnell presented the staff report as follows: This is a City initiated zoning
amendment, both to the Zone Change and the Local Coastal Program. It comes, primarily from a 1996 City
Council Resolution of Intent. In that resolution, Council stated its intention to re-zone three properties in the
beach area, from Commercial to Residential. Also in that resolution, they directed Staff to begin the
process and which was first presented to the Planning Commission on January 3, 2001 and continued to
this meeting. The parcels affected are the Ledger-wood properties (on the north) and the Seaside Bistro
properties (on the south). The Seaside Bistro was formerly called the Sandbar. As previously stated, this
was presented to the Commission on January 3,200l and the initial recommendation from Staff was to re-
zone all three properties from Commercial to Residential. All of the properties, adjacent to the subject
parcels shown on the exhibit, are zoned residential. The Seaside Bistro property is owned by the Mitze
Eubanks Trust. However, Jim and Monika DiMaggio are the owners and current proprietors of the
restaurant. Although Staff initially recommended the zone be changed to Residential, following the Public
Hearing (at which there was much testimony) on January 3,2001, the Planning Commission recommended
to the City Council that only the Ledgerwood parcels be re-zoned from Commercial to Residential (R-3).
With regard to the Seaside Bistro parcel, the Commission recommended that the City keep the commercial
zoning but that the City consider some kind of appropriate designation such as the C-l zone (Neighborhood
Commercial), that would have some type of land use controls whereby the City could regulate such things
as hours, noise, etc., to try to make sure that whatever commercial use (be it a restaurant or another type of
business) would be compatible with the neighborhood. Finally, the Planning Commission directed Staff to
return with a resolution incorporating the above recommendations. Staff has prepared an analysis of the
January 3, 2001 action; The first thing to be looked at is “what an appropriate designation might be.”
Presently the City is undergoing a commercial study, which would include changes to the overall General
Plan Policies and Land Use Designations regarding commercial uses. Among the recommendations are
that the “C” (General Commercial) and “N” (Neighborhood Commercial) General Plan Designations be
eliminated. In addition the study underway, there are some problems with the current zoning designations
that could be applied to the Seaside Bistro property. C-l may well be an appropriate zoning for this
restaurant property. However, a C-l zoning calls for a restaurant with alcohol sales, have a Conditional
Use Permit. A CUP is certainly the kind of control the City is interested in seeing in order to assure that the
uses are compatible. The property is currently zoned C-2 (General Commercial) which does not require a
CUP for a restaurant serving alcohol. Another zone that might be applied to the property is the C-T zone
(Commercial/Tourist). However, the C-T zone requires a 3 acre minimum to any lot that it is applied to.
When you consider what the current zonings allow and don’t allow, the study that is underway with the
General Plan, there are some further actions and further analysis that needs to take place before Staff can
recommend an appropriate designation. In addition, there may be some potential Coastal Commission
issues. If the Planning Commission and the City Council see fit to designate the Seaside Bistro property as
Commercial, the Coastal Commission will probably be interested in some kind of Tourist Serving zone and
87
PLANNING COMMISSION January 17,200l Page 4
the C-l zone may not be appropriate as it allows uses such as “office”, which the Coastal Commission does
not consider a tourist-serving use. In addition to that, if the Seaside Bistro parcel is designated for
commercial development, there are some limitations. Looking at the restaurant that is currently there and
based on its square footage, it is approximately twenty to twenty-five parking spaces short. The restaurant
parking requirement in the zoning ordinances is based on the building’s square footage, not on the seating
area. Another potential limitation is the set-back. At this time the building has a zero (0) set-back on the
common property line with the Ledgerwood parcels and also on the property line that is common with the
adjacent apartment building to the east. While it is not clear what zoning could be applied, the set-backs
are clear. Under the current C-l zone, there is a requirement for a ten foot set-back between a commercial
structure and a property line that borders residential. (Note: the recommendation is to re-zone the
Ledger-wood parcels to Residential (R-3) and as such, would make the Seaside Bistro non-conforming.
With the lot size and limitation of 14,000 square feet, with the parking shortage and set-backs, there are
limitations as to what can be done with the property. For the Seaside Bistro to add parking, it would be
necessary to demolish a portion of the building. Under its present configuration, there is no way that
enough parking spaces could be added. The lot size is also restricted because it has two street frontages;
Carlsbad Boulevard and Tamarack Avenue. A potential possibility is that if the two Ledgerwood properties
(those fronting on Carlsbad Boulevard, immediately north of the Seaside Bistro) were to remain commercial,
a parking lot could be built on the Ledgerwood parcels. However, as indicated in the letter previously
mentioned, the buyers of the Ledgerwood parcels are very much in favor of zoning the Ledgerwood parcels
to R-3, and that they intend to build single-family homes as opposed to allowing any kind of parking lot
expansion. Also, the other adjacent properties are strictly residential and fully developed and there is no
land available that the Seaside Bistro could expand upon. There are land use controls that would probably
be required to be placed on any use on the Seaside Bistro parcel, to ensure that it would be compatible with
the surrounding neighborhood. As was previously discussed at the last Planning Commission Meeting, a
Conditional Use Permit is likely because it enables the City to regulate things such as hours, noise,
architecture, etc., all in an effort to ensure compatibility. With all that said, Staff recognizes that the
Planning Commission realizes that this property may be a great site for a commercial development with
appropriate Land Use controls. Based on that recommendation, Staff has fashioned a resolution that
contains a number of findings, all of which say that the Seaside Bistro property has the potential to be a
good commercial site. Staff recognizes that the property has been used, historically, as a commercial
property and also with a restaurant use. Staffs recommendation therefore is, that the Planning Commission
recommend to the City Council the re-zoning of the Ledgerwood parcels from Commercial to Residential
and, at this time, there be no change to the current zoning of the Seaside Bistro Parcel. It is further
recommended that the Commission recommend to the City Council, that the Council consider allowing
Commercial to remain as a conforming use and accordingly direct Staff to conduct some further analysis,
prepare appropriate Land Use Amendments to the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, and hold
public hearings on same. If the Planning Commission and the City Council agree that the Seaside Bistro
property should remain Commercial, then this process will be started all over again. Staff will come back
with a Staff Report for the General Plan Amendment, etc., there will be Public Hearings, and the neighbors
within a six hundred foot radius of the Seaside Bistro parcel will be notified.
Chairperson Segall asked if Staff has considered keeping the Ledgerwood property as Commercial.
Mr. Donnell replied that Staff has not made an analysis regarding the retention of the Ledgerwood property
as Commercial.
Chairperson Segall asked if that is something that might be considered if the entire parcel is examined. He
stated that it appeared that the Commission, at the last meeting, might be interested in keeping the
Commercial integrity of at least part of that property. However, he continued, he is not sure that the
Commission has really looked at what is the best use for all of the land. Chairperson Segall also asked
what process would have to occur if the Commission wanted the entire parcel evaluated from a Commercial
standpoint and not from a Residential standpoint.
Mr. Wayne interjected and stated that the Commission would have to amend the resolution that Staff is
putting before the Commission because it is Staffs intention to follow the recommendation of the
Commission, at the last meeting, to change the Ledgerwood parcels to Residential. However, if the
Commission wishes to re-consider their recommendation, Staff will take forward whatever the re-
PLANNING COMMISSION January 17,200l Page 5
consideration is. What Staff has done in preparing this Staff report and resolution for the Commission’s
consideration, is to bring up some of the issues that arise from the Commission’s recommendations to the
City Council. Essentially, it is evidence that should go into the record and be part of the Commission’s
consideration. Mr. Wayne further stated that Staff has no plans to evaluating the Ledgerwood parcel as
anything other than Residential.
Commissioner Compas asked Mr. Donnell to respond to some of the statements in the previously
mentioned letter.
Mr. Donnell responded by stating the following: The re-zoning application has been underway since the
Summer of 2000. When he was told that the Corbin’s were the prospective buyers, he contacted them to
discuss the application. Since then, he has been in contact with Mr. Corbin, on a number of occasions. In
addition, the Staff reports as well as the Public Hearing notices, have been mailed to the Corbin’s, so they
are aware of what is going on. He doesn’t believe there has been any time when Mr. Corbin has been
informed that the City is definitely going to change the zoning to Residential, no questions asked.
Commissioner Compas asked if any part of the Seaside Bistro in encroaching on the Ledgerwood property.
Mr. Donnell replied that Staff has been unable to verify whether or not there is an encroachment and that he
has spoken to the Chief Building Inspector regarding the issue. The Building Inspector’s response was
that, as far as the City knows, there has not been a study done to determine any encroachment.
Commissioner Baker asked if the property has been surveyed by the Corbin’s, to determine where the lot
lines are.
Mr. Donnell replied that he is unsure as to whether there has been a survey.
Commissioner Baker stated that it would probably be prudent to have a survey and Mr. Donnell agreed.
Commissioner Baker asked what will happen if the Commission determines that they want the Seaside
Bistro property to remain as commercial.
Mr. Donnell replied that it would have to be determined what the Commercial zone would be. However, he
added, with the Commercial Study underway, it would be difficult to pick a zone and a General Plan
Designation since everything is quite up in the air.
