HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-04-16; City Council; 8145; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A 24 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT| CT 84-40/CP 301 (HARDING SQUARE CONDOS - APPEAL)1 L
6 -4 cn a,
8
k 0 4-1
a
6 -4 m -i
-i
8
zl
ri PI 2J
9
a
3 4 E
m 9
k a, -!J 4
8
2
.. 8 =
4 I 6 w u
Ln co I UJ
i 2 3 0 0
CITWF CARLSBAD - AGENO-ILL
/ DEI AB#* TITLE: nwrxrn vzcr me rn mmxxarmm PmmT
MTG. 4/16/85 FOR 14 24 TUNIT CDVXMl"JX)UM PROJECT. CIT
Clf
-v
CT 84-40/CP-301 - H?JWING EQUAEE c;INDoS. DEPT.- PLN (APPEAL)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Planninq COmnission is recorcpnending that the City Council direct th(
Attorney' s Off ice to prepare documents DENYING CI' 84-40/cP-301.
ITEM MPLANATIOFT
The applicants are appealing a decision 'cy the Planning C&ssion to d(
request for tentative tract rap and condominium permit for a 24 unit mi
project on the southeast corner of Harding Street and Oak Avenue in the
zone (location mp attached).
In 1983, the city approvea a general plan amendment, mne change md si
developent plan on this site. The general plan amendment and mne &a
allwed the density to be increased frcm 10-20 du/ac to the special 30-
cateqory. The site developent plan approved a 2!4 unit apartment proje
density of 40.6 du/ac. The high density was proutted by Council at th
because the city was trying to encourage apartment developent. As a p the dpproval, the applicant agreed to enter into an agreement to provid
least. 25% of the units for persons or families of la< or derate incam
site developent plan for this project expired in 1984.
The <.ipplicant is now requesting approval of a 24 unit condominium proje
this site and has indicated that he is willing tn reserve 25% of the un
persclns or families of lm or rroderate incone. As prcposed, this proje
complies With the developent standards of the P:Lanned Developnent (PD)
Ordinance.
Bot-h staff and the Plannin5 C&ssion believed the design of the proje
the <amenities provided did not justify approval of this project at the
of tlne density range. The proiect barely exceeds the mdnhim standards
by t?he PD Ordinance. In addition, the density oE the proposed project du/alc:: is amve the mean of 35 du/ac established by City Council Policy
the EWH Residential Very High density (30-40 du':;/ac) general plan desi
The proposed project Will cantribute traffic to Elm Avenue. The Engine
Department has indicatd thzt Elm Avenue already has a disproportionate
traffic accidents Wen -sed to other links in the city's circulatic
Additional traffic on Elm Avenue Will only serve to wrsen the accident
this street.
The Planning Conmission voted unaninu>usly to deny this project.
information please see the attached relport to the Plarming Camnission.
ENVIliONMENTAL REVIEJV
The Land Use Planning I<anager and the Planning C~~lissjion could not is:
negative declaration for -this project due to traffic tmncerns.
For 5
2-
0 0
Page Two of Agenda Bill # 6" 13 5/
FISCAL IMFACI'
The increased need for city capital facilities resulting from this deve
will be offset by the pymnt of the public facilities fee. Any capita
facilities related directly to this developent will be constructed and
Increased operating expenses related to this developent will ke offset
extent fran increased tax or fee revenue generated by the developnent.
detailed econanic impact analysis of this developent has keen mnducte
tine so predictions of the portion of operating expenses covered by add
operating revenue created as a result of this project cannot be mde.
EXElIEIITS
1. I-mation Map
2. IT Resolution No. 2417
3. Staff Reprt dated, mch 13, 1985 w/attachments
by the developer.
-.-
@JCATIOIV MAP.
L
A:-, z ELM AVE ;.L :" /[
I l a --- z
G)
-v) --I - I UI a -4
....... ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. .................................. ................. ................. ................ ............... ............... ................. ................. ............... ............... .' ...........................
#;[ : ,
b U
VI 0 2
v) -I
-
OAK
............................... ................................. 7- \ site -JJ, --
'HARDING ST CONDOS 'JCT84-40/C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
I*
0 0
PLANNING COMMISSION FESOLUTION NO. 2417
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF HARDING STREET AND OAK AVENUE.
