Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-10-15; City Council; 7892-1; 84 UNIT TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT|NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE CALAVERA HILLS MASTER PLAN CT 83-18/PUD 55 (CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE H)1 m 03 a rl ..u QU hla MO ab PQ g.3 ZM WF: .m$ LJl .5 a j:Cv I 'r) bJ 0 ';t 32; .'5 2 sa. 8: + w E gyz g 3 5 -5 2 : e2 on$ QZ $;: 2q c, @:a gse $22 InmZ coop, s+-+ Am: 722 2 6 F 0 a E!i z 3 0 0 Cll'PF CARLSBAD - AGENDeILL AB# "/$2- i%/ TITLE: 54 UNIT TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND PLAN- DEPl MTG. 10-15-85 OF THE CALAVERA HILLS MASTER PLAN CITY - NED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; NORTHWEST CORNE3 DEPT. PLN CT 83-18/PUD-55 - CALAVERA HILLS - CITY RECOMMENDED ACTION: ITTTTX-G' U\ If the City Council concurs your action is to adopt Resolutio No. ,g- , DENYING tentative map CT 83-18 and planned uni development PUD-55 . ITEM EXPLANATION The City Council heard this matter at your meetinq of October 1984. Due to the long delay in bringing this back we have at a copy of the original agenda bill, Planning Commission staff report and minutes of the October 2, 1984 City Council meetin your ready reference. At the October 2, 1984 City Council meeting two major issues discussed; preservation of the eucalyptus trees and the provi of street improvements around the park site. A large number adjacent residents spoke in opposition because the proposed p would eliminate a substantial portion of a large grove of eucalyptus trees. The other major issue was the provision for public improvemen around the park site, villages F and E-2. At the public hear concerns were expressed by the developer, Calavera Hills Comp (Sanders) , about the recommended conditions of approval, in particular street improvements to Tamarack, Elm, and Glasgow. part of the hearing the developer filed a brief challenging t city's legal ability to require these improvements. The Council returned this item to staff with direction to WOK the developer to resolve the issue of street improvements aro the park site and return it to the Council when the outstandi problems in the Calavera Hills Master Plan had been resolved. Council also directed the applicant to revise the plan to sav eucalyptus trees within the project. Staff is now returning this item to the City Council with a recommendation of denial for the following reasons: 1) The applicant has not entered into an agreement for the c provision of public facilities in the master plan area. 2) The applicant is no longer actively processing this application. 3) The applicant has not attempted to revise his plan to sac of the 100 eucalyptus trees. e a Page 2 of Agenda Bill No. zryi- 8’1 4) The proposed project does not appear to be consistent wit recent city policies adopted as part of the review of the Use Element of the General Plan, specifically a substanti portion of the site consists of 40% slopes. If no densit credit were given for these slopes this project would pro exceed the allowable density for this site. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Land Use Planning Manager has determined that this projec not cause any significant environmental impacts and, therefor issued a Negative Declaration dated August 7, 1984. The Plan Commission recommended approval on September 12, 1984. A cop the environmental document is on file in the Land Use Plannin Off ice. FISCAL IMPACT The increased need for city capital facilities resulting from this development will be offset by the payment of the public facilities fee. Any capital facilities related directly to t development will be constructed and paid for by the developer Increased operating expenses related to this development will offset to some extent from increased tax or fee revenue gener by the development. No detailed economic impact analysis of development has been conducted at this time so predictions of portion of operating expenses covered by additional operating revenue created as a result of this project cannot be made. EXHIBITS 1. Original Agenda Bill 7892 from 10/28/84 meeting 2. Location Map 3. Minutes from meeting of 10/2/84 which pertain to this ite 4. Resolution No. .-lxz- denying CT 83-18/PUD-55 PARK SITE 4J 8 8 c, In' E! 19 tn 2 .!I 4J 22 5 I? .ii E; 4 E cr' Uarl 3 i; 5-l 2.1 3 $' g E 4 =! 