HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-04-06; City Council; 6928-1; 813 Unit Tentative Map & Planned unit developmentCITWOF CARLSBAD - AGENOWSlLL
AR8 6928-1
MTG 4-06-82
PADEPT.
TJTLE' CT 81-9/PUD-30 - CARLSBAD HIGHLANDS
813 UNIT (853 LOT)
TJiNTATlVE 'i'KAUT MAF AND
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
OPPT HD.«
CITV ATTY\J f^A
J~ZXftPITY MGR. ^cy^-
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
If the Council concurs with the proposed findings and
if it is the desire of the City Council to deny Tentative
Subdivision Map CT 81-9 and Planned Unit Development PUD-30,
your action is to adopt Resolution No. _ (g fl -3 */ _ .
ITEM EXPLANATION:
The City Council, at your meeting of March 16, 1982, directed
the City Attorney to prepare the necessary documents denying
CT 81-9/PUD-30. The resolution as prepared incorporates the
findings of Planning Commission Resolution No. 1918 modified
to delete the concerns about premature development. The denial
is without prejudice to the developers ability to refile a
revised project within the one year time limit.
EXHIBIT:
Resolution No.(o ft
o5
o
1
1
2
3
4.
5
6
7
- 8
9
10
11
12
CO n i8 13
o o £ o:
2*28 15CD r: ^ -. J-O.CJ ^ -J<
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO.6824
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION MAP (CT 81-9) AND PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (PUD-30) FOR A 813-UNIT PROJECT
ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF LAKE
CALAVERA AND APPROXIMATELY 1.5 MILES EAST OF
EL CAMINO REAL. APPLICATION: THE BARNES
CORPORATION. .__
WHEREAS, on February 24, 1982, the Planning Commission
adopted Resolution No. 1918 recommending to the City Council
that Tentative Subdivision Map (CT 81-9) and Planned Unit
Development (PUD-30) be denied; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad did
on March 16, 1982' hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider
the recommendations of the Planning Commission and to receive
all recommendations and hear all persons interested in or opposed
to said Tentative Subdivision Map and Condominium Permit; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Carlsbad, California as follows:
A. That the abov.e recitations are true and correct.
B. That Tentative Subdivision Map (CT 81-9) and Planned
Unit Development (PUD-30) are hereby denied, without prejudice to
reapplication, because of the facts set out in the Planning
Department Staff Report dated February 24, 1982, the evidence
presented at the March 16, 1982 public hearing and Planning
Commission Resolution No. 1918 on file in the City Clerk's office
and incorporated by reference herein and based upon the following
findings:
Find ings :
n
»
'*
e
12
13
15
lg
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
1) The project is not consistent with the public facilities
element of the general plan.
The Public Facil i t ies E lement of the General Plan requires
the proponents of the development to present evidence
satisfactory to the city that all public facilities and
services will be available concurrent with need. The City
Council cannot find that public facilities, such as
adequate streets, fire facilities and police protection
will be available concurrent with need for this project
because the project depends on the extension of these
srvices by other property owners and developers. If
developed in a timely manner other previously approved
projects may provide such services and facilities as major
arterials and fire stations. When these services and
facilities are provided, development of this project will
be more logical. However, because those facilities which
will be provided by other property developers are not yet
installed, and the city cannot predict when installation
will occur, there is no evidence upon which the city can
find the project consistent with the general plan's public
facilities policies.
2) The proposed project does not meet the intent of Chapter
21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Planned Unit
Development) since it does not provide a site-sensitive
plan and does not provide sufficient trade-offs to justify
the reduced lot sizes and reduced right-of-way widths
because the project's grading and design will totally alter
the existing landscape and destroy or severely impact
almost all of the existing natural habitats, as discussed
i-n tne staff report.
3) The site is not physically suitable for the type of
development proposed, because of the hilly topography of
the site. The proposed development, consisting of single
family detached dwellings and duplexes requires extensive
amounts of grad'ing, as discussed in the report.
4) The decision. of the subdivision will cause substantial
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 and the
EIR. Since the project will result in significantly adverse
evironmental effects which cannot be mitigated and because
there is no evidence of other overriding factors the
project must be denied.
. ' .5) The proposed project is not consistent with the Open Space
an^ Conservation Element of the General Plan because of the
massive alteration of the existing topography and the
destruction of almost all of the existing wildlife habitats
on the s i t e . .
6) The pro.posed project is not consistent with Title 20 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code because:
a) Is not consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan.
<&
„
_
D
f Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code requires . t'hat the
project be denied.
7
Q
9
12
15
17
18
20
22
•23
24
25
26
27
28
b) The site is no t phy s ical ly suitable for the type of
deve lopment .
c) The design of the subdivision is likely to cause
substantial environmental damage.
C. This action of denial is final the date this
resolution is adopted by the City Council. The provision of
Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, "Time Limits for
Judicial Review" shall apply:
'"NOTICE TO APPLICANT"
"The time within which judicial review of this decision
must be sought is governed.by Code of Civil Procedure,
Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the
City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter
1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial
review must be filed in the appropriate court not later
than the ninetieth day following the date on which this
dec ision4becomes final; however, if within ten days
after the decision becomes final a request for the
record of the proceedings accompanied by the required
deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated
cost of preparation of such record, the time within
which such petition may be filed in court is extended
to not later than the thirtieth day following the date
• on which the record is either personally delivered or
mailed to the party or his attorney or record, if he
has one. A written request for the preparation of the
record of the proceedings shall be filed wit.h the City
Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad,
California, 92008."
1
2
3
.4
8
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
r-N
PASS'ED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of
the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on
the 6th __day of April , 1982, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Packard, Casler, Anear, Lewis and Kulchin
NOES: None
ABSENT: • None
RONALD C. PARKARD, Mayor
ATTEST:
A
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRAWZ, City
(SEAL)