HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-02-24; Planning Commission; Resolution 1918L c
I/
1
2
3
4
5
e 0
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1918
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DENIAL
OF A 853 LOT (813 UNIT) TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED SOUTH OF LAKE CALAVERA AND APPROXIMATLEY
1.5 MILES EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL.
APPLICANT: THE BARNES CORPORATION
CASE NO: CT 81 -9/PUD-30
i5 // WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property
7 ljwit :
8 I/ Those portions of Lots "D" and "L" of Rancho Aqua
Hedionda according to Map 823 filed November 16, 1891
9 has been filed with the city of Carlsbad, and referred to the
lo Planning Commission; and =I. II WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a
l2
and I-3
request as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Cod(
I-* b WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 24th dal
l5 f February, 1982, hold a duly noticed public hearing as
l6lLrescribed by law to consider said request; and
17 11 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and
l8
l9
considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persor I evelopment
21
elating to the Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit 2o
esiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
22 11 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
23
24
ommission as follows: I 26
) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearinq 25
) That the above recitations are true and correct.
the Commission recommends DENIAL of CT 81-9/PUD-30, based
the following findings:
27
/// 28
/// i
c
// 0 0
1 Findings:
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9,
10
11
12
13
1) The project is not consistent with the land use, public facilities and public safety elements of the general pla;
for the following reasons:
Section V.G of the Land Use Element provides that projec. should be rated to development based on certain criteria
including; "The ability of the Fire Department of the ci.
to provide fire protection according to established resp, standards of the city without the necessity of establish. a new station or requiring the addition of major equipme1
to an existing station"; The Public Facilities Element ol the General Plan requires the proponents of the developmt
to present evidence satisfactory to the city that all pul
facilities and services will be available concurrent witi
need. The Policies of the Public Safety Element require city to consider and analyze fire hazards and police
protection problems associated with proposed development,
The project is "leapfrog" development located far from tk urban core of the city and outside reasonable service tel tories for police, fire and schools. Given the isolated nature of the proposed site, construction of this projecl
the present time is premature and is inconsistent with tk
policies just stated because:
14
15
16
17
18
19
a. The removal of waste water from the site will require more energy than would the removal of water from a
project located adjacent to existing developments, as
discussed in the staff report.
b. Providing adequate police and fire protection to this site would place a financial burden on the city far 01 weighing the benefit of the project. Further, providj service to this area would decrease service to areas
already serviced. In addition, another fire station c
major equipment additions would be necessary to
adequately serve the project. 2o I
21
22
23
24
25
c. The excessive length of the off-site improvements necessary to serve this project would result in very k maintenance costs in excess of the revenues generated
this project.
d. The isolated nature of this project will necessitate a
excessive consumption of fuel because of the distance
this project from existing schools, commercial centers and job opportunities as discussed in the staff report
26
27
28 LC RES0 1918 -2-
e. Public facilities, such as adequate streets, fire facilities and police protection will not be available concurrent with need for this project because the proj depends on the extension of these services by other ///
I
*
ll 0 0
1
2
3
4
5 i1
property owners and developers. Previously approved projects will provide such services and facilities as major arterials and fire stations. When these servic,
and facilities are provided, development of this proj will be more logical. However, because those facilit which will be provided by other property developers a
not yet installed, and the city cannot predict when installation will occur, there is no evidence upon wh
the city can find the project consistent with the
general plan's public facilities policies.
~
t5 2)
7
8
9
10
XI. 3)
12
13
The proposed project does not meet the intent of Chapter
21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Planned Unit Develc ment) since it does not provide a site-sensitive plan an( does not provide sufficient trade-offs to justify the reduced lot sizes and reduced right-of-way widths becausc
the project's grading and design will totally alter the existing landscape and destroy or severely impact almost of the existing natural habitats, as discussed in the st, report.
.The site is not physically suitable for the type of deve: ment proposed, because of the hilly topography of the si,
The proposed development, consisting of single family
detached dwellings and duplexes requires extensive amouni
of grading, as discussed in the report.
l4 4) The design of the subdivision is likely to cause substantj
15
16
17
18
19
20 6) The proposed project is not consistent with Title 20 of tl
21
22
23
24
25
environmental damage due to the massive alteration of the topography, loss of wildlife habitat and loss of prime
agricultural land, as discussed in the staff report.
5) The proposed project is not consistent with the open spacc and Conservation Element of the General Plan because of tl
massive alteration of the existing topography and the destruction of almost all of the existing wildlife habitat on site.
Carlsbad Municipal Code because:
a) Is not consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan.
b) The site is not physically suitable for the type of
development .
c) The design of the subdivision is likely to cause substantial environmental damage.
Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code requires that
project be denied. 26 I///
27 ii////
28 C RES0 1918 I -3-
..
1
a a
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meetinq of -
2
4 the 24th day of February, 1982, by the following vote, to wit
3 Planning Commission of the city of Carlsbad, California, held
NOES : Commissioner Friestedt, 5
AYES: Chairman Farrow, Commissioners Marcus, R0n-b
Schlehuber, Jose and L’Heureux.
6
7
ABSENT : None.
ABSTAIN : None.
8
9
10
qL-,.Ad &w4J-&jUc I!,
VERNOF J. P$XROW, JFX, dhairm;
CARLSB D PLANNING CO~NISSION .pt_j
11
12
ATTEST:
q 13 L -4. -9 ia I J ES C. HAG-AMpN, Spcretary ,+$LAD PLANMING++O~MISSION
/”) /’”
,y
.,
,1,5
< ,’
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 C RES0 1918 1 -4-