APPLICANT: HARDING SQUARE CONDOS
CASE NO: CT 84-4OJCP-301
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A 24 UNIT
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain proF
wit:
That portion of Lot 1 of Tracts 114 and 120 at C
Lands per Map No. 1774 filed January 3, 1923,
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad, and referred tc
Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes c
as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; i
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 13'
March, 1985, hold a duly noticed public hearing as presc:
law, to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearinq, upon hearing ai
1 considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all 1 1 desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all fac
I 20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the P1
Commission as follows:
(A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct
(B) That based on the evidence presented at the public the Commission hereby DENIES CT-84-40/CP-301, based
following findings:
Findings
1) The design of the project and the minimal amenities justify approval of this project at the above top E
density range allowed by the General Plan.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
e 0
2) The proposed project does not meet the requirements
Council Policy 7872 since the proposed density of 4(
is above the mean of 35 du/ac established for the RI
Plan Density Range.
those contemplated by the General. Plan. 3) The traffic impacts created by this project are gre(
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meetii
Planning Commission of the City of Car-lsbad, California,
the 13th day of March, 1985, by the following vote, to w
AYES: Chairman Farrow, Commissioners SchlehL L'Heureux, Marcus, McFadden, Smith & F
NOES : None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
VERNON J. FARROW, JR., (
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMI!
ATTEST:
etbb&G&&A&&T .
-\ l 'I
MICHAEL J. M~ZMILU& -*-
I
LAND USE PLANNING MANAGER
~
~
PC RES0 NO. 2417 -2-
AIL L YL-LIL A YL. u "YL LA I ALlJ-8 YLlIU e I-994 N OVEM9 E R e
63 STAFF REPORT
DATE : March 13, 1985
TO; P1 anning Commission
FROM : Land Use Planning Office
SUBJECT: CT 84-40/CP-301 - HARDING SQUARE CONDOS - A request a 24 unit tentative tract map and condominium permit the southeast corner of Harding Street and Oak Avenc in the RD-H zone.
I. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Cornmission ADOPT Resoluti
No. 2417 DENYING CT 84-40/CP-301 based on the findings conta. therein.
I1 . PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting approval of a 24 unit tentative tract map and condominium permit located as described above. The project will be located on a -59 acre site and have a
density of 40.6 du/ac. This is slightly above the general p range designated on this site of 30-40 du/ac. The site is
presently occupied by five older single family homes.
The proposed project will consist of 24 two-bedroom units. 1
of the required resident and visitor ..,parking will be providec an underground parking garage. A common recreation area wil
provided in the central portion of the project with a jacuzz
putting green, mallet pool, a shuffleboard court, miniature course and a sunning area. In addition, each unit will have private balcony or patio. The required storage will be prov in closets located in the garage and on the balconies and
patios .
On June 8, 1983, the Planning Commission approved a General
Amendment, Zone Change and Site Development Plan on this sit
The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change allowed the densi
be increased from 10-20 du/ac to 30-40 du/ac. The Site Development Plan approved a 24 unit, one and two bedroom, apartment project with a density of 40.6 du/ac. As a part c this approval, the applicant agreed to enter into an agreemf to provide at least 25 percent of the units for persons or families of low or moderate income. At the time of approval
applicant indicated that he intended to apply for a condomir conversion in the future. The applicant was informed that t project would have to comply with the development standards design criteria of the Planned Development Ordinance and the project would have to be able to justify the proposed densit
e 0
111. ANALY S I S
1) Does the proposed project conform with the development
standards and desiqn criteria of the Planned Developmen
Ordinance?
2) Does the desiqn of the project and the proposed ameniti
justify approval of this project at the top end of the
density range?
3) Does the proposed project comply with the requirements
City Council Policy 7872?
Discussion
As proposed, this project conforms with the minimal standarc the Planned Development Ordinance in reqards to parking, recreation areas, and storage. Due to the small size of th
lot, .59 acre, and the high density of the project, there w
be almost no buffering of the individual living units from
common recreation areas.
