1989-22
RESOLUTION NO. C-89-022
A RESOLUTION OF THE CARDIFF-BY-THE-SEA
COIOlUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
APPROVING A KINOR USE PERMIT AND
VARIANCE FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION
AND A ROADSIDE SALES STAND AT 3111 MANCHESTBR AVENUE
(CASB NO. 89-157 KIN/V)
WHEREAS, Penny Yasuda applied for a Minor Use Permit and
Variance Approval per Section 30.48.040 (Q) and Chapters 30.74 (Use
Permits) and 30.78 (Variances) of the Municipal Code of the City
of Encinitas; and,
WHEREAS, the Variance to Section 30.48.040 (Q) of the Zoning
Ordinance permits exceeding the 200 square foot standard to a
maximum of 670 square feet for the sales and display area of the
agricultural roadside sales stand; and,
WHEREAS, the property is located at 3111 Manchester Avenue and
legally described as:
A portion of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter
of Section 26, Township 13 South, Range 4 West, as more
particularly set forth in the grant deed filed with the County
Recorder as File No. 81-152449.
WHEREAS, public hearings were conducted on the applications
on August 28 and September 25, 1989; and
CO/my/CRO5-370WP5 1(9-19-89)-1
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Board considered without
limitation;
1. The staff reports dated August 23 and September 20, 1989;
2. The adopted General Plan, Zoning Code and associated Land Use
Maps;
3. Oral evidence submitted at the hearing;
4. written evidence submitted at the hearing;
5. Documentation and site plans submitted by the applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Cardiff-by-the-Sea Community Advisory Board made
the required findings pursuant to Chapters 30.74 (Use Permits) and
30.78 (Variances).
(See Attachment "A")
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Cardiff-by-the-Sea
Community Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that application
89-157 MIN/V is hereby approved subject to the following
conditions:
I. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS:
1. The landscape and debris removal plan submitted by the
applicant shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the
Director of Community Development within two months of
this approval (November 25, 1989).
2. within the time period established in condition 1,
Mallalucas shall be planted along a ~ 70 foot frontage
on Manchester Ave sufficient to screen the area where
crates are stored.
3. The sales and display area for the agricultural products
shall not exceed 670 square feet.
CO/my/CRO5-370WP5 2(9-19-89)-1
4. The location of the sales and display area shall not be
altered without prior City approval.
5. Off-street parking shall be provided pursuant to the
parking regulations and the amount of parking stalls
shall not be reduced.
6. Any future signage at this location shall be approved by
the City of Encinitas in accordance with the Sign
Ordinance in effect at the time of application submittal.
II. GENBRAL CONDITIONS:
7. This approval may be appealed to the authorized agency
within 15 calendar days from the date of this approval.
8. In the event that any of the conditions of this permit
are not satisfied, the Planning and Community Development
Department shall cause a noticed hearing to be set before
the authorized agency to determine why the City of
Encinitas should not revoke this approval.
9. Upon a showing of compelling public necessity
demonstrated at a noticed hearing, the City of Encinitas,
acting through the authorized agency, may add, amend, or
delete conditions and regulations contained in this
permit.
10. Nothing in this permit shall authorize the applicant to
intensify the authorized activity beyond that which is
specifically described in this permit.
11. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with
any sections of the Zoning Development Code and all other
applicable City Ordinances.
12. Permits or findings of exemption shall be obtained from
other agencies as follows:
Coastal Commission
13. The application is approved as submitted and shall not
be altered without authorized agency review and approval.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION DISTRICT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION:
III. FIRE PREVBNTION:
14. The applicant shall submit a letter from the Fire
District stating that all development impact, cost
recovery and/or plan check fees have been paid.
