HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-10-16; City Council; 16393; Appeal Denial Pirineos PointeCITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL ’ . ../
AB# b, 393
MTG. 10/16/01
DEPT. CA
TITLE- L
DENIAL OF THE APPEAL OF A 164JNIT PROJECT ON THE
CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT REDUCE THE
PROPOSED PROJECT BY A MINIMUM OF TWO UNITS
CASE NAME: PIRINEOS POINTE
CASE NO.: SDP 00-16
DEPT. HD.
CITY All-Y.
CITY MGR.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Council adopt Resolution No. 200 l-316 denying the appeal of a 16-unit project and
remanding the project to the Planning Director.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
At its meeting of October 2, 2001, the Council (4-O-l AK), after careful review of the record
on appeal, and after hearing the recommendations of staff and considering all arguments
raised by appellant, the response of applicant and hearing arguments and testimony from all
persons interested in this matter, denied the appeal of a 16-unit project on the condition that
the applicant reduce the proposed project by a minimum of two units and to refer the project
to the Planning Director.
Council directed the City Attorney to return with documents memorializing that denial. Those
documents are attached. The Council should satisfy itself that they accurately represent its
findings and intent in this matter.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Appellant’s appeal fees are ordered refunded in accordance with Council Policy Statement
54.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Based on the findings that no significant environmental impacts would result from the project,
a Negative Declaration was issued on June 1,200l.
EXHIBITS:
1. Resolution No. am/ - \3/6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12 2 3 mum 'Sr-;
980 8 13
owg du(3 SO-j5 14
,gg:
9 ?sE 15
s;$ja 0 ~~I+,- fi5" 16
-fg; z-7 17
5 5
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-316
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL OF A 16-
UNIT PROJECT ON THE CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT
REDUCE THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY A MINIMUM OF TWO
UNITS AND TO REFER THE PROJECT TO THE PLANNING
DIRECTOR.
CASE NAME: PIRINEOS POINTE
CASE NO.: SDP 00-l 6
WHEREAS, Pirineos Point, LLC “developer” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by B. Darryl Clubb and
Mark Dubiel, “owners” described as:
Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 4548 in the City of Carlsbad, County
of San Diego, State of California, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, March 16, 1976 as
file No. 76-076420 of official records
hereinafter referred to as “the Property”; and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with the
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on July 18, 2001 and on
August 1, 2001, hold duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law to consider said.
request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearings, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information
submitted by staff and considering any written comments received, the Planning
Commission did approve applicants request (by a vote of 3-2 [Compas and Nielsen]);
and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12 9 g mua yr-; uug 13
a00 owg 5uc3 $03" 14
&gZ
9 OqB 15 %&pi 0 &$io* 05$ 16
I= azz 2-F 17 t 5 0
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision was filed
on August 10, 2001 and, the appropriate fees having been paid, the matter was set for
hearing before the City Council on September 18,200l and was continued upon notice
to the applicant and appellant to October 2,200l; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on that
date; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, considered all arguments raised by
appellant, the response of applicant and heard arguments and testimony from all
persons interested in this matter and after careful consideration of the appeal finds as
follows:
1. That the proposed project exceeds the Growth management control
point and that no residential development permit shall be approved when the density
exceeds the Growth management control point unless it can be found that:
a. the project will provide sufficient additional public facilities for
the density in excess of the control point to ensure that the adequacy of the City’s
public facilities plans will not be adversely impacted and;
b. there have been sufficient developments approved in the
quadrant at densities below the Growth management control point to cover the units in
the project above the Growth management control point so that approval will not result
in exceeding the quadrant limit.
2. The Council finds that the project will not provide sufficient additional
public facilities to allow density exceeding the Growth management control point which
is 19.0 dwelling units per acre.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3. That applicant’s proposal would result in a density range of 20.78
dwelling units per acre exceeding the Growth management control point.
4. That there exists an insufficiency of parking in the applicable
neighborhood under present conditions in part because the surrounding existing
projects were developed under county jurisdiction and exceed the Growth management
control point that would be applicable to them if proposed today.
5. That the design of the proposed project is adequate including its three
bedroom units which are needed in the City in order to satisfy all economic segments of
the community’s housing needs.
6. That the City Council may not distinguish between the forms of
ownership presented by the applicant and may not prefer one type of housing
ownership to another and instead may apply the applicable design standards to the
project proposed by the applicant regardless of the form of ownership.
7. That the City Council may not deny a project based on the number of
bedrooms proposed under the authority of its codes nor the applicable principles of
state and federal law.
8. That the proposed project is too dense for the neighborhood and
would likely adversely impact the existing parking situation.
9. That the applicant will be required to satisfy its affordable housing
obligations pursuant to Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
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.
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2. That the appeal of appellants dated August IO,2001 is denied,
provided, the applicant shall reduce the density in the proposed apartment project by a
minimum of two units and that the resulting project shall be reviewed and approved by
the Planning Director but retaining basically the proposed designs reviewed by the City
Council and found acceptable at the hearing of October 2,200l.
3. That the applicant shall, prior to the issuance of building or grading
permits for any lot or units enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City
Council to provide 15% of the number of units as affordable to lower-income
households for the useful life of the dwelling units or to pay the in-lieu costs of providing
such units in accordance with the requirements and process set forth in Chapter 21.85
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The draft Affordable Housing Agreement shall be
submitted to the Planning Director no later than 60 days prior to the request for building
or grading permits, whichever first occurs. The recorded Affordable Housing
Agreement shall be binding on all future owners and successors in interest.
4. That the Council further finds that substantial relief has been granted
as a result of the appeal and appellant’s appeal fees are ordered refunded in
accordance with Council Policy Statement 54.
5. Except as expressly specified herein, all other terms and conditions of
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5007, adopted August 1, 2001, shall remain in full
force and effect.
6. This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council.
The provision of Chapter 1 .I6 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, “Time Limits for Judicial
Review” shall apply:
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12 9 g $5" 7 &Em 13
a08 OW$j ziu, a044 14 m,iz crtga:
9 01119 15
a$32 ZWUl* OZJ aaad
052
16
E a:2 t.- 17 t Cl 5
ia
19
20
23 i
24
25
26
27
28
“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 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 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California
92008.”
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad held on the 16th day of OCTOBER I
2001 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Finnila, Nygaard, Hall
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
(SEAL)