Staff does not believe that the desian of the project and t proposed amenities justify the requested density of 40.6 du As mentioned previously, this project only meets the very rr standards of the Planned Development Ordinance and is extre
development standards of the Planned Development Ordinance not justify approval at the very top end of the density rar
The applicant believes that since a 24 unit apartment projc
was previously approved on this site, this establishes prec for the approval of a 24 unit condominium project on this I Staff disagrees since the development standards for a
condominium project are significantly different than those
an apartment project. Condominium projects require more
resident parking, on-site guest parking, recreation facili and storage areas.
The applicant also believes that the density is justified
because he is offering to provide six units, 25 percent of
total, for purchase by persons or families of low or moder
income. Staff believes that this is beneficial, and this
the applicant received the special 30-40 du/ac category, k
tight. staff believes a project that meets the minimal
within that category the density should still be justified
As proposed this project does not comply with City Council
Policy 7872. This policy states that no project shall be
approved above the mean density of the General Plan ranqe
there are traffic or circulation impacts that cannot be mitigated. The mean density for this site is 35 du/ac., T
would permit 20 units. Much of the traffic generated by i project will use Elm Avenue. The portion of Elm Avenue closest to this project already suffers from congestion d
the number of curb cuts and the street's geometry.
-2-
< 0 e
The Engineering Department has identified the intersection oj Carlsbad Boulevard and Elm Avenue as operating at well below
design standards at PM peak hour at build-out conditions.
Further study of off-peak hour traffic levels of service are presently being performed. The data may be available at the
time of this hearing. Additionally, we must point out that
Avenue has a disproportionate share of traffic accidents whe
compared to other links in the city's circulation system.
Additional traffic on Elm Avenue can only serve to worsen th
accident record on this street.
In conclusion, staff believes that the design of the project
and the amenities provided do not justify the reauested
density. In addition, this project does not comply with Cit
Council Policy No. 7872, Therefore, staff recommends denial
CT 84-40/CP-301.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Land Use Planninq Manager has determined that this projc
may have significant environmental impacts and, therefore,
cannot issue a Negative Declaration.
Attachnents
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2417
2. Location Map
3. Background Data Sheet
4. Disclosure Form
5. Staff Report dated, June 8, 1983
6. Reduced Exhibits
7. Exhibits "A" - "F'' dated, February 4, 1985
MH : ad
2/26/8 5
-3-
e e
EACI(GWLI DATA SHEET
CASE NO: CT 84-40/CP-301
APPLICANT: Harding Sauare Condos
REQUEST AND LOCATION: 24 unit tentative tract map and mndminim permit on
southeast corner of Harding St and Oak Avenue
LEGAL DESCRIPTICN: mat portion of Lot 1 of Tracts 114 and 120 at Carlsbad
Lands per Map No. 1774, filed January 3, 1923 AFT?: 204-040-01
Acres .59 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 24
mRFL PLAN AND ZCRJING
Land Use Designation RMH
Density Allowed 30-40 du/ac Density Proposed 40.6 du/ac
Existing Zone RD-H Propsed Zone -
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:
Zoning Land Use
Site RD-H SED
North F-P Off ice
SOU# R-3 SFD
East R-3 SED
West R-3 SED
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District Carlsbad Water Carlsbad Sewer Carlsbad EDU's
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSEsSm
February 27, 1985
FTegative Declaration, issued
E.I.R. Certified, dated -
Other,
I .u* Telephonm , Nrrnbar Tohph0n.r xumber
2imU Rome Address
3isiness Address
Ttlephor-e NL-U Telephone Xunber
-
(Attach more sharkr if necessary)
ur#ttr penalty of perjury that the information contained in t and correct and that .it will zmain true and correct and Wing true and correct until amnded.
F. J. Grisnik
_- 44wr~rlSseGlrn$
L1CaUCm 3~1ULKX .. .' April 8, 1983
STAFF REPORT
DATE : June 8, 1983
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Land Use Planning Office
SUBJECT: GPA-69(B)/ZC-277/SDP 83-5 - ZIMMERMAN/CHANDLER - A
request to amend the Land Use Element of the General
Plan, a Zone Change and approval of a Site Developmen
Plan for a .59 acre parcel at the southeast corner of Harding Street and Oak Avenue.