0 z a 8 city's Planned Developnent Ordinance and the mavera Hills mter plan. . ~hr planning cannission added an &ti& dticn -ring. that a, detail'er landscape plan be reviewed by the ~hmiq .Caimission prior to any We1-t This Oondition ms dded because of amcerns brought *.by neiglbrkq pmpertl owners t3at ae pject wuld cause the remnml of my mtm a&- trees. The carmissicn's intent was to preserve as my trees as pssible. An additimal issue involves the street inprOvanents mmd the City's hture park site (Village 'IF" and "E-2"). The Calavera Hills Master Plan provides thc flexibility to require offsite mad iinprovaraents hen such imprmranentS are deemed necessary. The project is riot located adjacent to the park site, howsver, no other subdivision in the Calavera Hills Master Plan has been conditimed to provide fhese street improvanents for the park. The park will soon be dedicated and the planning for the park site has begun, It 1s important to ensure that these improvmmts will be pt b by .the developers of MaVera Hills. Staff believes that this project ard all subsequent projects approved in the Calavera Hills Master Plan should be amditioned to provide these street improvanentS. The first suWivision to txlild would trigger the aonstructim of these needed impmvewnt~. The applicant cbjects to this dtian because he feels his project is mt related to the park site and -that the ather developer of Calavera Hills (pacific Scene) should be responsible for sane or all of these impravenentS. The Plannirq Carmissicn rrodified ~e dtim to &law the developer to wrk at other arrarrgemen&i 5or the impravawrtS amud the park site to the satisfactim of the city Igineer and Iand Use Planning Manager. ENvI-m " me Land Use Planning mger w -e* that this project will rn oause any significant emtirornnental inpacts and8 therefore, has issued a Negative Declaraticn, dated August 7, 1984, Wch w~9 approved by the Plm mssi(-n on Septabr 12,1984. A capy of the miramgntal docunentg is cn file in the Land Use Plannirq Office. ., e 0 page 2 of-- IC 7??2 FISC& mm The agplicant will rcpavide a11 required +Iic impr~~mt~ t~ the project, QSO, the applicant bs -reed to pay a @lac facilities .fee tr;, offset the costs of gmvidinrg all other plblic services. EXHIBITS 1. Lacation bkp -. 2. pc ~molutim No. 2342 3. Staff -8 dated septaober 12, 1984 w/attadmm~ -, '---*.LA ACI.Y "'>A flrruALr3 t 0 JULY ?ai983 a STAFF REPORT DATE : September 12, 1984 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Land Use Planning Office SUBJECT: CT 83-18/PUD-55 - CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE H - Request €or an 84-unit tentative tract map and planned unit development on 64 acres in the northwest corner of th Calavera Hills Master Plan area. I. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission APPROVE the Negative Declaration issued by the Land Use Planning Manager a ADOPT Resolution No. 2342 recommending APPROVAL of CT 83-18/PU toe City Council based on the findings and subject to the . conditions contained therein. 11,; . PROJECT. DESCR.IPTION . The applicant requests approval of an 840unit tentative tract and planned Unit development for Village H of the Calavera Hi: Master Plan area. The project is proposed on a 64-acre propel consisting of a steep hillside, which will be bisected by the alignment of Elm Avenue. This roadway provides the major eas west connection between El Camino Real and College Boulevard the northeast area of the City. As designed, the project would result in a density of 1.3 du/ The general plan designates this area 0-1.5 du/ac. A recent1 constructed single-family housing tract exists immediately westerly of the site. The attached condominiums of Villages (The Colony) and J are under construction across the open spa canyon to the east, As shown on Exhibits "An and "B", the project proposes a sinf product type, two-story 4-plexes, with four tuck-under qarage spaces per building, Remaining required parking is proposed uncovered parking lots. 111. ANALYSIS 1) 2) Does the proposed project conform to the development Is the proposed project in conformance with the Calavera Hills Master Plan? standards and design criteria of the Planned Development Ordinance?. e 0 Discussion A8 propasad, this project is in conformance with the Calavera Hills Ma8ter Plan, Village H has been designated for clusterer development to preserve the Steeper slopes of the site in open space. The proposed density of 1.3 du/ac is toward the high end of th 1.5 du/ac range designated for this village. Staff concludes that the site design, on-site amenities, compatibility, and si sensitivity (provision of open space) justify the requested density. The project provides a centrally-located active balconies for each unit. This results in an overall recreatic area significantly in excess of that required. All required setbacks, resident and visitor parking spaces, storage spaces, and other development standards identified in the planned development ordinance are provided for in this project. The project also conforms with the design criteria of the Plar left in their natural state. Slopes created by the developed . area.wil.1 be less than 40 feet in height. All manLmade. slope1 will be heavily landscaped to prevent' erosion' and to soften their appearance. Design and grading standards of the Calavei Hills Master Plan, as well as many of the concepts expressed the City's Design Guidelines Manual, are reflected in the project . Staff concludes that the project is compatible with the Calav Hills Master Plan, the Planned Development Ordinance, and wit existing and future development in the vicinity, and recommen approval. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Land Use Planning Manager has determined that this projec Will not have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, issued a Negative Declaration on August 7, 1984. Attachments 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2342 2. Location Map 3. Background Data Sheet 4. Disclosure Form 5. Environmental Documents 6. Exhibits "A" - "E", dated September 12, 1984 PJK:ad 8/23/84 reereation area on each side of Elm Avenue, as well as private Development Ordinance. The steeper partidfig af the site will -2- October 2, 1984 Page 4 MEMBERS %' (99) 16. AB 17892 - 84 UNIT TENTATIVE TRACT W AND PLANHD UNIT -1 ;; S ST~R PLAN AD- OT FUm !ELM AYENU€. CT 83-18/PW55 - CALAVERA HIZLS - VILLAGE H. Mayor Casler announced 164 letters had been received telephone calls. Mike Holzmiller, Land Use Planninq Manager, gave the staff report on this item as contained in the agenda bill, using a transparency to show the village site. He explained the two issues brought up at the Planning Commission meeting; one being the wcalyptus trees to be around the park site, to which the applicant objected. Mr. Holzmiller used the overhead projector to illustrate the two issues. Village H and the impact to the trees by the clustering of the dwelling units. There are three portions, one along the alignment of Elm where most of the trees aould be in the median; two, the portlon of the project to be developed south of Elm where the trees would he removed; and three, the portion of trees in the open space area that would not be within the area to be developed by the applicant. Mr. Holzmiller had a photoqraph showing the three areas as explained shoring the impact to the trees, hich was given to Council Members. The Planning Commission requested as many trees as possible be saved and that the landscape be approved. The second issue of the improvements around the park was discussed next by Mr. Holzmiller. He stated that when the nmster plan was revised earlier this year, this was one of the areas not specifically addressed. OR this item and 426 slgnatutes bn petitions, plus remved and the other king the street improvements (he transparency showed I reviewed and approved by them before the final map is Prior to that revision, part of the park area was to be a commercial area. At the present time, the development of the park is important and will be started in the near future. show the present street improvements around the park area. There is a temporary access road splitting the two park areas, which is to serve as a temporary access for developllent in Villages C and D. That =cess has to remain until another secondary access CMMS out of the area. Staff recoRlnended, and Planning Commission aqreed, that half street fmprovements for Tamarack, Elm and Glasgow be placed as conditions on this project and any subsequent project which COMS in. The applicant opposed this at the Plambng CmtszSnn and rodiq ras added that these improbetnents wiuld k required with this project, unless some other &ternstive <as arrived at to the satisfaction of the City. added that another dternative huuld be a private agrement for some form of reikursement, assessment district, or other mechanism to get the improvements. A transparency was used to Mr. tblzmiller * I I 308 I I I II October 2, 1984 Page 5 Mr. Holrniller stated there is a provision in the master plan that if the City Engineer feels it is necessary to accelerate the improvements or require them before the phasing schedule of the master plan, this cdn k &ne, This IMS the provision relied upon to require these the fnprovenents required for each village. It was stated if it had been knom that this would be the entire park, the improvements would have been addressed then. Mayor Casler opened the public hearing at 6:29 p.m. and issued the invitation to speak. Mr. Cedric E. Sanders, 2017 Cminito Circulo Norte, La 3o11a, spoke for the applicant, giving the history and background of the project, and the densities of the different villages, including this villaqe. He stated that only 18 acres would be developed, which was a density of less than one third'of any of the surrounding villages. Mr. Sanders called attention to Condition' la', which ' referred to the recreation vehicle park. He said that was a separate villaqe--Village I--and should not be a requirement of this village. He sugqested the first line be deleted, making the condition read: ''A recreation vehicle park shall be completed.v' Hr. Sanders said the applicant had problems with the Engineering conditions, particularly Condition 36. stated d and e both stated "within the project" and neither is within this village. should be enforced. The other three