For clarification, Commissioner Baker stated that even if it is the intention of the Commission to keep the
Seaside Bistro property as Commercial, there is no way the Commission could make that determination at
this meeting, since it is not possible to pick a zone designation for the property at this time. Mr. Donnell
agreed with the Commissioner’s statement.
Commissioner Baker asked what kind of time frame there would be if the Commission agrees with the
resolution.
Mr. Donnell replied that it could be only a few months or it could take several months.
Chairperson Segall asked Mr. Donnell is there is also a “noticing” issue involved.
Mr. Donnell replied that what the neighbors received, initially, was a notice that all of the properties would be
re-zoned from Commercial to Residential, so, if the Commission’s action is to keep part of it Commercial, it
might warrant a re-notice that, in turn, might bring out people who otherwise might not respond.
Commissioner Baker stated that this is the same issue and no promises have been made to the Corbin’s
that this was going to be re-zoned to Residential and not promises have been made to the surrounding
neighbors that any change is going to be made.
89
PLANNING COMMISSION January 17,200l Page 6
Mr. Donnell responded that except that in the case of this recommendation to the City Council, to only
consider (as opposed to taking action) going from one to the other.
Mr. Wayne interjected and stated that it would create a technical problem, in that the Commission would
effectively denying a portion of the zone change request. Technically, per the city code, if the Commission
denies the change, the only way that the Council would hear the issue, would be on appeal. In fact, it was
the Council that passed a Resolution of Intent to change the zone, not to change the General Plan. It
would, effectively, short circuit this whole issue coming before the Council.
Commission Baker asked if the Commission’s decision would be final if they reached a decision at this
meeting.
Mr. Wayne replied that if the Commission were to deny it, it would be final. He added that if the
Commission denies a zone change, the issue ends with the Commission.
Regarding set-backs for commercial properties abutting residential properties, Commissioner Trigas asked
how the issue would be dealt with if the Ledgerwood property were to be zoned Residential while the
Seaside Bistro property remained Commercial.
Mr. Donnell replied that he is not sure how that would be handled. He added that he has spoken with the
applicant’s attorney and that they had some comments to make on the subject. However, he continued,
Staff considers that a large issue.
Commissioner Trigas asked if Staff is sure of the legalities or the process if that happened.
Mr. Donnell replied that if the Seaside Bistro property were to be designated Commercial, the issue would
have to be resolved because the property is non-conforming in terms of its parking requirements, as it is
today.
Commissioner Trigas asked if the Commission can do that.
Mr. Donnell replied that if a requirement for a CUP were attached to that restaurant, one of the findings
would be compliance with the zoning ordinance and that could not be made because they are already short
on the parking requirement. Some kind of adjustment would have to be made.
Commissioner Trigas asked if it wouldn’t be prudent to have the answers to the questions brought forth at
this meeting, before the Commission makes any decisions.
Mr. Donnell replied that from a feasibility standpoint, yes.
Mr. Wayne interjected and suggested that the Commission is not hearing anything regarding a CUP and
that they should consider that there are provisions in the state law that provide for parking variances. He
added that if findings can be made to allow such a variance from a parking standard, then that is a
possibility that might help solve this situation. He also stated that there may be other solutions that the
property owner or the lessee has thought of and would like to discuss.
Commissioner Trigas asked Mr. Wayne to comment on the setbacks.
Mr. Wayne replied that if the use is made legal, then the structure becomes non-conforming. He added that
Carlsbad has a number of non-conforming buildings in the city. Being designated as a non-conforming
building merely sets limitation on the amount of expansion that can happen. The hope is that the non-
conforming structures can be brought into conformance, over time.
Commissioner Trigas asked what recourse the residents, adjacent to the Commercial use, have.
PLANNING COMMISSION January 17,200l Page 7
Mr. Wayne replied that with respect to residents next to a commercial use in this case, would not impact it
and it would still be subject to the same set-back requirements of the underlying zone. Residential could be
built per the set-back requirements of the R-3 zone which is what Staff is recommending on the
Ledgerwood property. Additionally, the Bistro would have zero set-back, non-conforming. The Ledgemood
property could be built but they would have to live with the non-conforming commercial structure, for a time,
on the Seaside Bistro property.
Chairperson Segall asked what the process is if it becomes non-conforming and is there a period of time
when the City or the Commission can go in and give them a specific time limit in which to bring their
structure into conformance. He added that this was an issue at the last meeting.
Mr. Wayne responded by say that this is a different type of a non-conforming and what would happen
before, is that the Commission would be making this a non-conforming use as well. Therefore, there would
be a non-conforming structure with a non-conforming use, within the non-conforming structure. Now there
would be a conforming use within a non-conforming structure.
Assistant City Attorney, Jane Mobaldi interjected and stated that the code does allow for amortizing non-
conforming structures, over a period of time, based on the type of construction, the investment, etc., so the
Planning Commission could, theoretically, could do that if the structure became non-conforming. They
would then set a time that the structure could remain in existence. Eventually the building would have to be
brought into conformance.
Chairperson Segall then stated the same process would be used for this as is used in a non-conforming
process.
Mr. Wayne stated that it would be further addressed in the CUP process.
Commissioner Heineman asked that if the Commission should leave the Seaside Bistro property as
Commercial, would there still need to be a parking variance.
Mr. Wayne responded that the owner of the Seaside Bistro probably has some solutions to the parking
problem, in mind. However, one method left to the Commission is a parking variance if the findings can be
made.
Commissioner Heineman asked that if a parking variance should be granted, wouldn’t that result in pushing
the parking problem right back into the residential area where there have already been problems.
Mr. Wayne responded that perhaps there could be a problem, but suggested that the Commission should
hear from the applicant before drawing any conclusions.
Commissioner Baker, referring to the issue of the ability of the Bistro owners to get financing for any
improvements or expansion, asked if a designation of a non-conforming building will potentially have an
impact on those efforts.
Ms. Mobaldi stated that the code does not allow the expansion of a non-conforming building and therefore
would not be an issue.
Using the example of remodeling, Commission Baker asked if that would have an impact on their ability to
get financing.
Mr. Wayne responded that the code allows for a very limited amount of expansion, approximately 40%,
providing the non-conformity is not increased. He added that that would not be a problem here because
they don’t have the parking necessary to expand.
Commissioner Baker asked if, like other businesses in the Redevelopment Area, can’t the Bistro owners
provide parking elsewhere to meet their parking requirements.
9/
PLANNING COMMISSION January 17,200l Page 6
Mr. Wayne replied that the Redevelopment Area has a Parking District and there are no other Parking
Districts within the City, and he does not envision another such district being established.
Commissioner Baker asked if it is possible for the Bistro to lease parking in the beach parking lot across the
street.
Mr. Wayne replied that the referenced lot is a state parking lot and although the City pays the state for the
use of the lot in order to keep it as free parking, it would become a very complicated issue if they attempted
to get permission for the Bistro to use it.
Chairperson Segall opened Public Testimony.
Eldean Bratton, 2105 Linda Ln., Carlsbad, stated that she is the daughter of the late Charles Ledgerwood,
and is the Trustee for the Charles Ledgerwood Trust. Ms. Bratton stated that in May, 2000, she received a
letter from the City of Carlsbad informing her that the two lots fronting on Carlsbad Boulevard would be
changed from Commercial to Residential (R-3) zoning. It was at that time that Ms. Bratton decided to sell
the entire parcel to Al and Pam Corbin, after they assured her that her mentally disabled sister could remain
in the family home that is currently on the property, for at least two or more years. She pointed out that Mr.
Ledgemood had approved the sale of the lots to the Corbin’s, a few years ago, and it was (and remains so)
their intention to build homes on the property. Since the Corbin’s and Ms. Bratton have been in escrow, Ms.
Bratton stated the Corbin’s have had plans drawn for homes on each of the four lots. Ms. Bratton continued
by pointing out that if the City rules to keep the front two lots in a Commercial Zone, the Corbin’s will not be
allowed to build two of the four homes.
Regarding a statement in the previously mentioned letter, which referred to only having 24 hours notice of
the Planning Commission meeting, Ms. Bratton stated that she had received a telephone call from Project
Planner Scott Donnell, the day before this meeting, at which time he asked what she thought about having
her property remain Commercial. Her response, she continued, was to ask if houses could still be built and
that he had told her “no”. Ms. Bratton further stated that she immediately called Mr. Corbin to the telephone
to talk with Mr. Donnell. Ms. Bratton stated that after that telephone conversation, Mr. Corbin explained it all
to her. She went on to explain that they were very surprised at this turn of events and very concerned
because they are already in escrow and a great deal of money has already been spent on plans, etc. With
regard to the two front lots remaining commercial and becoming a parking lot, Ms. Bratton pointed out that
not only would that be a blight on prime frontage but it would result in even more traffic and noise.
Commissioner Compas asked Ms. Bratton why she did not attend the meeting on January 3,200l.
Ms. Bratton replied that she was in attendance but because it sounded like everything was going along
quite smoothly, she didn’t see any point in offering any testimony.
Chairperson Segall, referred once again to the letter, and asked Ms. Bratton if she has a concern about
leaving the Seaside Bistro property zoned as Commercial.
Ms. Bratton replied that she has no quarrel with that and that for as long as she can remember, that site has
always had some type of restaurant on it and that from a historical standpoint, it is important to keep the
Bistro.