I. RECOMMENDATION
It is recoinmended that the Planning Commission approve the Negative Declaration issued by the Land Use Planni-fig Manager a
adopt Resolution no. 2137, approving SDP 83-5 and Resolutions
nos. 3.135 and 2136, recornending approval of GPA-69CB) and XC-277 to the City Council based on the findings and subject t
the conditions contained therein.
I1 .
The applicant is requesting approval of three applications:
1)
PRO J E C'l? DES C R I PT I ON
An amendment of the Land Use Elernent of the General Plan
from Residential Medium-High Density (10-20 du/ac) to
Residential Very High (30-40 du/ac); and
2) A zone change from R-3 (Multiple Farniiy Residential) to R (Residential Density-High); and
A Site Development Plan for a 24 unit apartment project. 3)
The property is .59 acres in size and located at the southeas
corner of Harding Street and Oak AQenue.
As the Commission is aware, the Land Use Element of the Gener Plan can only be amended three times a year. A recent ainendm
to State Planning' Law, however, exempts residential developme that have at least 25 percent low or moderate income units (s
attachment). The applicant hbs provided an agreement and
monitoring program to assure that at lenst 25 percent of the
units will be available to persons and families of low or moderate income. .
0 0
The proposed project will consist of 12 one bedroom and 12 twc bedroom apartments. All of the parking for the project will t
a private patio or deck. provided in the central portion of the project with a jacuzzi, wet bar, an& barbeque area. The applicant has indicated to staff that he intends to apply for a condominium conversion
permit at a future date.
111. ANALYSIS
Planning Issues - GPA-69(B)
1) Is the proposed land use amendment to Residential Very Hic density an appropriate designation for the site?
2) Would the proposed general plan amendment adversely impac'
the surrounding properties?
provided in an underground parking garage. Each unit will hat
A common recreation area-will be
Discussion
Staff feels the proposed general plan amendment from Resident Medium-High (10-20 du/ac) to Residential Very High (30-40 du/ is an appropriate use for this site. One of the purposes of
RVH general plan designation is to encourage higher densities
where they are appropriate, such as adjacent to the commercia core and in the downtown area. Another of the purposes is to encourage low and moderate income rental units. The proposed project complies with both of these goals, it is immediately adjacent to downtown Carlsbad and at least 25% of the units w be available to persons and families of low or moderate incom
Staff believes the proposed general plan amendment will not adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood. Traffic generated by the development plan being processed concurrent1
with this general plan should not adversely effect the adjace street system. Harding Street has an 80' right-of-way and Oa
Avenue has a 60' right-of-way, yet carries relatively little traffic. The property to the north of this site is occupied office uses. The properties on the other three sides of the subject property are occupied by older single family residenc which will most likely be replaced by multiple family residen in the future.
Planning Issues - 2C-277
1. Is the proposed RD-H zone consistent with the RVH general plan designation?
2. Is the proposed RD-H zone and uses allowed within this zc consistent with surrounding zoning and lend uses?
-2-
0 0
Discussion
Residential Density High (RDH) is the implementing zone for tk
RVH general plan designation, therefore, the requested zone
change would be consistent with the proposed general plan . designation. As discussed in the previous paragraph, staff believes that the uses allowed within this zone will be
consistent with surround- ing zoning and land uses.
Planning Issues - SDP 83-5 .
1. Is the site adequate in size and shape to accommodate the
proposed use?
Discussion - SDP 83-5
As proposed, staff does not feel the site is adequate in size accommodate the-proposed project. The subject property has ai area of -59 acres and the applicant is proposing to construct
units. This would result in a density of 40.6 du/ac, which would exceed the requested general plan designatisn of RVH (3( - 40 du/ac). Staff cannot recommend approval of a project’thi
exceeds the density allowed by the general plan. Staff has
added a condition that the number of units be reduced to 23
which would result in a density of 38.9 du/ac.
At 38.9 du/ac, the project would be at the high end of the 30. du/ac range designated for the site. Staff can support this
density because the project exceeds all requirements for an
apartment .project and provides greater open space by locating parking underground. Also, the project is providing 25% low (
City. ’
The Commission should note that the proposed project does not comply with the recreation, parking and storage requirements t the Planned Development Ordinance. Staff would not recommend approval of any future application for a condominium conversii for this project if these standards are not met.