sections were i, j and k, and he said Elm would be their responsibility. They wld be willing to enter a private agreement to assure the City they would, at their expense, install Ella fronting on the park. include the side of Glasgow by the park, suggesting a timing to insure the improvements not be made before the park go- h. ingrovmntsa The phasing schedule was discussed, and He He felt the master plan The applicant would also In conclusion, Ur. Sanders asked for Condition 18 to be revised and asking for the five sections of Condition 36, d, e, i, j and k be removed, but adding that with regard to Eh and Glasgow, the applicant would be willing to enter into an agrement with the City to guarantee the developlent of those streets for the park at the developer's expense hen needed for the park. Ron khan, City Engineer, explained that sidewalks had not been required before and this involved sidewalk and parbay within the Limits ot Village W. - __ fi-n COUNCIL MEMBERS P y - __ COUNCIL MEMBERS October 2, 1984 Page 6 City Attorney Vincent Biondo stated he had received a legal brief and a detailed letter from the developer at t:00 pdnt today, ralalng a series of objectlons to a group of public irnprovmnt requirements in the hundreds of thousands of dollars range, and asking staff and Council to negotiate. Mr. Biondo advised the Council against attempting to resolve these complex problems at this time. He said these are not issues the Council should be involved in--they should have been resolved before now. Mr. Sanders answered that it was true these articles had been received today, but the discussion has gone on for months regarding these conditions. Mr. Anthony Bonforte, 110 West C Street, San Diego, referred to the landscape plan chart, showing the trees to be removed, replaced and preserved--the three area. In planning what to develop and what to save, the present plan is the most sensible, and was agreed to by both parties. The riparian area is at the lower portion and that cannot @ replaced. With thg. . landscaping proposed; more than twice as many trees will be put in than will be removed, He added this was not a natural stand of-trees and they were not healthy trees. Mrs. Linnea McDonald, 2832 Hillsboro Court spoke in opposition to this project, stating this was natural terrain and should remain so. With the recreation vehicle park, it rrould be a parking lot at the bottom of the canyon, with a sewage treatment plant there also. would be a problem. saving the scrub brush and taking out the trees. stated she was not against development, but this would be ruining the last remaining natural beauty in the crnmiunity. Mayor Casler clarified that the recreation vehicle area would be paved as a parking lot, since it would be an area where you would park your recreation vehicle rather than in front of your home. Mr. Mark Caruana, 2839 Hillsboro Court, spoke in opposition to this project, stating the problem dollars. He said he took photographs shoring the ravine and the sewage treatment plant. the two-acre recreation vehicle parking area and stated there would be condos on the hill that had nothlng going ?or it but the trees, which would he replaced with one-gallon saplings. she felt the density was too high and traffic Mrs. McDonald was opposed to She was "green"-grtcn trees and greenbelt vcnu3 green He objected to I& - __ COUNCIL October 2, 1984 Page 7 MEMBERS Zygmunt Dubiel, 2837 Hillsboro Court, spoke in in the City would be lost if this development goes in and the trees are taken out. He said the ratio looks good .on paper, but in reality most of that area is a canyon and should not be developed. the wildlife, which has retreated to this area due to the development of the surrounding areas. if these are not a natural stand of trees, they are still beautiful and should be preserved. Mr. Dubiel felt the recreation vehicle parking area mwld attract vagrants, and he felt the applicant really didn't have the right to develop, since the residents were not consulted first. Council Menber Lewis stated the owner has a right to develop the property to the best economic means they oppo3ition to this project, stating the laveliest spot This is a threat to He said even can, considering the neighborhood and land use. Mr. Dubiel felt the City should negotiate with the developer and propose alternatives. did not need to be flat--it could be slope land, Mr.' Bob McDonald, 2832 Hillsboro Court., addressed Council in opposition to the project, stating the developer could make a million dollars, but he wanted him to make it elsewhere, and felt the developer could come up with a better plan. Mr. David Stoffel, 4705 Edinburgh Drive, spoke against the project, stating the middle grove would be cut down, and he thought half of those would be saved. He stated the master plan called for the eucalyptus trees to be retained. He also had concerns about the recreation vehicle