Commissioner Baker asked Ms. Bratton if she has been aware that it will be the Commission that will decide
this issue or was she under the impression that this was something that had already been decided and that
it could not be changed.
Ms. Bratton replied that when her father spoke to the City Council and the Mayor, in 1996, they were told
that the City has a General Plan and the City must go by the General Plan. Therefore, the zoning must be
changed and if it wasn’t changed in 1996, it would definitely be changed at some later date. She added that
it has always been her impression that the zone change was etched in stone.
9 a
PLANNING COMMISSION January 17,200l Page 9
Commissioner L’Heureux stated that she had driven by the subject properties and noticed that there is
grading being done on the east end of the property, and asked Ms. Bratton if that is a part of the lots
fronting on Carlsbad Boulevard.
Ms. Bratton replied that that it is the back part of the parcel which is already zoned Residential.
Bill Lantz, 144 Redwood Avenue, Carlsbad, stated that he has no problem with the Bistro remaining as
Commercial except that he would like to see a C-l designation there, governed by a CUP and not allow the
business to hold a cabaret license. He further stated that because the old Sandbar had a cabaret license,
there were numerous problems associated with that business. Mr. Lantz stated that he lives across the
street from the Ledgetwood parcel and that there are a lot of problems with parking. Mr. Lantz asked that if
the City Council actually started the whole process to mandate that that property be changed to R-3,
excluding the Bistro, why would there even be a question as to whether the Ledger-wood property should
become an R-3 zone. However, he continued, things are much better than they were when the Sandbar
was still there, when there were drunks, and beer bottles, and unacceptable behaviors exhibited on a nightly
basis. He went on to say that the Bistro doesn’t foster any of those problems and they rather like having it
nearby. He urged the Commission to approve the change of the Ledgerwood property to R-3, and leave the
Seaside Bistro in a commercial designation but to ask for a suspension or cancellation of the current
cabaret license. Mr. Lantz also stated that they are not just a beach neighborhood, they are permanent
residents who have invested a great deal of money and time in their homes and they want to make it look
nice. He added that to put a parking lot on the front of the Ledgerwood parcel would be detrimental to the
residential area and defeat their purpose in trying to make it into a truly residential area.
Janet Robinson, 772 Corinia Court, Encinitas, Attorney for Jim and Monika DiMaggio, stated the following:
She is aware that Mr. DiMaggio has spoken with Mr. Corbin, a number of times, and that all parties have
seemed quite comfortable with what has been proposed, in as far as the Seaside Bistro remaining
Commercial and the Ledgerwood property changing to R-3. So, when they received the previously
mentioned letter, at this meeting, they were very surprised. However, she feels sure that they can meet and
solve most, if not all, of Mr. & Mrs. Corbin’s concerns. The applicant is intending to work very closely with
the City and with the neighbors to make sure that everyone’s concerns and needs are met. Ultimately, as
was mentioned at the last meeting, the DiMaggio’s would like to rebuild the Bistro and create either a
smaller restaurant or a small restaurant in combination with a few rooms resembling a small European Inn.
In addition, the long term goal is to resolve all the parking and set-back problems. When they do re-build,
they want to do something very attractive and that fits in with the rest of the neighborhood. At that time,
most (if not all) the parking problems will be solved. The portion of the restaurant that is on or near the
common property line with the Ledgerwood property, is not really necessary to the business and will be
taken down. By doing so, they will reduce the square footage of the building thereby reducing the parking
requirement and satisfy the set-back requirements. If they were to take away that portion of the building
they would lose the restrooms and subsequently be forced to remodel. It would be very good if they could
do that all at once. Finally, if it is feasible, they may be able to go to underground parking. In any case,
they want to make the restaurant smaller, and with some creative designing, maybe they can put the rooms .
on the Ledgerwood side of the building so that it will be quieter on that side of the property. Perhaps a
parking variance might be needed if they can’t come up with quite the number of spaces required, but the
DiMaggio’s can probably get very close to the requirement. This is, historically, a restaurant site and
because so many have and still enjoy it, it should remain and to that end, the DiMaggio’s have every
intention of working with the neighborhood in an effort to come up with some creative solutions. The
DiMaggio’s do not have a problem with the possibility of a CUP and they understand that they have to live
with the neighborhood and that it may well be appropriate for the City to regulate the hours of operation as
well as other facets of the operation. They are happy to work with the City through the process to get
whatever appropriate General Plan designation, whether its C-l or some other zone designation.
Commissioner Compas asked if his assumption is correct in that the applicant supports the Planning
Commission Resolutions that are before the Commission at this time.
Ms. Robinson replied that he is correct.
93
PLANNING COMMISSION January 17,200l Page 10
Commissioner Baker asked Mr. Robinson if they are aware that this could go through the process and still
be changed.
Ms. Robinson replied that they are quite relieved that the Commission is considering taking another look at
the property and recommending that it remain Commercial. She also stated that she hopes the City Council
will agree with the Commission. She also stated that they realize that there are some technical issues still
to be addressed and also that they will be a non-conforming building for a period of time. All of this is
acceptable as long as the DiMaggio’s can still operate the restaurant for the time they need in order to
purchase the property. They also need the time to come up with a new building design and go through the
process of rebuilding and remodeling, which will create an even more appropriate use for the site and the
neighborhood.
Seeing no one else wishing to testify, Chairperson Segall closed Public Testimony.
Commissioner Heineman asked which of the commercial designations require a Conditional Use Permit.
Mr. Donnell replied that it is a C-l zone.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Compas stated his support for this recommendation. He further stated that this is a historical
restaurant and should be remain in the neighborhood.
Commissioner L’Heureux also stated support for the recommendation.
Commissioner Heineman also stated his support for the recommendation and added that it is a rather sterile
ocean front in that area and he feels it delightful that there is something there instead of houses and
condos, and something that seems to serve the neighborhood well.
Commissioner Baker concurred with the previous comments and voiced her support.
Commissioner Trigas stated her support for the recommendation.
Chairperson Segall also concurred with the support of the other Commissioners, in terms of the General
Use designations making this a commercial site for the good of the community. He thanked Staff for giving
the Commission the tools (six excellent points) they needed to make the proper findings and preserve the
integrity of what is now at the beach.
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Trigas, and duly seconded, adopt Planning Commission
Resolution No. 4891, recommending approval of a Negative Declaration and
Addendum and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4892 and 4893,
recommending approval of ZC 99-08 and LCPA 00-01, based upon the findings
contained therein.
VOTE: 6-O-O
AYES: Segall, Trigas, Baker, Heineman, L’Heureux, Compas
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Nielsen
94
(Form A)
TO: CITY CLERK ’ S OFF ICE
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT .-
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice
zc g+OB/LCPA 00-01 - Carlshad Boulevard/Tamarack Ave Zone Change
for a public hearing before the City Council.
Please nOtiCe the item for the Council meeting Of First Available Hearing
.
Thank you.
,
Assistant City Man-- Date
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200
Carlsbad Village Drive, at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, 3-6-Oi, to consider approving a Negative
Declaration and Addendum, Zone Change, and Local Coastal Program Amendment to change the
zoning from Neighborhood Commercial (C-l) and General Commercial (C-2) to Multiple-family
Residential (R-3) and Beach Area Overlay Zone. The two affected properties are at 3862
Carlsbad Boulevard and are between the Seaside Bistro and Redwood Avenue; maintaining at
this time the existing C-2 zoning on the property at 3878 Carlsbad Boulevard, on which is
located the Seaside Bistro; and directing staff to process the necessary environmental review and
,appropriate amendments to the General Plan, Local Coastal Program, and Zoning Ordinance at
public hearings to enable consideration of allowing commercial to remain as a conforming use on
the property at 3878 Carlsbad Boulevard.
Lots 1 and 2 in ‘Block ‘G’ of Palisades in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof
No. 1747, filed in the Office of the Recorder of said San Diego
County, February 5, 1923. (Property owned by Charles B.
Ledgerwood Trust.)
Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 3713, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County on April 2 1, 1975 as file/Page No.
75092233 of Official Records. (Property owned by Mitze H.
Eubanks Trust.)
The above-proposed actions are city-initiated and involve no development.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after 3-2-91.‘. If you have any
questions, please call Scott Donnell in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4618.
The time within which you may judicially challenge this Negative Declaration, Zone Code
Amendment, and Local Coastal Program Amendment, if approved, is established by state law
and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge the Negative Declaration, Zone Code
Amendment, and Local Coastal Program Amendment in court, you may be limited to raising
only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in
written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: ZC 99-08/LCPA 00-01
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BL/TAMARACK ZONE CHANGE
PUBLISH: FEBRUARY 20, 2001
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
CARLSBAD BLVD/TAMARACK AVE
@
ZONE CHANGE
ZC 99908lLCPA 00-O 1
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use temptate fo: 5:::.