In summary, staff feels the proposed general plan amendment a
zone change are appropriate for the site’and will not adverse effect adjacent properties. With the deletion of one unit, t site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate an apartmen project. Staff therefore, recommends approval of GPA-69(B)/Z 277 and SDP 83-5.
moderate cost housing and is located near the central core of
111. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Land Use Planning Manager has determined that this prajec will not have a significant impact on the environment and therefore, has issued a Negative Declaration on May 15, 1983.
-3-
.. 0
ATTACHMENTS
1, PC Resolution Nos. 2135, 2136 and 2137
2, Location Map 3, Background Data Sheet
4. Disclosure Statement 5. Section 65361 of the Government Code
6, 7. Environmental Documents
Agreement from the applicant dated -
8, Reduced Exhibit "X"
9. Exhibits "A" - "E", dated May 6, 1983
MH/ar
5/27/83
-4-
! II
;.
t! 'iyiii .*OF .FtV I ~:~~~::~~~:~~~~~~~~ * '1 " sEJ'
b hi BDi :;$jii air: $$I i8:ii!y[ I'il - :I I f!t; 8'pq sgr F:) $1 '."i'I 44 ,' r ' ' ' ,111 ! ;;J\Elf$i* 'r$sJ-r LJj [p ' , !q fFi I i .,,lr, 1 i':.' , , ' ibz,~!~pt f$$; tal,!! ?Jl E.$ $i ~
.a, B
I!--. I I! I ' . d%T$$q $1
. %* - P 1 * .-A: ..
pyq? 'Eli 6!.i .a 1 .'e@ !I"Qa.:l,gi~q "&[ pi8 'f .'e' hi !pl
,E 1 4%L1 : 8- lj9& [R aft
5 .E P 1 1 Bs. '!,a,,[ ,- &:gvl 2 1. -1
8 11:: I$! ..
4-*irQ i SI, ; -1 la- IS i, 8 ' :
aI a xtfe io. 'tgl pi 1.
! '! *I
I
,
@j g g,g &E q $,E I 'QRE8gZ.EB.E Q 1.' 5 1 H
i : 8,! : pf zw i cji
a 0; #/1 5 0 Si 5, a18 ' i $ 11 1' ?GI *
i j$ E 8
p: l*,Ega H pgws i\ +O 3
:E x$ ern rn
0 f 11 g '91
a2aHs my 8%: ;p $ ! R c
I I> i 8 5r
ZP * 2 p tn'd L M 'm 0 :ow'p
UP m,$ I $i
-6 d -a -0 (D
z E s v)
t 1s [ yg f
g 812
PI it
4 80. la4u *Peer
.
MASON. ARC P. 0. 101
IOU?* L4lS 1
.I-
14 umlTm I rl mi:: FRANK ORlCNlK
.
s.
...
____ - -_~ ..__._-._
-
- --
t -ruz
-
--
-__.
LTU:
-
--
C-p:
-
--
t --
_.. .
MR. FRANK QRlSNlK
Carlsbad: CA'
.--,a. bel-. - .. UawrrOoT Y *uocuTy ;
==,"=a=%--- *
I 0-
1 1
1
i
I
__.-_.___ _-- _-.. - - *.
* '. - ., A- (, .. . . L . -. -0 ';."-..\ * , e .1. ' .. jqi ,' ctiFff!-j 1 I . 2 "'
t.- 'I I "1): i ;
* f $j $ !? 48 j 8-1,
*?hP ' {
..
;r
\ .I
; Stib'l t
6 86 A 1 ,1
\
OhG fiw.
.-. e 0
CITY OF CARLSBAD I 1200 ELM AVENUE
CAR LS BA D, CALI FORN I A 92008-1 989
(61 9) 438-5531 VINCENT F. BIONDO, JR.
