HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-06-26; Planning Commission; Resolution 2442. h 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2442
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DEMIAL
OF AN AMENDLPENT TO THE LAND USE ELEBENT OF THE
GENERAL PLAN FROM RLM, RESIDENTIAL LOW MEDIUM,
0-4 DU/AC TO U, PUBLIC UTILITIES ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF THE PALOMAR AIRPORT
BUSINESS PARK APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE WEST OF EL
CAMINO REAL
APPLICANT : COAST WASTE YANAGEMENT
CASE NO. : GPA/LU- 84-6
WHEREAS, a verified application for an amendment .
g
have been filed with the Planning Commission; and 11
Exhibit "A", dated May 7 , 1985, attached and incorporated 1 10
General Plan designation for certain property located, as ~
12 WHEREAS, said verified applications constitute a :
13
Code; and 14
for amendment as provided in Title 21 of the Carlsbad Munic
17
May, 1985 and on the 26th day of June, 1985 hold a duly nc 16
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 22nd 15
elating to the General Plan Amendment. 21
esiring to be heard, said Commission considered all facto] 20
bonsidering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all pel 19
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and 18
public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said reque!
b
22 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Plan1
23
B) That in view of the findings made and considering the 25
A) That the above recitations are true and correct. 24
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
applicable law, the decision of the Planning Commissic
26 recommend DENIAL of GPA/LU 84-6, as shown on Exhibit I dated May 7 , 1985.
27 IC/// -
28 /I/ I
). a 0
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
Findings:
1) The proposed general plan amendment to U, Public utilit
the location of administrative/maintenance facilities f Coast Waste Management would generate traffic that coul adversely impact future residential development to the east and west. These impacts would be difficult or imp
to fully mitigate.
2) The proposed general plan amendment would permit a use
could be more appropriately located in another area.
3) The proposed general plan amendment should be denied be
of significant environmental impacts that cannot be ful
mitigated.
A. Land Use
The proposed general plan amendment could result in
incompatible land uses being located in close proxi This could be partially mitigated by requiring futu residential development to maintain a 30-40 foot la setback from the edge of the bluff above the propos Waste facility. Future residential development wit
feet of the site could be required to have CC&R's a
information acknowledging the prescence of Coast Wa Management's facilities. Staff has strong concerns
how effective these mitigation measures would be in
preventing complaints from future residents in the 7
of the proposed development.
B. Traffic Circulation
The uses allowed by the proposed general plan amend]
zone change will result in large, heavy, slow movinc trucks accessing Poinsettia Lane from the site. Th be partially mitigated by providing slow truck lane, additional pavement thickness and signs warning of moving trucks. This poter?tial mitigation measure CI difficult to implement if the future alignment of Poinsettia Lane did not go through the applicant's property. If this were the case, another property 1 would be required to dedicate extra right-of-way an1
provide extra street improvements to benefit the prl use. The proposed use would also result in all of ( Waste Management's trucks driving through a residenl
area on to Poinsettia Lane, a major arterial going 1
a residential area. Nothing could be done to mitigi impact of large numbers of trash trucks going throuc future residential area.
////
~ ////
I 1 PC RES0 NO. 2442 -2-
\ 0 a
I // C. Noise
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Noise generated by the future uses permitted by the
proposed general plan amendment and zone change cou: adversely affect future residential uses in the arel
sound wall along the entrance road to the site coulc
partially mitigate this problem. All maintenance cc
required to be done indoors and outdoor public addri systems could be prohibited. Staff believes it wou difficult enforcement problem to make sure that all
maintenance was done indoors and that no outdoor pu address systems were installed.
D. Biology
Future development by uses permitted by the propose( general plan amendment and zone change would elimin, existing natural habitat on this site. The native
vegetation on this site has no biological significa. regional basis due to its limited extent,
E. Drainage
The proposed Coast Waste Management facility could adversely impact downstream water quality. This COI
partially mitigated by the construction of an oil, 1
and fuel trap adjacent to the maintenance area and
rack adjacent to the public storm drain system. Thl rack would not stop leachate/liquor from trash cont' or washdown. This waste water could only be contro. through an onsite holding tank and/or purification The construction and maintenance of this holding ta and/or purification system would be costly and diff for the city to monitor.
F. Archeology and Paleontology
There is some potential for archeological resources
on this site and a greater potential for paleontolo1 resources. An archeologist and a paleontologist shc monitor grading activities.
22 //// Ii
23 //// I/ 24 //// /I
25 11 ////
26 //// !I
27 ////
28 PC RES0 NO. 2442 -3-
. , *,
1
a a
2 // PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of
" Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held
26th day of June, 1985, by the following vote, to wit: 3
4
5
6
7
8
1
AYES : Chairman Schlehuber, Commissioners: L' Heur,
Marcus , McFadden, Smith, Rombotis & Hall.
NOES: None.
ABSENT : None.
ABSTAIN: None.
9
10
11
i ,(;: (- ,: :;' 's, / I i';' 1. cr / .< L-t'LG" -ci. "J+< !,?,J,&&",/h,- .-
CLARENCE SCHLEHUBER, Chairma]
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
" -
AND USE P
17
18
19 I
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 I1
28 C RES0 NO. 2442 I -4-