HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-11-02; City Council; Resolution 70461
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 7046
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA GRANTING THE APPEAL
FROM A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION AND DENYING AN EIGHT UNIT TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE END OF LUCIERNAGA COURT BETWEEN
LUCIERNAGA STREET AND ARGONAUTA STREET. APPLICANT: PLAZA SERENA DE LA COSTA
CASE NO: CT 82-11/PUD-44
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at their meeting of
August 11, 1982 held a duly noticed public hearing as required
by law to consider the approval of an eight unit tentative
subdivision map and planned unit development on property
generally located at the end of Luciernaga Court between
Luciernaga Street and Argonauta Street more particularly
described as follows: Lots 194 and 195 of La Costa Meadows Unit
No. 1 per map 6800 filed in the County of San Diego; and
WHEREAS, the Land Use Planning Manager has determined
that this project will not cause any significant environmental
impacts and therefore has issued a Negative Declaration, dated
July 23, 1982, which was approved by the Planning Commission on
August 11, 1982, in satisfaction of the requirements of the
Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance and the California
Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing the
Planning Commission adopted Resolution 1996 approving the
project (CT 82-11/PUD-44); and
WHEREAS, a timely appeal was filed by residents in the
area of the proposed project; and
///
///
-?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
k rJ 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, the CAty Council at their meeting of
September 21, 1982, held a duly noticed public hearing as
prescribed by law to consider that appeal which was continued to
the City Council meeting of October 5, 1982; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing after considerations of all
of the evidence, testimony and argument of those persons present
and desiring to be heard the City Council determined to grant
the appeal.
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 based on the evidence presented at the public
hearing, the City Council hereby grants the appeal and denies
Tentative Subdivision Map CT 82-11 and Planned Unit Development
Permit PUD-44. This action is based on the following findings:
1. Section 21.45.072 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code
provides that the City Council may only approve a planned
development permit if it is able to make all of nine specified
findings .
a. The finding required by Section
21.45.072(a)(l) that the project be consistent
with the applicable plans for this property cannot
be met. This area of La Costa was planned and subdivided for individual lot duplex projects and
has been substantially developed in accord with that plan. This project proposes eight units, twice the density otherwise allowed, which is not consistent with those plans.
b. The finding required by Section
2lO45.072(a)(2) that the project will contribute
to the general well being of the neighborhood and the community cannot be met. The developer has presented no facts showing any benefit from the project. While the project would add eight units to the city housing stock, the proposed selling
///
2.
3
19 Ji
23
24
25
I '
/I I I 26
27
28
price between $265,000 and $349,000 is in the luxury range and will not contribute to any of the goals of the Housing Element of the City General Plan.
c. The finding required by Section 21.45.072(a)(3 that the project not be detrimental to the people
in the area cannot be met. Based on the testimony at the public hearing, the City Council finds that because of the small radius of the cul-de-sac whicl
would not allow even one car to park on the street
and because of the extra density in excess of that
otherwise allowed by the zone, that the approval o
the project would cause traffic and safety problem:
and would be detrimental to the people in the area.
d. The finding required by Section 21e45.072(a)(5 that the project meet all of the design
requirements of Section 21.45.080 cannot be met.
The project is not imaginatively designed and the
buildings are not well integrated into the
topographic and natural landscape features of the site. The buildable flat area of the lot is very small in comparison to the lot as a whole which
consists of an extensive slope. Project design seems primarily aimed at utilizing all the propert:
including building on the slopes rather than a les;
dense project which would orient to the flat area and preserve the slopes. The main failure to
comply with the design criteria is that the
requirement that the development be compatible witl the existing neighborhood and not constitute a disruptive element in the neighborhood cannot be met. The surrounding area is developed with individual R-2 lots with individual duplexes which have the appearance of a very well- kept
single-family area. This project is essentially a
multiple project of the condominium type with densities double that otherwise allowed by the
zoning in the area. The project does not share an;
of the single-family nature of the surrounding arei but rather reflects a multiple dwelling lifestyle.
The lack of on-street parking and the focusing of the traffic from eight units through one driveway onto a very small cul-de-sac is not consistent witl the circulation patterns of the surrounding area and will disrupt the neighborhood as evidenced by the extensive public hearing and the testimony of the residents in opposition to the project that thc
project would cause them a number of problems.
e. The finding required by Section 21.45.072(a)(6 that the project be designed to be sensitive to anc blend in with the natural topography of the site
3.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
cannot be met for the reasons previously
discussed. In particular, the lack of adequate
flat building area to accommodate the units and the need to utilize substantially all of the slopes on the property.
f. The finding required by Section 21.45.072(a)(8) that the proposed project be
compatible with the surrounding development and
not create a disharmonious or disruptive element to the neighborhood cannot be met. In making this finding, the City Council incorporates the discussion in paragraph (d) above in regard to the failure to meet design criteria. The main reason
for the City Council's denial of this project is the expressed finding that it is simply not compatible with the neighborhood. In addition to
the reasons already stated, the visual impact of
the project will be out of keeping with the nicely
landscaped, essentially single-family duplexes
which surround it. It will have a large visual
impact because of large formal gates and extensive walls. The single driveway will emphasize the multiple condominium nature of the project as opposed to the predominantly individual units which surround it. The other houses in the area will have some on- street or driveway parking. There will be no on-street parking for this project. Traffic is in excess of that which would
otherwise result from the development of the two lots which comprise the property into four units. The City Council finds the extensive public
testimony, particularly that given at the September 21, 1982 hearing, contains credible evidence of the disruption to the
neighborhood.
C. In order to subdivide and construct the project as
proposed, it is necessary for the applicant to first have
obtained a Planned Unit Development Permit for the project.
Since that permit has been denied, this project does not have the
approvals required by the Zone Code. Since the project does not
have zoning approval, the tentative subdivision map for the
project CT 82-11 cannot be approved and must be denied. The
property is zoned R-2 and consists of two lots which allows for a
total of four units. The subdivision map proposes an eight unit
4. 5-
1
2
4
E
E
1
E
S
1c
IF1
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
c
i) I
project which is not a permitted use and a tentative map for that
type of project on this property cannot be approved.
D. This action of denial is final the date this
resolution is adopted by the City Council. The provisions 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 must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 10.94.6, which has been made
applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad
Municipal Code Chaper 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 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008."
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
5.
the Cit
0
PASSED,
Council
the 2nd day
vote, to wit:
APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of
f the City of Carlsbad, California, held on
of November , 1982, by the following
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT: None
Council Members Casler, Lewis and Kulchh
Council Members Chick and Anear
I MARY H.&ASLER, Mayor
ATTEST :
LUL. ALETHA L. RAUTENK
(Seal)
6.
7