The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC Resolution 7342 (Loch Lomond Unit 10)RESOLUTION NO. 7342 RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING AN APPEAL AND DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE MAP TIME EXTENSION FOR THE LOCH LOMOND UNIT #10 SUBDIVISION, A 30 LOT SUBDIVISION LOCATED NORTH OF LAS CASAS AVENUE AND INVERNESS DRIVE (AP 186-031-02 & 06 and 186-520-17 & 18) WHEREAS, on July 28, 1981, the Planning Commission conditionally approved a tentative map for the Loch Lomond Unit #10 Subdivision, a 30 lot single family development; and WHEREAS, on June 20, 1983, a timely request for extension of the tentative map was filed by the applicants; and WHEREAS, upon examination of said application the same was deemed incomplete in that extensive soils and drainage information was required to complete the application; said application was deemed complete on March 25, 1984; and WHEREAS, On April 10, 1984, the Planning Commission reviewed applicants' request for extension but continued the matter for additional drainage and soils studies deemed necessary to act on the matter. In addition, the Commission recommended that a neighborhood meeting be held to solicit comments regarding the drainage and soils issues; and WHEREAS, on May 9, 1984, a neighborhood meeting was held to solicit specific comments from residents and neighbors regarding flooding, soil, subsidence and drainage issues associated with development of the subdivision; and WHEREAS, it took several months for staff to respond in writing to the 25 letters submitted to the City by residents in the surrounding neighborhood, and for the applicants' consultants to prepare the required follow-up soils and drainage data necessary and required to address Planning Commission and neighborhood residents concerns regarding development of the subdivision; and WHEREAS, on January 15, 1985, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to further review the applicants' request for extension of applicants' tentative map in light of receipt of the required follow-up soils and drainage information and all responses to comments from neighbors/residents. Following public testimony, the Planning Commission certified a revised Negative Declaration for applicants' project and conditionally approved the requested time extension; and WHEREAS, on January 30, 1985, an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to conditionally approve applicants' requested time extension was filed by the Loch Lomond Homeowners Association representatives in accord with the time 'AL 73 jZ�1_ O'DE period for the filing of such appeal specified by the Planning Department;no objection was made by or on behalf of applicants to the timeliness of the appeal filed. A copy of said appeal is attached hereto and incorporated as though set forth in full; and WHEREAS, on February 19, 1985, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal; following consideration of all testimony, correspondence and information contained in the staff report, the Council determined to refer the appeal back to staff for further analysis pertaining to soils and drainage issues; the Council directed the applicants to prepare additional geologic data, to include review of a soils report that had been prepared for property off-site and upslope from the subject subdivision; and WHEREAS, on January 7, 1986, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 1524 imposing an immediate Citywide moratorium for purposes of updating the City's General Plan. Thereafter, applicants sought continued processing of the appeal filed on January 30, 1985, claiming hearing of said appeal was not precluded by the enactment of Urgency Ordinance No. 1524; and WHEREAS, on March 3, 1986, the City Attorney concluded that the further processing of the appeal was not subject to the interim urgency ordinance and that applicants had the right to complete the appeal process as they had requested; and WHEREAS, on April 21, 1986, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal. Staff recommended that the City Council deny the time extension without prejudice for the following reasons (as detailed in the staff report dated April 16, 1986): 1. The appeal filed on January 30, 1985, while five (5) days late pursuant to Government Code Section 66452 and San Rafael Municipal Code Section 15.56.010, did not divest the City Council of jurisdiction to hear said appeal; 2. Government Code Section 66474(a) -(g) require that seven findings be made in order to approve a subdivision. Because of current ongoing revision of the San Rafael General Plan, these findings can not be made; 3. A finding can not be made that the map if extended would be consistent with the City's General Plan in that the current Land Use Element does not include a clear statement of the standards of population density and building intensity for the subject site; said Land Use Element is currently undergoing revision; and 4. It is likely that the General Plan revision will result in changes in the City's Hillside Development Policies and the Slope Provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance. Approval of this project at this time could prejudice the General Plan revision; and -2- WHEREAS, after consideration of staff report, soil and geology data, correspondence, the opinion of City Attorney on the issue of the timeliness of the appeal and testimony presented at all public hearings conducted, the City Council voted to uphold the appeal and deny the time extension without prejudice. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the San Rafael City Council upholds the appeal filed by the Loch Lomond Homeowners Association on January 30, 1985, and denies without prejudice approval of a tentative map time extension for the Loch Lomond Unit #10 Subdivision based on the following findings: 1. A finding cannot be made that the map, if extended, will be consistent with the City's General Plan in that the City's current Land Use Element does not include a clear statement of the standards of population density and building intensity for the subject site. Extension of the tentative map at this time will prejudice the ongoing revision of the General Plan in that it would permit residential and development density that could be inconsistent with new General Plan goals, policies and objectives expected to be contained in the revised General Plan due to be released for public review in September 1986. 2. A finding cannot be made that the design or improvement of the subdivision will be consistent with the City's General Plan, once revised, given that it is likely that the City's hillside development policies and the slope provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance may change as a result of the General Plan revision. Although the subdivision has been carefully designed to preserve upslope lands for open space and to include all measures that would mitigate potential environmental impact, the ongoing General Plan revision could result in major policy changes for review of hillside potential development and open areas, including the subject property. 3. The subject property is physically suitable for this type of development in that upslope lands are preserved for open space and downslope lands are proposed for development; however, although the project recognizes the City's open space needs by preserving 40 acres of upslope steep undevelopable lands adjacent to other secured open space, the current ongoing General Plan revision is reassessing these needs. Furthermore, although the proposed residential lot sizes and locations are consistent and compatible with adjacent residentially developed neighborhoods and are consistent with the slope provisions of the City's current Subdivision Ordinance, it is likely that these slope revisions will change as a result of the General Plan revision process now underway. 4. The site is physically suitable for the density of development sought in that the proposed residential lots abut existing developed neighborhoods and are of similar size and shape to existing lots. However, although the density of the net developable area is consistent with the R-1 zoning District and the present slope provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance, it is likely that the General Plan revisions will result in changes to density standards of the Zoning Ordinance and slope provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance. 5. The filing of the appeal herein on January 30, 1985, five (5) days late pursuant to Government Code Section 66452 and San Rafael Municipal Code Section 15.56.010 did not divest the City Council of jurisdiction to hear the appeal for all of the reasons specified in the City Attorney's letter of April 21, 1986, attached hereto and incorporated. -3- I, JEANNE M. LEONCINI, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of said City on Monday , the Fifth day of May 1986, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS : Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS : None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS : None -4- kEV."AEONCI-NI, City Clerk