City Clerk 1 .Ibl
CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE CA COASTAL COMMISSION
801 PINE AVE 2730 LOKER AVE WEST STE 103
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008 7575 METROPOLITAN DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME REGIONAL WATER QUALITY SD COUNTY PLANNING
STE 50 STE B STE B
330 GOLDENSHORE 9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD 5201 RUFFIN RD
LONG BEACH CA 90802 SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331 SAN DIEGO CA 92123
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
JUDY NEWMAN HILDING KIPNIS LYON & KELLY STE 220 8910 UNIVERSITY CENTER LN SAN DIEGO CA 92122
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST SANDAG
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR STE 800
SAN DIEGO CA 92123 401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
I.P.U.A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
URBAN STUDIES
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY
SERVICES
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING
DEPT
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROJECT PLANNER
SCOTT DONNELL
l/31/2001
n &> AVERY@ Address Labels Laser 5160@
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Lse ierlplatc :c- i _ _:
LABELS - 5 163
LCPA MAILING LIST (GOVERNMENT AGENCIES)
SANDAG (SAN DIEGO COUNTY)
WELLS FARGO PLAZA
SUITE 800
APPENDIX A (LIST IS REQUIRED BY COASTAL 401 B ST
COMMISSION) SAN DIEGO CA 92101
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
ROOM 700
1lOWESTAST
SANDIEGO CA 92101
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH c OFFICE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
PO BOX 3044
SACRAMENTO CA 95812-3044
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
STEVE SHAFFER, AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
ROOM 100
1220 N ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION & HSG AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PATRICIA W NEAL ROOM 5504
DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR HOUSING 1120 N ST
SUITE 2450 SACRAMENTO CA 95814
980 NINTH ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
DISTRICT 11 CALTRANS
BILL FIGGE, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
MAIL STATION 65
2829 JUAN ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92 110
RESOURCES AGENCY
RM 1311
1416 NINTH ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95812
.4VERY@ Shipping Labels laser 5163@
U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
SUITE W-2605
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825- 1888
ENERGY RESOURCES, CONSERVATION
AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
CHUCK NAJARIAN
1516 NINTH ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
COASTAL CONSERVANCY
SUITE 1100
1330 BROADWAY
OAKLAND CA 94612
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
P 0 BOX 944246
SACRAMENTO CA 94244-2460
MARINE RESOURCES REGION, DR & G DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES SUPERVISOR DOUG WICIUZER, ENVIROMENTAL COORD
350 GOLDEN SHORE P 0 BOX 944246
LONG BEACH CA 90802 SACRAMENTO CA 94244-2460
SOUTHERN REGION
JOHN WALSTROM, TECHNICAL SERVICES
8885 RIO SAN DIEGO DR
SAND DIEGO CA 92108
STATE LANDS COMMISSION
DWIGHT SANDERS
SUITE 1005
100 HOWE AVE
SACRAMENTO CA 95825-8202
SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION
AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
BILL TRAVIS
SUITE 2600
50 CALIFORNIA ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 9411 l-4704
WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
PO BOX 100
SACARAMENTO CA 95801
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
SUITE B
9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD
SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331
BARRY BRAYER, AWP-8
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
WESTERN REGION
PO BOX 92007
LOS ANGELES CA 90009
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
ATTN: GARY
RESOURCE CONSERVATIONIST
SUITE 102
2121-C SECOND ST
DAVIS CA 95616
USDA - RURAL DEVLOPMENT
430 ST DEPT 4169
DAVIS CA 95616
PACIFIC REGIONAL MANAGER
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMIN - OCRM, 55MC4
N/ORM - 3
1305 EAST-WEST HIGHWAY
SILVER SPRING MD 20910
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
CHAIRMAN
722 JACKSON PLACE NORTH WEST
WASHINGTON DC 2006
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
LILY ALYEA - SUITE 702
333 MARKET ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105-2 197
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
611 RYAN PLAZA DR STE 400
ARLINGTON TX 7601 l-4005
,DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT ENGINEER
PO BOX 2711
LOS ANGELES CA 90053
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
COMMANDANT, ELEVENTH NAVAL DISTRICT
DISTRICT CIVIL ENGINEER
SAN DIEGO CA 92132
U. S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
SUITE RM W1834
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
U. S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
LOWER COLORADO REGION
PO BOX 427
BOULDER CITY CO 89005
SUPERINTENDENT
CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARR
1901 SPINNAKER DR
SAN BUENAVENTURA CA 93001
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
RONALD M. JAEGER
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
CLIFFORD EMMERLING, DIRECTOR
SUITE 350
901 MARKET ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVE
DUNCAN LENT HOWARD, REGIONAL ADMIN
450 GOLDEN GATE AVE
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102
U. S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
MID-PACIFIC REGION
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
DOUGLAS WARNOCK, SUPERINTENDENT
REDWOOD NATIONAL PARK
DRAWERN
1111 2NDST
CRESCENT CITY CA 95531
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SUITE 103
75 75 METROPOLITAN DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use temptate io: Sit-:-
H:kDMIN’iLABELS\LCP
INTERESTED PARTIES
CITY OF ENCINITAS
COM DEV DEPARTMENT
505 S VULCAN AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
TABATA FARMS
PO BOX 1338
CARLSBAD CA 92018
OLIVENHAIN M.W.D.
1966 OLIVENHAIN ROAD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CRAIG ADAMS
SIERRA CLUB
SAN DIEGO CHAPTER
3820 RAY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
LESLIE ESPOSITO
1893 AMELFI DRIVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
LANIKAI LANE PARK
SHARP; SPACE 3
6550 PONTO DRIVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
KIM SEIBLY
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC
PO BOX 1831
SAN DIEGO CA 92112
PERRY A LAMB
890 MERE POINT ROAD
BRUNSWICK MAINE 04011
RICHARD RETECKI
COASTAL CONSERVANCY
SUITE 1100
1330 BROADWAY
OAKLAND CA 94612
DALE/DONNA SCHREIBER
7163 ARGONAURA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
COPIES TO:
+ CITY CLERK
+ MAIN LIBRARY
+ BRANCH LIBRARY
+ WATER DISTRICT
REGIONAL WATER QUAL. BD
EXECUTIVE OFFICER
SUITE B
9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD
SAN DIEGO CA 92124
GUY MOORE JR
6503 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CYRIL AND MARY GIBSON
12142 ARGYLE DRIVE
LOS ALAMITOS CA 90702
JOHN LAMB
1446 DEVLIN DRIVE
LOS ANGELES CA 90069
MARY GRIGGS
STATE LANDS COMMISSSION
SUITE 100 SOUTH
100 HOWE AVE
SACRAMENTO CA 95825-8202
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
PLANNING & LAND USE DEPT
JOAN VOKAC - SUITE B-5
5201 RUFFIN ROAD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
ANTHONY BONS
25709 HILLCREST AVE
ESCONDIDO CA 92026
KENNETH E SULZER
SANDAG - EXEC DIRECTOR
1 ST INT’L PLAZA, SUITE 800
401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
JAN SOBEL
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
PO BOX 1605
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BILL MCLEAN
c/o LAKESHORE GARDENS
7201 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SPIERS ENTERPRISES
DWIGHT SPIERS
SUITE 139
23 CORPORATE PLAZA
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660
SUPERVISOR BILL HORN
ATTN: ART DANELL
COUNTY OF SD, ROOM 335
1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
LEE ANDERSON
CRA PRESIDENT
5200 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
FLOYD ASHBY
416 LA COSTA AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
GEORGE BOLTON
6583 BLACKRAIL ROAD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICES
2730 LOKER AVE WEST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
n /&b AVERY@ Address Labels laser 5160@
l aO$jryoth FwheetsrM
a
AGNER KEVIN
3881 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ALBRIGHT HELEN V TR
111 TAMARACK AVE #El08
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ALFORD GERALD E&JACQUELINE A
1757 ACACIA HL
DIAMOND BAR CA 91785
BALLARD RONALD
4211 BEACH BLUFF RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BEACH KING INC
C/O SOUTHLAND COMMUNlTlES
ONE COLUMBIA #2020
ALISO VIEJO, CA 92858
BEASLEY ROGER K
111 SEQUOIA AVE IH
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BENDER FAMILY PARTNERSHIP
C/O MARK BENDER
‘4008 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BENHAM DERECK R
3820 CARLSBAD BLVD #B
CARLSBAD CA 92008
e qe, ssaJpofSf te~$f&&.5?~? I ’ b
1. .
CLOUD PERCY D&LUCILLE A
5201 SHORE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BLACK LILLIE M
3921 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92098
BLACKBURN DAVID W TRUST 04-07-92
111-A SEOUOIA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BUTLER CHRIS A&TEDDl M
251 REDWOOD AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CAMPBELL JONATHAN W&KATHLEEN
327 N VALENCIA ST
GLENDORA CA 91741
CARR FAMILY TRUST 1 l-l 3-98
9827 N 28TH PL
PHOENIX AZ 85028
CERECEDESRUBENRLANNC
3875 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ClVALLERl JOE&CHARLOTTE TRUST
3389 CARLSBAD BLY D WB
CARLSBAD CA 92908
CLARK ROBERT J FAMILY TRUST
2028 CAMINO LOMA VERDE
VISTA CA 92084
CLOSSEY GUY D&ELAINE E
189 SEQUOIA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CONIGLIO CARLO J&MIRIAM D
56 FLAMINGO ST
NEW ORLEANS LA 70124
CORBIN ALGIE R&PAMELA
187 REDWOOD AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DALY TIMOTHY W&VERONICA M
” 3831 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DUERST GARY M&SUSAN L
1443 RIMROAD RD
RIVERSIDE CA 92506
EALY HARRISON D REVOCABLE TRUa
3807 LARK ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92103
EATON HOMER L&NINA B FAMILY
PMB 347
300 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR #108A
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ELG DORIS F LlVlNG TRUST
227 HUNTINGTON
IRVINE CA 92820
ENRIGHT MICHAEL A&CAROL M
72 FREMONT PLACE
LOS ANGELES CA 90005
amoorn reea 3neeLs.-*’ @09K .4asq US2 Lempiare 10: >,c..
