HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-11-02; City Council; 7163-1; Plaza Serena De La Costa- AppealCITT*OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA-BILL ^J^
ARa 7163-1
UTO. 11/2/82
DEPT.CA
TITLE: CT 82-11/PUD-44, PLAZA SERENA DE
LA COSTA - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSI01
DECISION APPROVING PROJECT.
nFPT HD.
'CITY ATTY^rxS
HITY MGR.<7%t_
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
QuiSccQ.a.
If the City Council wishes to grant the appeal and deny
CT 82-11/PUD-44, Plaza Serena de la Costa, your action is to adopt
Resolution No. 1'O H' (&
ITEM EXPLANATION
The City Council, at your meeting of October
City Attorney to prepare documents granting
CT 82-11/PUD-44, Plaza Serena de la Costa,
suggested set of findings which incorporate
at the September 21, 1982 public hearing and
testimony and discussion at your meeting of
City Council should satisfy itself that the
reflect your intentions in the matter, that
by you to be true, and that they adequately
for the denial.
EXHIBIT
Resolution No.
5, 1982, directed the
the appeal and denying
We have prepared a
the testimony presented
the additional
October 5, 1982. The
findings accurately
they state facts found
explain your reasons
O
OO
0
D
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
RESOLUTION NO.7046
§ § 13
of 5 ^
d " - 5 14
9° i|H v ui Ji
°H $£ TKm 77 —, J-«->O «- _Ju: . 5 <- in O
g I 8 o 16
ill i?
O
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA GRANTING THE APPEAL
FROM A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION AND DENYING
AN EIGHT UNIT TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP AND
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED AT THE END OF LUCIERNAGA COURT BETWEEN
LUCIERNAGA STREET AND ARGONAUTA STREET.
APPLICANT: PLAZA SERENA DE LA COSTA
CASE NO; CT 82-11/PUD-44
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at their meeting of
August 11, 1982 held a duly noticed public hearing as required
by law to consider the approval of an eight unit tentative
subdivision map and planned unit development on property
generally located at the end of Luciernaga Court between
Luciernaga Street and Argonauta Street more particularly
described as follows: Lots 194 and 195 of La Costa Meadows Unit
No. 1 per map 6800 filed in the County of San Diego; and
WHEREAS, the Land Use Planning Manager has determined
that this project will not cause any significant environmental
impacts and therefore has issued a Negative Declaration, dated
July 23, 1982, which was approved by the Planning Commission on
August 11, 1982, in satisfaction of the requirements of the
Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance and the California
Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing the
Planning Commission adopted Resolution 1996 approving the
project (CT 82-11/PUD-44); and
WHEREAS, a timely appeal was filed by residents in the
area of the proposed project; and
c
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
WHEREAS, the City Council at their meeting of
September 21, 1982, held a duly noticed public hearing as
prescribed by law to consider that appeal which was continued to
the City Council meeting of October 5, 1982; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing after considerations of all
of the evidence, testimony and argument of those persons present
and desiring to be heard the City Council determined to grant
the appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Carlsbad, California as follows:
A. That the above recitations are true and correct.
B. That based on the evidence presented at the public
hearing, the City Council hereby grants the appeal and denies
Tentative Subdivision Map CT 82-11 and Planned Unit Development
Permit PUD-44. This action is based on the following findings:
1. Section 21.45.072 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code
provides that the City .Council may only approve a planned
development permit if it is able to make all of nine specified
findings.
a. The finding required by Section
21.45.072(a)(1) that the project be consistent
with the applicable plans for this property cannot
be met. This area of La Costa was planned and
subdivided for individual lot duplex projects and
has been substantially developed in accord with
that plan. This project proposes eight units,
twice the density otherwise allowed, which is not
consistent with those plans.
b. The finding required by Section
21.45.072(a)(2) that the project will contribute
to the general well being of the neighborhood and
the community cannot be met. The developer has
presented no facts showing any benefit from the
project. While the project would add eight units
to the city housing stock, the proposed selling
2.