parking area--feeling it would be an eyesore. Mr. Dave Henderson, 3728 Lennox Court, felt the trees were more important than the chaparral, and wanted his children to grow up in a wooded area. 3ulie Sampson, 3626 Haverhill, stated she mved here in May because of the rural atmsphere and open spaces, and opposed the loss of the open spaces and trees. Gary Cass, 3717 Bennington Court, spoke to the Council, stating he was a new resident and paid a pranfum price for a lot with a view. imburse the people who paid those premium prices, if they now lose that view of the canyon and the trea. Chris Pitchford, 2725 Qeenock Court, in the Colony, spoke against moving the trees and felt the developer could ame up with a flexible plan to build around the trea. Brian Butchco, a soon-to-be-resident, stated he opposed the remval of the trees, since he, too, had paid a premium price for the lot with the view of those trees. He felt the master plan should be altered to reduce the density and call for a project the neighbors could be proud to support. He felt the park He felt the developer should re- li /J .. - - MEMBERS October 2, 1984 Page 8 3ay Stone, 2842 Hillsboro Court, spoke in opposition to this project, Since he bought in that area because of the trees and wildlife, and felt the owner did not have an absolute right to build on that property. the master plan integrity should be kept. Greg Rea, the Colony, stated the election would be held soon and these people should renember this project at that time. Lane McDonald, 2737 Sterling Avenue, expressed the hope it was not a foregone conclusion that development would take place. the maintenance of this area to the hawks and wildlife and let them use this as a park area, by trading this land for some of the designated park area. The people of the area would be willing to make such a trade in order to have a natural park area. In answer to a question from Council about alternative, it was stated that the bulldozers should be stopped from making the land flat and the developer could build someplace else. Hc added The suqgestion was made to assign .. -. 1 . .Torn Murphy, who is Buying properry here, spoke in opposition to ‘removing the trees, as he was told that would always be a buffer zone. He asked the Council for careful consideration when making this decision. 3im Wright, 2740 Glasqow, spoke in opposition to the project, statingethe density will create unhealthy atmosphere as far as noise. Anthony Bonforte spoke in rebuttal, statinq he regretted any misleading &ne by their mpetitors as far as the residents were concerned, but this applicant has not built any homes as yet. He stated the majority of the trees to be lost will be lost because of the extension of Elm Avenue and not because of construction. He added that 40% of the trees below are not on this property, and those along the road will not be disturbed. Glen Asakawa, Landscape Architect, Linda Vista Road, San Diego, spoke regarding the view site and the trees. said if the trees were anything but eucalyptus trem, he would agree with the residents, but this type of tree was not suitable for that area. They are brittle and even when they are triillned, tby are a safety hazard. The scrub brush has been qrowing there a Aluch longer time and the environnentalists are concerned about that. The trees to be put in this area would not b6 saplings and within three or four growing seasom would present a nice effect. Since no one else wished to speak on this it-, the public hearing was closed at 8:27 p.m. RECESS: Mayor Casler declared a recess at 8:28 p.m. and Council re-convened at 8:38 p.m. with four Mcnbers present. Mayor Casler asked Mr. htorte to look at the photograph shoring the trees and asked how many of those trees will bo removed. Mr. Bonforte answered that 50 trees in the center section will remain, and all the trees to the left in the photograph and in the dian He - A .111 L- -- _J - - COUNCIL October 2, 1984 Page 9 MEMBERS Hike Holmiller stated this was a wind row and very mature trees. for Ela Avenue and all others would have to be renoved The biggest portion rill be in the median for construction of fln Avenue east of the Alcdian. The possibility of a "land ~~ap" was discussed, with staff stating the problem would be the increased dsnsity in the other villages. City Hanager Frank Aleshire stated there were several school sites where future schools had been proposed, and no development had been allowed on those sites. He suggested that in meting with the school people, if it were determined a site was not going to be wed, perhaps sone of the density could be transferred to that site. Mike Holmiller used a transparency to show the open space areas and the proposed school sites. The City Manager stated it was up to the school people to decide where the schools would be, and they had been criticized for not deciding now. It was determined that the school site was