9~lssa~?i-w <AUSW”\ .: &.L-
ENRIGHT MICHAEL&CAROL
72 FREMONT PLACE
LOS ANGELES CA 90005
ENRIGHT MICHAEL&CAROL M
72 FREMONT PL
LOS ANGELES CA 90005
ESPEY FAMILY TRUST 04-l&93
470 38TH AVE
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94121
EUBANKS MlTZE H TRUST 10-21-97
27912 RURAL LN
LAGUNA NIGUEL CA 92877
GARCIA PHILIP MLJEANEITE R
P 0 BOX 130700
CARLSBAD CA 92013
GARNER ROGER D TR
721 PASSIFLORA AVE
LEUCADIA CA 92924
GRAMS ALBERT C&CAROL C
15202 TUROUOISE CIR
CHINO HILLS CA 91709
GRIFFING FAMILY DECEDENTS TRUS’
2408 SONORA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92008
GASKINS FAMILY 1989 TRUST 09-20-89 GRIFFING FAMILY TRUSTA&
548 N 13TH AVE t304 2408 SONOR/
UPLAND CA 91788 CA/Wt&A92008
GEMINI TRUST HARRIS JAMES T TR
1520 KING ST 144 SEQUOIA AVE #2
SANTA CRUZ CA 95060 CARLSBAD CA 92oocI
GILLINGHAM ROBERT S&BERTHA A HEARD FAMILY TRUST 03-07-00
2828 WILSON ST 100 SAGE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008 PEARCE AZ 85825
EVANS T RICHARD REVOCABLE LIVING GOLDEN EDWARD&JOAN REVOCABLE HEINlTZ GARY R&NANCY C
3351 NOREEN DR 4189 KIMBERLY LN 111 TAMARACK AVE #G201
COLUMBUS OH 43221 OCEANSIDE CA 92058 CARLSBAD CA 92008
FRENCHABOY FMAILY TRUST 10-28-92
3981 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
FRONCZAK F S GOLDSTEIN FAMILY TRUST 03-27-98 INGELMAN REVOCABLE FAMILY TRU
3820 CARLSBAD BLVD #A 180 TAMARACK AVE 473 30TH ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92098 MANHATTAN BEACH CA 90268
FRONCZAK FRANCES S GORMAN THOMAS J JR&LOIS B
3820 CARLSBAD BLVD #A 5824 S COLLEGE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008 TEMPE AZ 85283
[
GALLAVAN RICHARD J&NANCY P GOT0 JAMES T&SHERYL JAMES JOYCE A TR
3717 GARFIELD ST 3911 GARFIELD ST 3931 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
$@ ~~33~~ asflddress Labels
xnoorn reeci xvxxs~-*
l @09TS Jasel l
JEFFREY CARL J KING FAMILY TRUST
250 TAMARACK AVE 3924 STANFORD AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008 MARINA DEL REY CA 90292
LINDSTROM RABBE&ROCHELLE
P 0 BOX 2962
ESCONDIDO CA 92033
JONES EDWARD WILLIAM KUZMACK STEPHEN J&TEAL EILEEN M LOOMIS FAMILY TRUST 06-26-91
3748 GARFIELD ST 3970 GARFIELD ST 111 TAMARACK AVE 1302
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD iA 92008
JONES GERALD PhMYRNA K TRS
P 0 BOX 952
CARLSBAD CA 92018
JONES JANIE LYNN TR
3630 SURFWOOD ROAD
MALIBU CA 99265
JORDAN RAYMOND J&HELEN TRS
3474 CARLSBAD BLVD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
KAGEL RONALD M JR
P 0 BOX 2491
CARLSBAD CA 92018
KEATON DIANE
C/O MORT KESSLER
15260 VENTURA BLVD WlO40
SHERMAN OAKS CA 91403
KEYSTONE CARLSBAD L L C <LF>
C/O HECHT SOLBERG
600 W BROADWAY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
LANDRY ALCID O&DAISY J’INTER
3825 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
LOPEZ ENRIQUE
C/O INTELLITYPE
920 KLINE ST
LA JOLLA CA 92037
LANTZ WILLIAM&DIANE FAMILY TRUST MACDONALD FAMILY PARTNERSHIP
144 REDWOOD AVE 70 GIRALDA WALK
CARLSBAD CA 92008 LONG BEACH CA 90803
LEDGERWOOD CHARLES B TR (TRUST MACHA WAYNE E&HERBERT-MACHA
3862 CARLSBAD BLVD 3960 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
LEDGERWOOD CHARLES B TR (TRUST m iRSZ
LEDGERWOOD CHARLES B TR (TRUST MAQUILA MANAGEMENT INC
C/O ELDEAN M BRATTON 1101 1ST STW407
3862 CARLSBAD BLVD CORONADO CA 92118
CARLSBAD CA 92008
LEROI DONALD J&TRAlNOR PATRICIA MARANTZ ANNA
3721 GARflELD ST 159 REDWOOD AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
LINDAMOOD DORIS G TRUST 1 O-31-88
3950 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MASON FAMILY TRUST 07-01-83
C/O ELIZABETH DEL POZO
55OWCST11770
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
wnwSWj 4wWP
~JIIUULII CCCU 3lICCL3 Jasel G>C LCIII~LOLC IQ
/ @
c’“‘ I
ei ssaqpv L AU3.4V :.
L-
PERSIDOK JACEK&TAMARA
13994 BOQUITA DR
DEL MAR CA 92014
MASUKAWA BOB S&MARY C TRS PIERCE CLIFFORD R JR&JOAN
2423 W CLARKE AVE
FULLERTON CA 92831
x CARLSBADCAg2008
M
111 TAMARACK AVE t205
MAYS MARIETTA A
111 SEQUOIA AVE #D
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MAZELSKY BERNARD&JANE
1231 S HIDDEN VALLEY DR
WEST COVINA CA 91791
MCCARTY MICHAEL F
245 HEMLOCK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92068
MELTZNER PAUL JhRUTHE H TRS
41538 ARMANAC CT
PALM DESERT CA 92260
MOLBECK JOHN JR
3424 ELLA LEE LN
HOUSTON TX 77927
MORONG FAMILY TRUST 07-l l-84
6747 NEPETA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MCCONNAUGHAY HELEN REVOCABLE MURPHY FAMILY TRUST 09-19-97
143 SEQUOIA AVE 111 TAMARACK AVE Wl 01
CARLSBAD CA 92068 CARLSBAD CA 92008
MCCULLOUGH DONALD B TR MYERS SAMUEL H&COLLEEN S
1125 COUNTRYWOOD LN 11114 E BURMUDA $T
VISTA CA 92083 CERRITOS CA 96701
MCDONNELL BARRY&VlCKl NANCE EDWARD K TR
111 TAMARACK AVE #264 1408 E VISTA DEL MAR DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008 FULLERTON CA 92631
MCEWEN TRUST 09-05-82 NICASSIO PERRY M&BETSY K
3940 GARFIELD ST 3955 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
MELIDEO NICHOLAS&MARY NICASSIO PERRY M&BETSY K
159 HEMLOCK AVE 3955 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
POT2 FAMILY TRUST 09-27-91
3770 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
POULIOT DAN S&PAMELA
662 N BEL AIRE DR
BURBANK CA 91501
RICHARDS ANTHONY K
3839 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
RIGGS JEFFREY M
3769 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ROLLS BONNIE R
1941 REDESDALE AVE
LOS ANGELES CA 90039
ROMBOTIS GLORIA L
325 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR WC2
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ROSE TRUST 03-18-93
POBOX5466
OCEANSIDE CA 92052
ROSGEN L MAC TRUST 07-25-94
P 0 BOX 253
SANTA ANA CA 92702
B@#@@fiM@l as+ddress labels
’ @O 32 oom rp,ep,meets’-1
0 0
Use temomf ri?- jk. wssa~ppv ksAki3m? \ ; .--
RYANPAULM&DOREEN VONSEIDLITZ CAROL
152 SEQUOIA AVE 3930 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
SAKAMOTO BONNIE K STEDMAN HERBERT D TRUST 09-15-95 WALDRIP HUBERT A 1995 REVOCABL
11101 SUNSET BLVD 103 N LIMA ST 1422 PANORAMA RIDGE RD
LOS ANGELES CA 90049 SIERRA MADRE CA 91024 OCEANSIDE CA 92058
SAUNDERS WILLIAM B&NEDRA J
3032 SKYLINE DR
OCEANSIDE CA 92056
SAUNDERS WILLIAM B&NEDRA J rziyzz/
STEMPLE ROBERT ALGROCHEN M
111 TAMARACK AVE 1304
CARLSBAD CA 92008
STEMPLE RUSSELL W
1238 RUE SAINT MARTIN
SAN MARCOS CA 92669
TAMARACK NO 237
580 BEECH AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92006
SCHLEHUBER CLARENCE H&PATRICIA TAYLOR FRANK O&JEANETTE
2720 JEFFERSON ST 30502 VIA LA CRESTA
CARLSBAD CA 92668 RANCH0 PALOS VERDES CA 90274
SEARLS SIDNEY F THOMAS PURDOM C&SANDRA E
3912 GARFIELD ST 8101 N 54TH ST
CARLSBAD CA 92068 PARADISE VALLEY AZ 85253
SEIDERMAN BRIAN&JOYCE TRUST TINNERSTFT LARRY V&GAYLOR E
1315 KELLY ST 3941 GARAELD ST
OCEANSIDE CA 92054 CARLSBAD CA 92008
SEHLEMYER KAREN M
520 WASHINGTON BLVD t109
MARINA DEL REY CA 99292
TRAX NANCY C REVOCABLE TRUST
1016 OXFORD DR
PLACENTIA CA 92870
SEVERANCE JAMES F&NAOMI R TRS VAGENAS WILLIAM PLNIKOLICHA
3500 CATAMARAN DR 316 E COLORADO ST
CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 ARCADIA CA 91007
WALSH FAMILY INTERVIVOS TRUST
10781 EQUESTRIAN DR
SANTA ANA CA 92705
WALSH WILLIAM&CATHERINE
18234 RAYNE ST
NORTHRIDGE CA 91325
WALTON ROBERT
835 ALTA VISTA WAY
LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651
WIEGLER BARRY&DEANNA TRUST
9 STAGECOACH RD
BELL CANYON CA 91307
WILBER SABINA B TR
3884 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ZATHAS JAMES
6384 LOURDES TER
SAN DIEGO CA 92120
