The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1991-10-01; City Council; 11367; Blumenshine SubdivisionCP OF CARLSBAD - AGENP BILL PARTIALLY GRANTING AND DENYING AN APPEAL AND APPROVING MINOR SUBDIVISION MS 818 (BLUMENSHINE) RECOMMENDED ACTION: If Council wishes to partially grant and deny the appeal of certain conditions of the approval of the City Engineer's decision to approve Minor Subdivision MS 818, your action Resolution No. q/ -33.i is to adopt . The City Council, at your meeting of September 17, 1991 directed the City Attorney to prepare the document approving Minor Subdivision MS 818. That document is attached. The Council should satisfy itself that the findings and conditions accurately reflect your intentions in the matter. If the Council concurs, your action is to adopt Resolution No. q/-3&3 . EXHIBIT Resolution No. ?I-3s.3 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 - RESOLUTION NO. 91-323 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PARTIALLY GRANTING AND DENYING AN APPEAL AND APPROVING MINOR SUBDIVISION 818 (BLUMENSHINE) GENERALLY LOCATED ATTHE NORTHERLY TERMINUS OF HIGHLAND DRIVE NORTH OF RATCLIFF ROAD. WHEREAS, a verified application for a three (3) lot Minor Subdlvlsion No. 818 located on Highland Drive north of Ratcliff Road and described as: A portion of Lot 38 of Lebarr Estates, Unit No. 2, Per Map 4944, together with a portion of Lots 4 and 5 of Cedar Hill Addition, per Map 532. has been filed with the City of Carlsbad in conformance with Municipal Code; and - WHEREAS, the City Engineer on March 13, 1991 denied said application on the grounds that the project proposed grading of areas determined to be undevelopable, pursuant to the provisions of Section 21.53.230 of the Municipal Code because grading was proposed in areas with slopes exceeding 40%; and WHEREAS, applicant did on April 6, 1990 appeal the decision of the City Engineer to the City Council of Carlsbad representing that: “Proposed grading is totally within an area previously disturbed by authorized grading which is unstable according to geotechnical investigation.” and further stating in writing that if the appeal was granted that ‘7his proposal will provide the following: 1. Increased frontage to lots (currently we have 33 feet for the two). Our plan will increase frontage to within standard limits. 2. A turnaround for cars at the end of Highland Drive with curbs, lights, sidewalks, increased fire hydrant capacity, etc. thereby increasing attendant facilities. 3. A functional storm drain for Highland to be installed during site grading. 4. Stabilization for a slope which is currently composed of loose and highly erodible soil with a potential for surficial failures.” i/i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 I 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I WHEREAS, on July 24, 1990 the City Council heard and granted applicant’s appeal based in part on appellant’s representation set forth above and returned the project to the City Engineer for further review to determine whether or not conditions could be placed on this subdivision that would enable it to make the required findings to approve it; WHEREAS, on July 15, 1991 the City Engineer pursuant to Municipal Code approved Minor Subdivision No. 818 with certain conditions; and WHEREAS, on July 25, 1991 applicant again filed an appeal of the City Engineer’s decision pertaining to Conditions #8, #9 and #23 which represented the conditions appellant had in part previously represented were necessary and reasonable for approval; and WHEREAS, on September 17,199l the City Council of the City of Carlsbad held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said appeal and at said hearing after consideration of all the evidence, testimony and arguments of those persons present and desiring to be heard, the City Council approved Minor Subdivision 818 and directed the City Attorney to prepare documents which would partially grant the appeal and uphold the City Engineer’s decision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That in conformance with Section 66474 of the Government Code and Municipal Code Section 20.24.130, Minor Subdivision 818 is approved subject to the conditions of approval contained within the City Engineer’s approval letter of July 15, 1991 except for the amendment of Condition 23A to read as follows: “Condition 23A - The removal and replacement of the existing 24” CMP to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.” 3. Except as modified above, applicant’s appeal is denied. Applicant did not present adequate evidence to prove that the subdivision would be physically suitable for development absent the reasonable conditions mitigating grading and other environmental impacts and provision of acceptable drainage improvements to replace existing facilities. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 3.1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 I 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The City Council finds that based on the Tentative Parcel Map/Site Plan submittal and the Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Ron Gutier and Erik J. Nelson dated February 17, 1989 the Subdivision as proposed incudes substantial remedial grading to insure the public health and safety associated with subsequent land development. The Council finds that removal and replacement of existing “uncompacted fill soils with uniformly compacted structural fill” will require the reconstruction of existing drainage facilities and that the provision of these improvements are reasonably related to the parcels being created. 4. The City Council further finds that the application of the provisions of Municipal Code Chapter 20.09 pertaining to the imposition of drainage fees was appropriately adopted in conformance with applicable State Law and have been uniformly applied for in excess of ten (10) years. The Subdivision proposed is properly subject to provisions of those codes and no evidence was presented to demonstrate that the code was being inappropriately applied to this Subdivision. 5. The City Council further finds that the site is not physically suitable for the proposed three lot subdivision without the substantial remedial grading work. This substantial remedial grading will require the removal and replacement of an existing 24” storm drain. This grading is necessary and reasonably required in order to create a safe and reliable building pad to support a future structure. Without this remedial grading the site would likely not safely support a structure and would represent a risk to the public safety and safety of future residents. In addition it would likely result in future property damage. 6. The City Council further finds that it is necessary for the protection and preservation of public safety and the environment that 79% of the proposed site be retained as open space. These areas are environmentally constrained in that they consist of slopes over 40% which cannot be developed for residential use. 7. The City Council further finds that the drainage fees imposed on the proposed subdivision are reasonably related to the impacts created by it in that the fees are 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 imposed on a gross acre basis and appellant will burden the storm drain system in accordance .with the formula and calculations upon which it was based. 8. The City Council further finds that the appellant has two existing legal lots at this site and that appellant is not deprived of all reasonable economic use of this parcel. Appellant has neither applied for nor been denied building permits for the two (2) existing legal lots. Appellant can withdraw or modify the proposal to avoid the challenged conditions and still enjoy reasonable development rights. “NOTICE TO APPLICANT . ‘lhe 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 no later that the ninetieth (90) day following the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten (10) 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 costs of preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later that 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 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California 92008.” PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council held on the 1st day of October , 1991 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Larson, Stanton and Nygaard NOES: None ABSENT: Council Member Kulchin AT-l-EST: ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk I ww October 4, 1991 Karen M. Blumenshine DVM P.O. Box 850 Carpinteria CA 93013 Enclosed for your records, please find a copy of Resolution No. 91-323 adopted by the Carlsbad City Council on October 1, 1991. LEE RAUTENKRANZ CITY CLERK LR:lw Enclosure (1) 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive l Carlsbad, California 92008 - (619) 434-2808