3
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
price between $265,000 and $349,000 is in the
luxury range and will not contribute to any of the
goals of the Housing Element of the City General
Plan.
c. The finding required by Section 21,45.072(a)(3)
that the project not be detrimental to the people
in the area cannot be met. Based on the testimony
at the public hearing, the City Council finds that
because of the small radius of the cul-de-sac which
would not allow even one car to park on the street,
and because of the extra density in excess of that
otherwise allowed by the zone, that the approval of
the project would cause traffic and safety problems
and would be detrimental to the people in the
area.
d. The finding required by Section 21.45.072(a) (5)
that the project meet all of the design
requirements of Section 21.45.080 cannot be met.
The project is not imaginatively designed and the
buildings are not well integrated into the
topographic and natural landscape features of the
site. The buildable flat area of the lot is very
small in comparison to the lot as a whole which
consists of an extensive slope. Project design
seems primarily aimed at utilizing all the property
including building on the slopes rather than a less
dense project which would orient to the flat area
and preserve the slopes. The main failure to
comply with the design criteria is that the
requirement that the development be compatible with
the existing neighborhood and not constitute a
disruptive element in the neighborhood cannot be
met. The surrounding area is developed with
individual R-2 lots with individual duplexes which
have the appearance of a very well- kept
single-family area. This project is essentially a
multiple project of the condominium type with
densities double that otherwise allowed by the,
zoning in the area. The project does not share any
of the single-family nature of the surrounding area
but rather reflects a multiple dwelling lifestyle.
The lack of on-street parking and the focusing of
the traffic from eight units through one driveway
onto a very small cul-de-sac is not consistent with
the circulation patterns of the surrounding area
and will disrupt the neighborhood as evidenced by
the extensive public hearing and the testimony of
the residents in opposition to the project that the
project would cause them a number of problems.
e. The finding required by Section 21.45.072(a)(6)
that the project be designed to be sensitive to and
blend in with the natural topography of the site
3.
c
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
cannot be met for the reasons previously
discussed. In particular, the lack of adequate
flat building area to accommodate the units and
the need to utilize substantially all of the
slopes on the property.
f. The finding required by Section
21.45.072(a)(8) that the proposed project be
compatible with the surrounding development and
not create a disharmonious or disruptive element
to the neighborhood cannot be met. In making this
finding, the City Council incorporates the
discussion in paragraph (d) above in regard to the
failure to meet design criteria. The main reason
for the City Council's denial of this project is
the expressed finding that it is simply not
compatible with the neighborhood. In addition to
the reasons already stated, the visual impact of
the project will be out of keeping with the nicely
landscaped, essentially single-family duplexes
which surround it. It will have a large visual
impact because of large formal gates and extensive
walls. The single driveway will emphasize the
multiple condominium nature of the project as
opposed to the predominantly individual units
which surround it. The other houses in the area
will have some on- street or driveway parking.
There will be no on-street parking for this
project. Traffic is in excess of that which would
Otherwise result from the development of the two
lots which comprise the property into four units.
The City Council finds the extensive public
testimony, particularly that given at the
September 21, 1982 hearing, contains credible
evidence of the disruption to the
neighborhood.
C. In order to subdivide and construct the project as
proposed, it is necessary for the applicant to first have
obtained a Planned Unit Development Permit for the project.
Since that permit has been denied, this project does not have the
approvals required by the Zone Code. Since the project does not
have zoning approval, the tentative subdivision map for the
project CT 82-11 cannot be approved and must be denied. The
property is zoned R-2 and consists of two lots which allows for a
total of four units. The subdivision map proposes an eight unit
4.
o .#*<*»,
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
project which is not a permitted use and a tentative map for that
type of project on this property cannot be approved.
D. This action of denial is final the date this
resolution is adopted by the City Council. The provisions 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 10.94.6, which has been made
applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad
Municipal Code Chaper 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 decision becomes
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 of record, if he has one. A
written request for the preparation of the record of
the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk,
City of Carlsbad, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad,
California, 92008."
5.
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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of
the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on
the 2nd day of _ ^Nbventoer ^ , 1982, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Casler, Lewis and Kulchin
NOES: Council Members Chick and Anear
ABSENT: None
MARY H.^CASLER, Mayor
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Cle3k
(Seal)
6.
7