ZATHAS JAMESLKIKI REVOCABLE
6384 LOURDES TER
SAN DIEGO CA 92126
@a @ .- ny?s@.am~ asfprl+nce I rhalc
ZATHAS JAMESLKtKl REVOCABLE
6384 LOURDES TER
SAN DIEGO CA 92120
e
USE tel?lGiZite TC- ilc. w s=~ppr \ AU3AV i - ‘< ;i
ZATHAS JOHN
3894 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
d= 8 rej7aqihia4 asfi*lrlcpcc I -hare
3mootr1 rtxx ~IIEL>‘-
@09K .iasel
a
OCCUPANT
146 REDWOOD AVENUE #A
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
146 REDWOOD AVENUE #B
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
146 REDWOOD AVENUE #C
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
3840 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD #1
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
3840 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD #2
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
3840 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD #3
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
3840 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD ##I
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
3840 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD #5
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
3640 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD #I6
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT 3840 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD #7
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
3840 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD #8
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
3840 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD #9
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
3840 CARLSBAD BLVD #10
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
3840 CARLSBAD BLVD #Ill
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
3840 CARLSBAD BLVD #12
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT 130 TAMARACK AVENUE #l
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
130 TAMARACK AVENUE #2
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
130 TAMARACK AVENUE #3
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
130 TAMARACK AVENUE #4
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT 140 TAMARACK AVENUE #l
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
140 TAMARACK AVENUE #2
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
140 TAMARACK AVENUE #3
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT 140 TAMARACK AVENUE #t4
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
141 TAMARACK AVENUE #A
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
141 TAMARACK AVENUE #B
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JANET D ROBINSON ESQ
772 CORINIA COURT
OLIVENHAIN CA 92024
JAMES DIMAGGIO
SEASIDE BISTRO
3878 CARLSBAD BLVD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MITZI EUBANKS
27912 RURAL LANE
LAGUNA NIGUEL CA 92677
KEVIN MCCANN
MCCANN & CARROLL
SUITE 211
2755 JEFFERSON STREET
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1715
MR & MRS RYAN
152 SEQUOIA
CARLSBAD CA 92008
arwouirt retw 31 ttxx3 .... - @09I5 lasel
a
AL AND PAMELA CORBIN CHARLES B LEDGERWOOD
167 REDWOOD AVENUE TRUST .
CARLSBAD CA 92008 3862 CARLSBAD BLVD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CA COASTAL COMMISSION
SUITE 103
7575 METROPOLITAN DRIVE
SAN DIEGO CA 921084402
Address Labels
l . ~c *5~Ci~t? f- -. qel ssalppv - ‘-AURAS ;;C‘, cc..
- .
A notice has been mailed,!..
laser 5160@
wlsiaaw pw ~ioow
Smooth Feed S heetP
0
Use template tar 516?’
AGNER KEVIN BLACK LILLIE M
3881 GARFIELD ST 3921 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92068
ALBRIGHT HELEN V TR
111 TAMARACK AVE #El 66
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ALFORD GERALD E&JACQUELINE A
1757 ACACIA HL
DIAMOND BAR CA 91765
BALLARD RONALD
4211 BEACH BLUFF RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BEACH KING INC
C/O SOUTHLAND COMMUNITIES
ONE COLUMBIA #2020
ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656
;;
BEASLEY ROGER K
111 SEQUOIA AVE IH
CARLSBAD CA 92668
BENDER FAMILY PARTNERSHIP
C/O MARK BENDER
4008 GARFIELD ST
CARdBAD CA 92668
BENHAM DERECK R
3620 CARLSBAD BLVD IB
CARLSBAD CA 92668
CLOUD PERCY D&LUCILLE A
5201 SHORE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
BLACKBURN DAVID W TRUST 04-07-92 CONIGLIO CARLO J&MIRIAM D
111-A SEQUOIA AVE 56 FLAMINGO ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008 NEW ORLEANS LA 70124
BUTLER CHRIS A&TEDDI M CORBIN ALGIE R&PAMELA
251 REDWOOD AVE 167 REDWOOD AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
CAMPBELL JONATHAN W&KATHLEEN DALY TIMOTHY W&VERONICA M
327 N VALENCIA ST 3831 GARFIELD ST
GLENDORA CA 91741 CARLSBAD CA 92608
CARR FAMILY TRUST 11-l 3-96
9627 N 26TH PL
PHOENIX AZ 85628
CERECEDES RUBEN R&ANN C DUERST GARY M&SUSAN L
3875 GARFIELD ST 1443 RIMROAD RD
CARLSBAD CA 92668 RIVERSIDE CA 92566
CIVALLERI JOEICHARLOllE TRUST
3366 CARLSBAD BLVD #B
CARLSBAD CA 92668
CLARK ROBERT J FAMILY TRUST
2626 CAMINO LOMA VERDE
VISTA CA 92064
CLOSSEY GUY D&ELAINE E
169 SEGUOIA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
EALY HARRISON D REVOCABLE TRUST
3607 LARK ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92163
EATON HOMER L&NINA B FAMILY
PMB 347
306 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR t108A
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ELG DORIS F LIVING TRUST
227 HUNTINGTON
IRVINE CA 92626
ENRIGHT MICHAEL A&CAROL M
72 FREMONT PLACE
LOS ANGELES CA 90605
@a ~\?lEIsV~ L!Arfrocc ! Fhelc I2fsr 53 60@
Smooth Feed Sh&etsTM l use ternplace fo: 5 loi-
ENRIGHT MICHAEL&CAROL
72 FREMONT PLACE
LOS ANGELES CA 90905
GARCIA PHILIP MLJEANmE R
POBOX139799
CARLSBAD CA 92013
GRAMS ALBERT C&CAROL C
15202 TURQUOISE CIR
CHINO HILLS CA 91709
ENRIGHT MICHAEL&CAROL #
72 FREMONT PL
LOS ANGELES CA 90095
ESPEY FAMILY TRUST 64-19-93
470 36TH AVE
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94121
EUBANKS Ml-IZE H TRUST 16-21-97
27912 RURAL LN
LAGUNA NIGUEL CA 92677
EVANS T RICHARD REVOCABLE LIVING
3351 NOREEN DR
COLUMBUS OH 43221
FRENCHABOY FMAILY TRUST 19-28-92
3961 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92066
FRONCZAK F S
3820 CARLSBAD BLVD #A
CARLSBAD CA 92998
FRONCZAK FRANCES S
3620 CARLSBAD BLVD #A
CARLSBAD CA 92998
GALLAVAN RICHARD J&NANCY P
3717 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92098
GARNER ROGER D TR GRIFFING FAMILY DECEDENTS TRUST
721 PASSIFLORA AVE 2408 SONORA CT
LEUCADIA CA 92924 CARLSBAD CA 92098
GASKINS FAMILY 1969 TRUST 99-20-89
548 N 13TH AVE W364
UPLAND CA 91786
GEMINI TRUST HARRIS JAMES T TR
1520 KING ST 144 SEQUOIA AVE #2
SANTA CRUZ CA 95966 CARLSBAD CA 92668
GILLINGHAM ROBERT S&BERTHA A HEARD FAMILY TRUST 03-67-W
2628 WILSON ST 199 SAGE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92968 PEARCE AZ 05625
GOLDEN EDWARD&JOAN REVOCABLE
4189 KIMBERLY LN
OCEANSIDE CA 92056
HElNlTZ GARY R&NANCY C
111 TAMARACK AVE #G201
CARLSBAD CA 92998
HESS RONUtPHYLLlS FAMILY TRUST
111 TAMARACK AVE tlO7
CARLSBAD CA 92668
GOLDSTEIN FAMILY TRUST 03-27-98
169 TAMARACK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92998
INGELMAN REVOCABLE FAMILY TRUST
473 39TH ST
MANHAlTAN BEACH CA 96266
GORMAN THOMAS J JR&LOIS B
5824 S COLLEGE AVE
TEMPE AZ 85283
r
GOT0 JAMES T&SHERYL
3911 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92996
JAMES JOYCE A TR
3931 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92908
m &\ AvERv@ Address Labels laser 5160@
. Smooth Feed SheetsTM .
