1989-22
RESOWTION NO. -9.1.::..~2
A RESOLUTION OF OLIVENHAIN CO~lITY ADVISORY BOl~D
DENYING A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP (88-114-TPM)
FOR PROPERTY BEING PARCEL J OF
PARCEl. Y,¡.,\P 12127, COUnTY OF SAN DIEGO
WHERE1.S ,
I
I
,
¡
[
Dr.
steven Emmet.
submitted a Tentative Parcel
Hap
application
required
by
as
the
city
of
ElIcinitas
S'.Jbdivision Ordinance, for the purpose of subdividing Of.::! 4.16
gross ac:::-e parcel into three lots C'f 1. 00, 1. 00, am'. 1. 46 net
acre pa:::-cels respectively; and
HHEREAS, public hearings were conducted by the Olivenhain
Community Advisory Board on February 21,
and April 18,
1989,
and the public hearing was closed
final
and
review of
the
resolution findings was conducted on May 16, 1989, as required
by law,
and all persons desiring to be heard were heard.
NOW THEREFOP~, BE IT RESOLVED by the Olivenhain Community
Advisory Doë\rd
of the
ci ty of Encini tas,
that the proposed
Tentative Parcel ~lap fo:::- property being Parcel 3 of Parcel Map
12127, County of San Diego, Olivenhain.
is ~ereby DENIED, and
that denial is based upon the following findings:
a.
That the proposed map is not con~istent with
applicable general and ~pecific plans as specified in
Section 65451 of the Subdivision Ma~ Act, and as
setforth in the 1986 General Plan Conservation
Element with specific consideration of Chapter 2,
General Conservation, Policy 4, and Chapter 6,
Soils, Policies 4, 6, and 7 attached as "Attachment
A". in that the project is proposing lots for
development in an area of greater than 25% slope in
the Coastal Resource Protection Zone and the evid~nce
.{
LN/CAB11c-076wp (4-12-89)
"
>;
,""
~.
'i
f
.
submitted by the property ol..'ner in the form of a
prelim:nary fea5ability grðding plan, a T~n~ative
Parcel Map (both rect':Lved and dated by the City of
Encinitas on December 12, 1988), and all written
documentation and public testiMony on file in the
Department of Planning 3nd Community Dev~lopment does
not adf'guateJy substantinto that the deveJ.opment of
the lots could be acccmpl ished in conforIl'.ance with
the aforementioned General Plan policies.
Approximately 80\ of the site is over 25\ slope and
the aver~ge slope on pbrcel 3 is 40\, wjth
considerable 40% slope on parC".el:. 1 and 2, which
results in the inability to mae~ the certain Zoning
~tandards setfcrth for d~velopment in t~e ~Jral
residential zon~.
b.
That the site is not physically suitable f':)r the
type of development, in tt.at the project site is
predominantly ~ore than 25\ stop~; parcel J of 1.46
acrdS has natural slopes of an average of 40\, and as
setforth in Section 5950 of the City of Encinitas
Zoning Ordinance and at\:ached as "Attachment A" for
lots of more than 1 acr~ "any encroachment into steep
slope areas over 25% shall not exceed 10\ of the
steep slope ar£a over 25% grade; parcels 1 and 2
which are both proposed at 1.00 acre have nearly all
of their area in ~lope over 25\ and as set forth in
Section 5950, lots of 1 acre or less, with all or
nearly all of their area in slopes ever 25\ grade,
~ay be permitted an encroachoent into the steep slope
area, provided any area to be dj sturbed tro:n its
natural state shall be limited to 2000 sq. ft. or 20\
of the entire parcel, whichever is greater; areas
with slopes over 25\ grade may be used in order to
provide access to flatter areas if there i~ no less
environmentally damr3ging alternative 2vailable; and
the evidence submit~ed by the property o~ner in th~
forn of a preliminary feasability grading plan, a
Tentative Parcel Map (both received and dated by the
City of Encinitas on December 12, 1988) I and all
written and graphic documentation and public
testimony on file in the Department of Plannin~ and
Community Development does ~ot adequately
substantiate ~hat th~ development of the lots could
be accomplished in conformance with the
;).for-amentioned Zoning Ordinanc-a standards, in tha~
the approximate calculations taken from the evidence
submitted identify that parcel J may be encroaching
into the ~5\ slope areas more than the 10\ allowed
and possibly up to 24\, and approximate p~rcentag~s
of encroachment for parcell could not be determ~ned.
The project is lc,'r3ted in the rural residential zone
and the property ow~er is proposing to create J lots.
LN/CAB11c-076wp (4-12-89)
.