not owned by the school district, but Roy. Ward. Council Member Lewis asked whether Counci-1 desired this density. applicant to build at maximum or take It down in He felt there would be more people, more congestlon, with traffic problems. could not support the density, and he felt Dave Bradstreet and Mr. Sanders should work out a compromise. Council Hder Chick said Elm Avenue wuuld take a good portion of the trees, and he did not think this was high density. If the density is lowered, the applicant's right to develop is taken away. Hayor Casler cornented that she had looked at the trees and many of them are not worth saving--and others need to k pruned heavily to be saved. She added the landscape plan has to comt back to the Planning Canmission for approval. the City does not approve one-gallon saplings. Council Hder Chick stated tho master plan should be studied and corrected as far as the road situation and the access to the park. Council recommded 100 trees be saved in the center Casler He added that he Hayor Casler also stated that section currently designated for moval in tha Lewis photograph given to the Cowcfl. Chick Prsscott Ca ler Lewis Chick Motion was mack and seconded to reject the density of 1.3 on this project and have the applicant work with staff to d~a ths density to blow 3, dth a nuch open space ds possible. Motion failed due to lack of Rescot t a majority. /7AB /3 October 2, 1984 Page IO Mayor Casltr stated this item should be returned to staff to solve the conflict between the master plan and the tentative map = far as the construction of the streets is concerned, and brought back to Council. City Attorney Vincent Biondo said serious questions had been raised in view of the docunrents received today. He said there was a need to get together with all of the landowners in Calavera Hills and determine lrho will build what. Council returned this item to staff to solve the conflict between the master plan and the tentative map with regard to street improvements, with a request for a status report in two weeks. 19. AB #7893 - PREANNEXATIONAL ZONE CHANGE - ZC-278 - CARLSBAO LAND INVESTORS. Mike Holzmiller, Land Use Planning Manager, gave the staff report on this item as contained in the agenda bill, using a transparency to show the proposed zoning. Mayor Casler opened the publlc hearing' at 9:09 p.m. and issued the 'invitation to speak. Mr. Nick Banche, 910 Mission Avenue, Oceanside, addressed Council representing the applfcant , requested approval. Since no one else wished to speak on this item, the public hearing was closed at 9:lO p.m. Council introduced the following Ordinance: ORDINANCE NO. 9736, MENDING TITLE 21 OF ME CARLSBAO MENDfK: THE ZONING MP FROM COUNTY MUJICIPM COO€ By PROPERTY C;ENERAUY LOCATU) SOUTH OF PALOMR AIRWRT ROAD AND EAST OF LAUREL TREE LANE. JOINT NETING COUNCIL/HOUSING N4D REDEVELOPMNT (113) ZONING TO R-1 AND 0-S ON APPROXIMTELY 85 ACRES ON ON: Mayor Casler announced the Housfng and Redevelopment Conmission wld convene with the Council at 9:ll p.m., with four Members present. Housing and Redevelopment Commission approved the Minutes of the August 21, 1984 meeting as presented. PUBLIC HURING: 1. AB #35 - RF/CUP W-lflCT 84-21 - TAHARAUC EACH (28) (99) Ws0-m. Chris Salontone, Cumunity Redevelopment Manager, gave the staff report as contained in the agenda bill, using a transparency to show the site and another transparency to show the three lots included in the project. 30 2 COUNCIL MEMBEFW Casler Lewis Chkk Prescot t Casler Lewis Chick Prescot t HOUSING A Casler Lewis Chick Prescot t \- I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 * 9 10 'X l2 0 a 2s m OD l3 O'=-O mcak 15 =a N -a m $32 OW< 14 zoza Lv5g I-&W - EZZ? oaZm 16 IO I? '5 2 0 l7 K I.8 I' 0 e e RESOLUTION NO. 8222 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN 84 UNIT TENTATIT TRACT MAP (CT 83-18) AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMEN: (PUD-55) ON 64 ACRES ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE APPLICANT: CALAVERA HILLS - VILLAGE H CASE NO.: CT 83-18/PUD-55 NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE CALAVERA HILLS MASTER PLI WHEREAS, on September 12, 1984 the Carlsbad Plani Commission adopted Resolution No. 2342 recommending to thc Council that Tentative Tract Map (CT 83-18) and Planned UI Development (PUD-55) be approved; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbac October 2, 1984 held a public hearing to consider the recommendations and heard all persons interested in or opl to Tentative Map CT 83-18 and Planned Unit Development PUI and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbac returned this item to staff to solve the conflict between Master Plan with regard to street improvements and to rev proposed plan to save 100 trees within the proposed develc i and 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Counc the City of Carlsbad, Calfornia as follows: A, That