CITY ATTORNEY
DANIEL S. HENTSCHKE
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY June 4, 1985
Donald A. Agatep Agatep Corporation
2956 Roosevelt Street
P. 0. Box 590
Carlsbad, California 92008
RE: AGREEMENT IMPOSING RESTRICTIONS
NORMANDY PAC I F IC CORPORATION
The City Clerk has asked that I respond to your letter of Jur
4, 1985 regarding the above referenced agreement. The oriqir is returned with this letter. Exhibit A, a legal descriptior
the property, needs to be attached. You also need to supply appropriate corporate notary.
We are unclear what action, if any, you wish the City to takc
response to your letter. The City Council at their meeting (
April 16, 1985 denied CT 84-40/CP-301 without prejudice and
returned it to the Planning Commission. That request for a : unit condominium project is still pending. The agreement relates to your previous applications on the same property fc
24 unit apartment project (GPA-69(b), ZCA-227 and SDP-83-5).
you wish to withdraw the condo project and attempt to resurrt the apartment project you should so notify us in writing.
The City Council, at their meeting of July 5, 1983, adopted , Resolution of Inducement No. 7278 expressing the Council's intention to provide mortgage revenue bond financing for a 2 unit apartment project. Please let us know if you have any intention of pursuing that financinq.
Our office prepared documents approving a general plan
amendment, zone change, site development plan and housing
agreement for consideration by the City Council at their mee
of August 2, 1982. At that time the matter was continued ant
theoretically, remains pending before the City Council. If
wish to ask that the Council now consider the adoption of thi documents you should so indicate in writing in a letter to t City Manager.
I 0 0
!
r
Donald A. .Agatep - -2- June 4, 1'
Before requesting Council action on your project you may wish to consider discussing the matter with the Director of Buildi and Planning and the Land Use Planning Manager. Because of t constraints and the pending tax law changes it may not be possible to accomplish a multifamily financing program for yo project. You may also want to discuss whether or not staff c
continue its support of the project in view of the fact that the Planning Commission and Council has expressed concerns th it may be too dense for the site; 2) that the zone change, as
recommended in July 1983, was expressly made provisional to expire in July 1985 unless the project was under construction
it appears you will not be able to satisfy that condition; an
the City Council's interim growth management policy currently precludes the approval of projects above the mean density.
Whether or not to consult with staff prior to asking that yo1
project be heard by the City Council is, of course, a matter within your discretion.
Our office completed its preparation of the documents necesse
to approve your apartment project two years ago and there is
need to involve our office further. At this point, whether ( not your project should go forward is a policy question.
VINCENT F. BIONDO, JR. City Attorney
rmh j
c: Mayor City Manager City Clerk
Director of Building and Planning
Land Use Planning Manager Redevelopment Manager
0 q + April 19, 1985
TG : Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Attorney
HARDING SQUARE CONDOMINIUM APPEAL (FORMERLY ZIMMERMAN/CHANDLE MR. AGATEP)
Because of questions raised by the Council at your meeting ol
April 16, 1985 regarding the zoning for the above referenced project we took a second look at the record. This memorandui to report that the General Plan and zoning designations for j subject property are RMH and R-3 which provide for a density range of 10-20 dwelling units per acre. The General Plan
amendment and zone change to RVH and RD-H,, high density 30-41
dwelling units per acre, was never finally approved by the Council. The matter was referred to our office for preparat of documents including conditions implementing an agreement
insuring that the project would be maintained as an apartmenl
building for low and moderate income people. Since the deve
refused to sign the agreement the documents were never returi to the City Council for adoption. The information we gave tl
Council at your meeting that the new zoning was in effect wa:
correct.
The application for the new condo project at 40 dwelling uni per acre should not have been accepted or processed by staff
since it violated the existing General Plan and zoning. The
condo permit and tentative map applications were filed after
adoption of your interim planning policies and it appears thl
would preclude approval of a General Plan amendment and zone
change to double the existing density. When the project is
reviewed by the Planning Commission on the Council's referra back we have difficulty seeing how it can be approved at a density any higher than the maximum existing zoning of 20 un per acre. If any member of the City Council or the staff wi to discuss the project further or take any other actions you should arrange to put the matter on the City Council's agend Otherwise, it will be our advice to the Land Use Planning Department and the Planning Commission that the existing Gen Plan and zoning control and that the project cannot be appro at a density higher than 20 dwelling units per acre.