CO/my/CRO5-370WP5 3(9-19-89)-1
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Cardiff-by-the-Sea Community
Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that:
1. This project was found to be exempt from environmental review
per Section 15301 of CEQA;
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of September, 1989, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Crosthwaite, Orr, MacManus, Barker
NAYS: None
ABSENT: McCabe
ABSTAIN: None L&L
(Terrance Barker, Chairperson
of the Cardiff-by-the-Sea
Community Advisory Board
ATTEST:
~~.vQ"> -"-
Craig Olson, Assistant Planner
CO/my/CRO5-370WP5 4(9-19-89)-1
ATTACHMBNT "A"
I. MINOR USE PERMIT (30.74.070) FINDINGS:
1. The location, size, design or operating characteristics
of the proposed project will be incompatible with or will
adversely affect or will be materially detrimental to
adjacent uses, residences, buildings, structures or
natural resources, with consideration given to, but not
limited to:
a. The inadequacy of public facilities, services and
utilities to serve the proposed project;
b. The unsuitability of public facilities, services and
utilities to serve the proposed project;
c. The harmful effect, if any, upon environmental
quality and natural resources or the city.
Evidence to Consider:
Adequate public facilities, services and utilities exist
to support the subject activity. The operation is
suitable to the site and does not impose a materially
detrimental affect to adjacent uses since the operation
has been conducted at the location for approximately 16
years without apparent detrimental affect.
2. The impacts of the proposed project will adversely affect
the policies of the Encinitas General Plan or the
provisions of this Code;
Evidence to Consider:
The operation is consistent with the Resource Management
Element of the General Plan, Goal 11 and Policies 11.8,
11.11, 11.13 and 11.15. The Board determined that a
Variance to Section 30.48.040 limiting the size of the
display and sales area to 200 sq. ft. is warranted and,
therefore, cannot identify any way that the project could
adversely affect General Plan policies or the provisions
of the Zoning Code.
3. The project fails to comply with any other regulations,
conditions or policies imposed by this Code.
CO/my/CRO5-370WP5 5(9-19-89)-1
Evidence to Consider:
The property owner seeks Minor Use Permit and Variance
approval to bring the operation into compliance with the
city's regulations. No other regulations, conditions or
policies of the City can be identified which the
operation violates.
II. VARIANCE (30.78.030) FINDINGS:
1. A variance from the terms of the Zoning Ordinances shall
be granted only when, because of the special
circumstances applicable to the property, including size,
shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict
application of the Zoning Ordinance deprives such
property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the
vicinity and under identical zoning classification.
Evidence to Consider:
Special circumstances of this property include its ~ 20
acre size, its past history of being under agricultural
production for 17 years, and its uniqueness as an
agricultural use still in operation near the I-5 Freeway
and adjacent to the San Elijo Lagoon.
2. Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions
as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized
will not constitute a grant of special privileges
inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties
in the vicini ty and zone in which such property is
situated.
Evidence to Consider:
Since the applicant is seeking approval of a Minor Use
Permit and Variance the activity is consistent with
permitted uses allowed by the Zoning Code.
3. A variance will not be granted for a parcel of property
which authorizes a use or activity which is not otherwise
expressly authorized by the zoning regulation governing
the parcel of property. The provisions of this section
shall not apply to conditional use permits.
Evidence to Consider:
Agricultural roadside stands are permitted by Code with
an approved Minor Use Permit.
CO/my/CRO5-370WP5 6(9-19-89)-1
4. No variance shall be granted if the inability to enjoy
the privilege enjoyed by other property in the vicinity
and under identical zoning classification:
a. Could be avoided by an alternate development plan;
b. Is self-induced as a result of an action taken by
the property owner or the owner's predecessor;
c. Would allow such a degree of variation as to
constitute a rezoning or other amendment to the
zoning code; or
d. Would authorize or legalize the maintenance of any
private or public nuisance.
Evidence to Consider:
Given the large size of the parcel and the history of
agricultural production the Variance is warranted to
allow the property owner to enjoy privileges enjoyed by
other property in the vicinity. An alternative
development plan is unsuitable given the size of the
property, the request is not self-induced since the use
has historically included farming and agricultural sales.
The Variance would not constitute a rezoning or amendment
since the Zoning District permits the activity with an
approved Minor Use Permit. The activity has been
conducted for ~ 17 years without any indication of a
public/private nuisance.
CO/my/CRO5-370WP5 7(9-19-89)-1