e
Use ternpate to: 32~
JEFFREY CARL J KING FAMILY TRUST
250 TAMARACK AVE 3924 STANFORD AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92003 MARINA DEL REY CA 99292
JONES EDWARD WILLIAM KUZMACK STEPHEN J&TEAL EILEEN M LOOMIS FAMILY TRUST 96-26-91
3748 GARFIELD ST 3970 GARFIELD ST 111 TAMARACK AVE 1392
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92968 CARLSBAD CA 92008
JONES GERALD P&MYRNA K TRS
P 0 BOX 952
CARLSBAD CA 92018
JONES JANIE LYNN TR
3630 SURFWOOD ROAD
MALIBU CA 99265
JORDAN RAYMOND J&HELEN TRS
3474 CARLSBAD BLVD
CARLSBAD CA 92968
KAGEL RONALD M JR
P 0 BOX 2491
CARLSBAD CA 92018
KEATON DIANE
C/O MORT KESSLER
15269 VENTURA BLVD 11046
SHERMAN OAKS CA 91493
KEYSTONE CARLSBAD L L C <LF>
C/O HECHT SOLBERG
609 W BROADWAY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
LINDSTROM RABBE&ROCHELLE
P 0 BOX 2962
ESCONDIDO CA 92033
LANDRY ALCID O&DAISY J INTER
3825 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92068
LOPEZ ENRIQUE
C/O INTELLITYPE
920 KLINE ST
LA JOLLA CA 92037
LAN-l2 WILLIAM&DIANE FAMILY TRUST MACDONALD FAMILY PARTNERSHIP
144 REDWOOD AVE 70 GIRALDA WALK
CARLSBAD CA 92698 LONG BEACH CA 90803
LEDGERWOOD CHARLES B TR (TRUST MACHA WAYNE ELHERBERT-MACHA
3862 CARLSBAD BLVD 3966 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92968 CARLSBAD CA 92908
LEDGERWOOD CHARLES B TR (TRUST c ~R!GJIJLk
LEDGERWOOD CHARLES B TR (TRUST MAQUILA MANAGEMENT INC
C/O ELDEAN M BRATTON 1lOllST ST11497
3862 CARLSBAD BLVD CORONADO CA 92118
CARLSBAD CA 92698
LEROI DONALD J&TRAINOR PATRICIA MARANTZ ANNA
3721 GARFIELD ST 159 REDWOOD AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92068 CARLSBAD CA 92998
UNDAMOOD DORIS G TRUST 19-31-88
3959 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92998
MASON FAMILY TRUST W-91-83
C/O ELIZABETH DEL POZO
566 WC ST I1770
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
?m Prrzm\rrii\ llrlffraer f !3hrfc I..?vr 5Y m@
Smooth Feed Sheets’”
PERSIDOK JACEK&TAMARA
13994 BOOUITA DR
DEL MAR CA 92014
MASUKAWA BOB S&MARY C TRS PIERCE CLIFFORD R JR&JOAN
2423 W CLARKE AVE
FULLERTON CA 92631
s CARLSBADCAg2008
M
111 TAMARACK AVE #205
MAYS MARIETTA A
111 SEQUOIA AVE #D
CARLSBAD CA 92096
MELTZNER PAUL J&RUTHE H TRS
41536 ARMANAC CT
PALM DESERT CA 92266
POT2 FAMILY TRUST 09-27-91
3770 GARFlELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92696
MAZELSKY BERNARD&JANE
1231 S HIDDEN VALLEY DR
WEST COVINA CA 91791
MOLBECK JOHN JR
3424 ELLA LEE LN
HOUSTON TX 77927
POULIOT DAN S&PAMELA
692 N BEL AIRE DR
BURBANK CA 91561
MCCARTY MICHAEL F MORONG FAMILY TRUST 07-l l-64
245 HEMLOCK AVE 6747 NEPETA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92696 CARLSBAD CA 92909
MCCONNAUGHAY HELEN REVOCABLE MURPHY FAMILY TRUST 99-19-97
143 SEQUOIA AVE 111 TAMARACK AVE WlOl
CARLSBAD CA 92606 CARLSBAD CA 92666
MCCULLOUGH DONALD B TR MYERS SAMUEL HLCOLLEEN S
’ 1125 COUNTRYWOOD LN 11114 E BURMUDA ST
VISTA CA 92063 CERRlTOS CA 96701
MCDONNELL BARRY&VtCKl
111 TAMARACK AVE ii204
CARLSBAD CA 92996
MCEWEN TRUST 09-95-62
3940 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92996
MELIDEO NICHOLAS&MARY
159 HEMLOCK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92095
NANCE EDWARD K TR
1408 E VISTA DEL MAR DR
FULLERTON CA 92631
NICASSIO PERRY M&BETSY K
3955 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92666
NICASSIO PERRY M&BETSY K
3955 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92966
RICHARDS ANTHONY K
3639 GARflELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92966
RIGGS JEFFREY 1111
3769 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92996
ROLLS BONNIE R
1941 REDESDALE AVE
LOS ANGELES CA 96639
ROMBOTIS GLORIA L
325 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR XC2
CARLSBAD CA 92696
ROSE TRUST 03-l 6-93
POBOX5466
OCEANSIDE CA 92052
ROSGEN L MAC TRUST 07-26-94
P 0 BOX 253
SANTA ANA CA 92762
m E\ AvEmY@ Address Labels Laser 5160@
Smooth Feed SheetsfM l Use template ro- 510i!x
RYAN PAUL M&DOREEN
152 SEQUOIA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92998
VONSEIDLITZ CAROL
3939 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92098
SAKAMOTO BONNIE K
11101 SUNSET BLVD
LOS ANGELES CA 99949
SAUNDERS WILLIAM B&NEDRA J
3032 SKYUNE DR
OCEANSIDE CA 92056
STEDMAN HERBERT D TRUST 99-l 5-95 WALDRIP HUBERT A 1995 REVOCABLE
103 N LIMA ST 1422 PANORAMA RIDGE RD
SIERRA MADRE CA 91024 OCEANSIDE CA 92056
STEMPLE ROBERT A&GRETCHEN M WALSH FAMILY INTERVIVOS TRUST
111 TAMARACK AVE W394 10781 EQUESTRIAN DR
CARLSBAD CA 92968 SANTA ANA CA 92795
STEMPLE RUSSELL W WALSH WILLIAM&CATHERINE
1238 RUE SAINT MARTIN 18234 RAYNE ST
SAN MARCOS CA 92669 NORTHRIDGE CA 91325
TAMARACK NO 237
580 BEECH AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92998
SCHLEHUBER CLARENCE H&PATRICIA TAYLOR FRANK O&JEANEHE
2720 JEFFERSON ST 36592 VIA LA CRESTA
CARLSBAD CA 92998 RANCH0 PALOS VERDES CA 96274
SEARLS SIDNEY F THOMAS PliRDOM C&SANDRA E
3912 GARFIELD ST 8101 N54THST
CARLSBAD CA 92968 PARADISE VALLEY AZ 85253
SEIDERMAN BRIAN&JOYCE TRUST TlNNERSTET LARRY VdtGAYLOR E
1315 KELLY ST 3941 GARFIELD ST
OCEANSIDE CA 92054 CARLSBAD CA 92698
SETTLEMYER KAREN M
520 WASHINGTON BLVD #lo9
MARINA DEL REY CA 99292
TRAX NANCY C REVOCABLE TRUST
1016 OXFORD DR
PLACENTIA CA 92870
SEVERANCE JAMES F&NAOMI R TRS VAGENAS WILLIAM PBNlKOLlCHA
3500 CATAMARAN DR 316 E COLORADO ST
CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 ARCADIA CA 91967
WALTON ROBERT
635 ALTA VISTA WAY
LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651
WIEGLER BARRY&DEANNA TRUST
9 STAGECOACH RD
BELL CANYON CA 91397
WILBER SABINA B TR
3884 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92098
ZATHAS JAMES
6364 LOURDES TER
SAN DIEGO CA 92129
ZATHAS JAMES&KlKl REVOCABLE
6384 LOURDES TER
SAN DIEGO CA 92129
m mn=lsvcii\ Erlrlrncc I rhnlc
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
a
ZATHAS JAMESUtKlKl REVOCABLE
6384 LOURDES TER
SAN DIEGO CA 92120
ZATHAS JOHN
3894 GARFIELD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
m f% mlcwlis E t4dmcc I ahalc
Use temptate tar 516’;; _
LZX?T 51600
Smooth Feed SheetsTM 2c.e [emD[z;e 12’ 1:
OCCUPANT
146 REDWOOD AVENUE #A
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT 146 REDWOOD AVENUE #B
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
146 REDWOOD AVENUE #C
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
3840 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD #l
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
3840 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD #2
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
3840 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD #3
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
3840 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD #4
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT 3840 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD #5
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT 3840 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD #6
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
3840 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD #7
CARLSBAD CA 92008
n 3.. AVERY@ .- - Address Ltbels
OCCUPANT
3840 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD #8
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
3840 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD #9
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
3840 CARLSBAD BLVD #IO
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
3840 CARLSBAD BLVD #l 1
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
3840 CARLSBAD BLVD #12
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT 130 TAMARACK AVENUE #l
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT ’
130 TAMARACK AVENUE #2
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
130 TAMARACK AVENUE #3
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
130 TAMARACK AVENUE #i4
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
140 TAMARACK AVENUE #l
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
140 TAMARACK AVENUE #2
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
140 TAMARACK AVENUE #3
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
140 TAMARACK AVENUE #4
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
141 TAMARACK AVENUE #A
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT
141 TAMARACK AVENUE #B
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JANET D ROBINSON ESQ
772 CORINIA COURT
OLIVENHAIN CA 92024
JAMES DIMAGGIO
SEASIDE BISTRO
3878 CARLSBAD BLVD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MIT21 EUBANKS
27912 RURAL LANE
LAGUNA NIGUEL CA 92677
KEVIN MCCANN
MCCANN & CARROLL
SUITE 211 2755 JEFFERSON STREET
CARLSBAD CA 92008-I 715
MR & MRS RYAN 152 SEQUOIA
CARLSBAD CA 92008
Laser 5160@
. Smooth Feed SheetsTM . . l list temo1atp tc’ 51 p,f’
AL AND PAMELA CORBIN CHARLES B LEDGERWOOD
TRUST s pntwy pfY3qE Al
167 REDWOOD AVENUE
CARLSBAD CA 92008 3862 CARLSBAD BLVD I,51 REDIOOOD &UC
CARLSBAD CA 92008 cbd%3m (J/f3 q~op-
CA COASTAL COMMISSION
SUITE 103 - . . .