the above recitations are true and corr1 - B. That Tentative Subdivision Map CT 83-18 and Unit Development PUD-55 are hereby denied because of the set out in Agenda Bill No, 7892-#1 dated October 15, 1985 incorporated by'reference herein and based on the followi findings and conclusions: \ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 s 9s m 13 g5 2 0°s9 l4 go>? otGz< c..u- l5 u '10 16 +>u - zuon zo Y '5 % 17 l8 l91 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 $%$Z wfgs >o 0 c a 0 1. The applicant has not entered into an agreemt the orderly provision of public facilities in the Master 1 area. The Planned Community Zone requires as a precondit, development that the property be under single ownership 01 unified control. This requirement is necessary to ensure all of the master plan public facilities necessary to sup1 development will be provided concurrent with need. In the absence of an agreement satisfactory to the City Council i basic zoning prerequisite to development cannot be met an( subdivision map must be denied because it is inconsistent the zoning. 2. The applicant has filed a legal brief challer the City Council's authority to require public improvement necessary to accommodate this development as a condition c master plan. In view of that fact, the City Council cannc the finding required by the Public Facilities Element of t General Plan that all necessary public facilities will be available concurrent with need to serve this subdivision a therefore, the subdivision must be denied because it is no consistent with the General Plan of the City of Carlsbad. 3. The applicant has not attempted to revise his to save any of the eucalyptus trees. Construction of this subdivision as proposed will cause substantial environment damage which cannot be mitigated in that it will destroy a substantial portion of the mature qrove of eucalyptus tree the site. The site is not physically suitable for the den or intensity of use proposed since all of the units will b clustered in the area presently occupied by the trees and, therefore, the subdivision must be denied. 4. The proposed project does not appear to be consistent with recent City policies adopted as part of th review of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, specif a substantial portion of the site consists of 40% slopes. density credit were given for these slopes this project woi probably exceed the allowable density for this site. 5. This site is located in the 0 - 1.5 density r( area. The project is proposed at a density at 1.3 which ir toward the high end of the range and there are no amenitie! other special aspects of this project justifying approval L high end of the range. The General Plan contemplates this density'range for single family low density and estate typc developments. The project is proposed as two story four-pl clustered on a small part of the site resulting in a projec applicable zoning the City Council has determined to not a1 the proposed density. Since the zoning approvals necessar] the subdivision'have not been received and the planned unit development permit has been disapproved the subdivision mus disapproved. high density condominium type. Under the General Plan and a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 0 U m 38 m 13 5% ti? g-1.22 OWa 14 ow= 15 t-&U ,z,g$ 16 $>>O 0=2$j >3 p;; Eg 2 17 k 0 18 l9 a a C. This action of denial is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council. The provision Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, "Time Limits Judicial Review" shall apply: "NOTICE TQ APPLICANT" The time within which judicial review of th decision must be sought is governed by Code of C Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or otl paper seeking judicial review must be filed in tl appropriate court not later than the ninetieth di following the date on which this decision become! final; however, if within ten days after the dec: becomes final a request for the record of the proceedings accompanied by the required deposit amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of petition may be filed in court is extended to not than the thirtieth day following the date on whi( record is either personally delivered or mailed 1 party or his attorney of record, if he has one. written request for the preparation of the recorc the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clei City of Carlsbad, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, Cali 92008. It PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meetinc the City Council of the City of Carlshad, California, helc 1 26th day of November , 1985 by the following vote, t preparation of such record, the time within whid 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 AYES: NOES: Council Member Chick ABSENT: None Council Members Casler, Lewis, Kulchin and Pettine c+ d. L -- MARY H. C SLER, Mayor ATTEST : UTENKm-frk de/?