HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-10-19; Planning Commission; Resolution 7467PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 7467
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA GRANTING THE APPEAL OF THE
DETERMINATION OF THE CITY PLANNER THAT CERTAIN USES ARE
SUBJECT TO REGULATION AS A FAIRGROUNDS AND THAT THOSE USES
ARE ALLOWED AS ACCESSORY TO CROP PRODUCTION OR ALLOWED AS
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
CASE NAME: STRAWBERRY FIELD OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT USE
CASE NO.: PCD2022-0003 (DEV2022-0168)
WHEREAS, Jimmy Ukegawa (appellant) is the operator of the agricultural operation on the area of land
located east of Interstate 5 (1-5), north of Cannon Road, and south and west of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon,
typically referred to as the "Strawberry Fields;" and
WHEREAS, the subject property is designated Public Utilities in the Zoning Ordinance, Title 21 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code, which allows "agricultural" i.e., "crop production", and "Recreational Facilities" as
permitted uses, otherwise referred to as by-right; and
WHEREAS, on May 4, 2022, Mike Howes, the operator's representative, submitted a request for a
determination on what uses were allowed as by-right within the Public Utility Zone; and
WHEREAS, the City Planner, on July 18, 2022, under authority granted by Carlsbad Municipal Code
21.36.020((), provided a determination of what land use activities are similar in intent and purposes of the
Public Utility Zone under the "Agricultural" and "Recreational" uses that are permitted, or allowed "by-right",
and certain uses that are allowed under the "fairgrounds" classification that requires a Conditional. Use Permit
to be reviewed and considered by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on July 28, 2022, the City Planner's determination was timely appealed by the appellant
under Section 21.54.140 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Additional information was provided through
correspondence from Mike Howes, the operator's representative, on August 3, 2022; and
WHEREAS, an appeal made to the Planning Commission must specify the decision appealed, the alleged
error made in connection with the decision being appealed, and the reasons the appellant claims the decision
to be made in error as it is the appellant's burden to prove that the decision made by the City Planner was
PC RESO NO. 7467