7575 METROPOLITAN DRIVE
SAN DIEGO CA 921084402
I!3 3, AVERY@ Address Labels Laser 5160@
SETH SHARON 0130 TAMARACK AVE #4 . CARLSBAD, CA 92008 3 -G-o 1
Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Seaside Bistro & Ledgerwood Parcel Zoning Issues
March 6,200l AGENDA IITEM f.e
c: lhpvu -m?-
City Council
City Manager
Ciw Attorney
city clerk
Honorable Council Members:
As the closest neighbor to both the Seaside Bistro and Ledgerwood parcels (my west facing
window overlooks the Bistro parking lot, and my north facing window the Ledgerwood
parcel), I wished to express my support for the proposed City Council action regarding the
parcels. In December 2000, I was notified that the planning commission was considering
rezoning the Bistro property for Residential uses, an action I vehemently opposed (see
attached letter). I was very pleased upon attending the Planning Commission meeting
January 3rd to see many of my neighbors and other members of the community come out to
support the Bistro and voice our opposition to the re-zoning plans.
The resolution you are considering this evening is the product of our opposition, and our
desire to have the Seaside Bistro remain as our neighbor. I pray the City Council sees what
I see as the Bistro’s neighbor-a clean, well-run operation that enhances the quality of life of
the community at large. Granted, the steps that the City Council took in its Resolution of
Action regarding the now-defunct Sandbar in 1996 were appropriate at the time. However,
I wish to ensure the Council that since Jim & Monika Dimaggio have taken over the
operation of what is now the Seaside Bistro the condition of the property, interior and
exterior, has improved dramatically.
This is not to mention the impact the Dimaggio’s ownership is having on the demographics
of the patronage of the Bistro. The Bistro is now truly a place one can take their family to
enjoy a good meal and one of the most stunning vistas in Carlsbad. The bottom line is this:
the Dimaggios have put forth tons of time, effort and funds to improve the Bistro, and to
deny them the opportunity to continue this campaign of improvement would be a disservice
to the Dimaggios as well as to the community as a whole.
Respectfully,
Seth R. Sharon
130 Tamarack Avenue
Voice: 760-730-3088 l Fax: 760-729-9625 l Mobile: 760-845-4419 l e-mail: srsharon@onebox.com
SETH SHARON .I30 TAMARACK AVE #I . CARLSBAD, CA 92008
December 20,200O
Dear Friends & Neighbors,
As I’m sure you’re aware, we all received notice of a Planning Commission meeting
on Wednesday, January 3,200l to consider rezoning the Seaside Bistro & neighboring
property for residential uses. If this action is successful, it could ultimately lead to the
issuance of a Notice of Abatement by the Carlsbad City Council, forcing the Bistro to shut
its doors.
Since I haven’t lived in Carlsbad as long as others, it is more difficult for me to make
a case for how much things have changed since the Bistro restructured its hours of
operation, removed the stage, etc. You have a much clearer perspective as to how things
have improved over the past several years.
The fact of the matter is, I feel that the Seaside Bistro is an integral part of our
neighborhood and community, and one of the reasons our location is so desirable. Where
else can one walk to get a cup of coffee, a newspaper, a bite to eat or something to drink? In
my opinion, the highest and best purpose of the Bistro property is to be a place we all can
gather and meet with friends and neighbors, not a place for a few exclusive condominiums
(or other expensive housing) that serves only the wealthiest portion of the City’s populace.
That is why I am asking for your support at the coming Planning Commission
meeting. I intend to speak, but my single voice is not nearly enough to sway the juggernaut
of City politics. As members of our neighborhood and community, I feel it is our duty to
support this local business by appearing at the meeting, and speaking our mind. Our united
voices as neighbors of the Seaside Bistro have the strongest chance of overturning this
course of events.
In closing, I call on all of us as members of the community to attend the Planning
Commission meeting Wednesday, January 3’d at 6 P.M. in the City Council chambers at
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive. We need to fill the council chamber with like-minded
individuals that share our views and opinions. How will elected officials know that they are
not acting in the interests of their constituents if we do not make our voices heard? This is
our time to make a difference and take a leadership role in our community-don’t let it slip
away.
Looking Forward To Many Years With the Seaside Bistro as Our Neighbor,
Seth R. Sharon
130 Tamarack Avenue
Voice: 760-730-3088 l Fax: 760-729-9625 l Mobile: 7604454419 l e-mail: srsharon@onebox.com
March 6,200l
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Attorney
ITEM #I4 - CARLSBAD BOULEVARD/TAMARACK
08/LCPA 00-01)
If the Council adopts the recommendations of the Planning Commission to rezone the
Ledgerwood parcels from C-l to R-3 and to make no change in the zoning for the Mitzi
H. Eubanks Trust property, the Council will do this latter action based, in part, upon the
representations made by the Seaside Bistro, operator/lessee of this property that it will
agree, among other things, to a CUP and relinquish its cabaret license. Therefore, I
recommend that this reliance be expressed in[ Resolution No. 2001-7a by adding a
paragraph substantially as follows: -
“That the City Council is not amending the Gem%al PlZiK at this time w
relinquish its cabaret license and agree to process a Conditional _ p m&
in reliance on the Seaside Bistro’s representations that it will
Use Permit a g forth the terms and conditions under . me ntinue to exrst%fthis site. Therefore,
the Planning Director is directed to commence the necessary and
appropriate rezoning process forthwith which will require a
Conditional Use Permit or other discretionary permits and to return
to the City Council through the Planning Commission with its report
and recommendations. The Seaside Bistro is directed to apply
forthwith for a Conditionr Use Permit or other discretionary permits
under the proposed zone so that all’discretionary actions will be
before the Council concurrently.”
Should you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
RONALD R. BALL
City Attorney
3-6-b/ td.hvdq fir3 lb,100
AL&PAMCORBIN
167RedwoodAve
Carlsbad.CA,92008
760-434-6887
March 6,2001
Dear City Council and Planning Commission,
With Careful Consideration regarding the Rezoning of the Seaside Bistro
Property, we agree that the Seaside Bistro should remain Commercial and
would welcome any Improvements as long as there is no recurrence of the
Sandbar type situation I.e. Cabaret. We believe that Mr. did Maggie has the
neighbors interest in Mind. We have recently acquired the adjacent to the
property to the Bistro and we welcome the change from the troublesome and
checkered past of the Sandbar.
Sincerely,
fl-6 &w
3-6-~r
From: Scott Donnell
To: Debra Doerfier
Date: 3/9/01 8:05AM
Subject: . Re: Seaside Bistro
Please send it to their attorney:
Janet Robinson Attorney at Law 772 Corinia Court
Olivenhain, CA 92024
Thanks
>>> Debra Doerfler 03/09/01 07:43AM >>>
Scott, Do you have an address for Seaside Bistro that I can send the ZC 99-08/LCPA 00-01 resolution to?
Debra
%
i + 7 : b b 4 d is j .5 ! t 2”
P
3eu urnm lupn JO# nOA lpt3u
2 G 2 s: b 2 0
jo !P4 ;Ln
!O
‘0 !O
:O .I-
!
&Sp!S mJ9A8J q# UO pe,qdtuo:, m
/ I
i & PT’ 1 ‘-. ix. : I) --._ 3-z ;A !-, $ , . . r c Qr$i
Postage
Certified Fee
P Return Receipt Fee 14 (Endorsement Required)
E Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required)
0 -. Total Poetage LL Fees
Postmark
Here
F-----i I I