The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1982-04-06; City Council; Resolution 68241 6 7 8 9 10 11 0 1€ 1s 2c 23 22 2: 24 2: 2c 2'; 2E RESOLUTION NO. - 6824 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP (CT 81-9) AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD-30) FOR A 813-UNIT PROJECT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF LAKE CALAVERA AND APPROXIMATELY 1.5 MILES EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL. APPLICATION: THE BARNES CORPORATION. WHEREAS, on February 24, 1982, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1918 recommending to the City Council that Tentative Subdivision Map (CT 81-9) and Planned Unit Development (PUD-30) be denied; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad did on March 16, 1982 hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the recommendations of the Planning Commission and to receive all recommendations and hear all persons interested in or opposed to said Tentative Subdivision Map and Condominium Permit; and 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 Tentative Subdivision Map (CT 81-9) and Planned Unit Development (PUD-30) are hereby denied, without prejudice to reapplication, because of the facts set out in the Planning Department Staff Report dated February 24, 1982, the evidence presented at the March 16, 1982 public hearing and Planning Commission Resolution No. 1918 on file in the City Clerk's office and incorporated by reference herein and based upon the following findings: c r 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 Findings: The project is not consistent with the public facilities element of the general plan. The Public Facilities Element of the General Plan requires the proponents of the development to present evidence satisfactory to the city that all public facilities and services will be available concurrent with need. The City Council cannot find that public facilities, such as adequate streets, fire facilities and police protection will be available concurrent with need for this project because the project depends on the extension of these srvices by other property owners and developers. If developed in a timely manner other previously approved projects may provide such services and facilities as major arterials and fire stations. When these services and facilities are provided, development of this project will be more logical. However, because those facilities which will be provided by other property developers are not yet installed, and the city cannot predict when installation will occur, there is no evidence upon which the city can find the project consistent with the general plan's public facilities policies. The proposed project does not meet the intent of Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Planned Unit Development) since it does not provide a site-sensitive plan and does not provide sufficient trade-offs to justify the reduced lot sizes and reduced right-of-way widths because the project's grading and design will totally alter the existing landscape and destroy or severely impact almost all of the existing natural habitats, as discussed in the staff report. The site is not physically suitable for the type of development proposed, because of the hilly topography of the site. The proposed development, consisting of single family detached dwellings and duplexes requires extensive amounts of grading, as discussed in the report. The decision of the subdivision will cause substantial environmental damage due to the massive alteration of the topography, loss of wildlife habitat and loss of prime agricultural land, as discussed in the staff report and the EIR. Since the project will result in significantly adverse evironmental effects which cannot be mitigated and because there is no evidence of other overriding factors the project must be denied. The proposed project is not consistent with the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan because of the massive alteration of the existing topography and the destruction of almost all of the existing wildlife habitats on the site. 3 6) The proposed project is not consistent with Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code because: a) Is not consistent with the Ca.rlsbad General Plan, b) The site is not physically suitable for the type of development. c) The design of the subdivision. is likely to cause substantial environmental damage. Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code requires that the project be denied. C. This action of denial is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council. The provision 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 II 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 or 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, Ca 1 i f orn i a, 9 20 0 8. 'I 4 i i i 1 I( 1: 1; 1: 11 l! 1Q 1: 11 1: 2c 23 22 22 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of California, held on , 1982, by the following the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, the 6th day of April vote, to wit: - AYES : NOES: Council Wers Packard, Casler, hear, ?Ads and Kulchin ABSENT: J RONALD C. PARKARD, Mayor ATTEST: R;;tBA, 2.R- ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Cle (SEAL)