HomeMy WebLinkAboutLCPA 97-09; Kelly Ranch; Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) (6)P
WAYNE CALLAGHAN 7
38 REDHAWK, IRVINE, CA 92604
E-mail: calgroup@regroup.NET
Tel: (949) 559-6200 Fax: (949) 559-6215 URGENT
DATE: Monday, September 06,1999 10 FAX Pages, inc
ATTENTION: Mr. Don Rideout, Mr. Gary Wayne City of Carlsbad ComDev
Rather than my repeating all my issues please refer to the attached documents. I und
meet with CCC staff prior to its hearing on the 16* of this month. If I am not invited
I would hope you will communicate to CCC staff that Planning Area “L” (“PAL”) is not within the
hardline Preserve Area, but rather in a Standards Area as confirmed by the City. It appears CCC is
using this issue to justify their actions. Don, I would also hope you would share some of the
information I have provided regarding previous grading etc.
My greatest concern is CCC’s statement “The parcel lines for proposed Parcel L shall be eliminated”.
As general information: constructive transfer of PAL has taken place and Kelly Ranch property
owner’s andor successors have a requirement to create a legal lot:
Covenants, Conditions and Restriction (“CC&R’) recorded against all of Kelly Ranch in the
Official Public Records of San Diego County in addition to verbal communications as well as this
and prior correspondences, has provided CCC both direct and indirect notice regarding this issue.
Kelly Ranch owners and successors in interest (including owners of open space) are subject to
these documents. The requirement obligates Kelly Land Company (as present owner) to create a
legal lot for Planning Area “L”, concurrent with recordation of Kelly Land Company’s final map.
Kelly Land Co. has no right to make decisions regarding PAL’s development and have merely
designated PAL as a legal lot. Kelly Ranch planning does not include PAL’S fbture development.
Since Planning Area “L” belongs to myself (not involved in the Coastal process) of which the City and
CCC has direct notice as well as it being on the public record regarding my interests, I am totally
cofised how CCC staff even jumped to land use let alone land division and now to a taking of the
property for a vista point that far exceeds CCC policy. It should be remembered this site is one mile
inland fiom the coastline and on the inland side of the first public street, and that public access
policies dictate the access provision “where no otherwise adequate coastal access exists ”.
0 Within a few hundred feet [on the lagoon side of a public street] is a full public nature center.
There is adequate public access to view the lagoon wetlands in various locations.
0 City has required (in addition to the original CCC Permit) public pedestrian trails and sidewalks in
two significant locations crossing the site and public views from these locations are plentiful.
Although there is more than adequate access and viewpoints proposed, the State has significant
Open Space areas within the Kelly Ranch to create such viewpoints if it wishes to exceed its own
policy. Not sure why all of this site was selected over several others that are at a higher elevations,
part of the proposed project or preferably within dedicate open space that is non-native grasses?
For example there is an Open Space area of non-native grass at the end of PAL’s access knuckle.
Also the City states it has informed CCC the site is in “Standards Area” not a “hardline Preserve
Area”. PAL has been graded, is heavily vested, has been part of numerous millions of dollars in
habitat and infra-structure under my prior ownership of Kelly Ranch California Coastal Commission
had already achieved their benefit from the bargain and acknowledged such, and had vested rights, as
well as millions more spent recently and that are proposed.
In any case, I am ‘NOT’ agreeable to any actions on Planning Area “L” that will erode my rights.
I continue to strongly oppose participating in any action that might jeopardize my existing vesting.
=
0