The balance of this memorandum will detail the history of th project which we developed as a result of our review of the
record. Section 65361 of the Government Code provides that General Plan Land Use Element may not be amended more than f times during any calendar year. The applicant, at that time
Zimmerman/Chandler represented by Mr. Agatep, approached the
w
-2- c e
early in 1983 to ask the staff to use the exception to that section's limitations which allows the City to consider Gener Plan element amendment requests for development of resident id
units at least 25% of which will be occupied by people of lob moderate income. The applicant promised that his project wou
be a low income rental project. On that basis the applicatio
was accepted and a special General Plan amendment hearing was
scheduled. (Based on our experience with this project we ha
advised the Planning Department that in the future projects h not be accepted for processing under that exception until aft the applicant has signed an agreement ensuring that the projc
will in fact be for low and moderate income persons.)
The project was heard by the City Council at your meeting of 5, 1983. Attached is a copy of the agenda bill. As you can
the project was presented as an exception to the General Plai
hearing requirements on the basis that an agreement had been
reached assuring that 25% of the units would be reserved for and moderate income families for 20 years. Both the Planninc
Commission and the staff, in recommending the project, inclu,
conditions insuring that for ten years all of the units wou1(
available as rentals and that for twenty years 25% of the un
would be available as rentals for low and moderate income
persons. It was also recommended that if building permits wc
not issued for the project within two years the zoning would
null and void that the property would revert to R-3. The mi for the meeting indicate that the City Council discussed the project including specifically the requirement that the enti project be available as rental apartments for ten years. Th Council by motion passed, by a vote of 4-1, directed our off to prepare the documents as recommended by the Planninq
Commission and staff, including the two year building permit condition, the ten year and twenty year rental requirements
an additional condition to provide for a view obscuring fenc
between the project and the adjacent property owner.
Our Office prepared a resolution approving the General Plan
amendment, a resolution approving the site development plan,
resolution approving a development agreement for the apartme
project and an ordinance rezoninq the property. Those docurt and the agenda bill are attached to this memorandum. The Cc considered them at your meeting of August 2, 1983. The iten continued because the applicant had refused to sign the
development agreement. Council considered it again on Augus
1983. Again, we reported that the applicant had not signed necessary development agreement and suggested that the mattt sent back to staff and not returned to Council until such t
the agreement had been signed. While the Council had expre! its intention to approve the General Plan amendment and zonf change, subject to certain conditions, the conditions for tl action were never satisfied. The General Plan amendment ani
change was never adopted.
7 0 -3- w
i
Even if they had been adopted the requirement that building permits issue within two years of the approval would have
probably invalidated the zoning in any case since it is high1 unlikely the applicant would be able to be under construction
that date.
At some time during the ensuing year Mr. Agatep changed signa
on the project and approached the City planning staff on beha
of Harding Square Condominiums with a request for a new 24 u
tentative subdivision map and condominium permit on the same
property. This clearly was an abandonment of the previous
project. The applicant requested a density of 40 units per a which was in excess of that allowed by the applicable General Plan and zoning. The application should not have been accept
Commission. It reached the Council on appeal at your meeting
April 16, 1985. Staff was under the belief that the higher
density General Plan and zoning had been approved for the sul: property. As indicated above, that was not correct.
As the situation stands now the property is zoned R-3, 10-20#
General Plan amendment can only be considered by the Council approved at this time as low and moderate income housing wit!
using one of the City's "wishes" for this year. Further, sir it is a new project the Council's interim growth management I would appear to prohibit the processing or approval of the
General Plan amendment or zone change which would double the
density presently allowed. Council would need to find some 1
for an exception to that policy to allow the approvals to be
considered. Council's action in referring the project to tht
Planning Commission for redesign stands. However, as indica1 above, unless Council determines otherwise that reconsiderat
will have to take place within the bounds of the existing Gel
Plan and zoning which provides for a maximum of 20 units per acre.
Nevertheless, it was processed and denied1 by the Planniing
VINCENT F. BIONDO, JR.
City Attorney
rmh attachments
c: City Manager
i
City Clerk Land Use Planning Manager Director of Building and Planning Mr. Agatep