HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-11-15; City Council; 7567-2; General Plan AmendmentCIT OF CARLSBAD — AGEND, BILL
-d
•H »<D en VD
"B JD s
(U
a c08 I/)
"3*
-O 5
4J -H •»tn in m
l 13 5 (tf
'a£
in00 i
OH
(C
rn
en
tift fosfappCouncil cdeny requwithdrawadu's ac) ;ZC-291mCO
in
O
i
AB#JZ^Z:
MTQ.11/15/83
DEPT.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE,
TITLE: LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ENVIRON-
MENTAL IMPACT REPORT.
EIR 83-4/GPVLU 70(C)/ZC-291
DEPT. HD.J^J*-
CITY ATTY\JH3_
CITY
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Both the Planning Commission and staff recommend that the City Council CERTIFY
EIR 83-4 and direct the City Attorney's Office to prepare documents APPROVING
GPA/LU 70(C) and ZC-291 per Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2207, 2208 and
2209.
ITEM EXPLANATION
This item is a request for the certification of an environmental impact report,
a general plan amendment, an amendment to the Agua Hedionda Local Coastal Plan
and a zone change on 433 acres of property generally located between the
easterly edge of Agua Hedionda Lagoon and El Camino Real. For ease in
discussion, the property has been divided into six areas as shown on Exhibit X.
The following is a brief description of the applicant's proposal, the staff
recommendation to Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission's
recommendation to the City Council:
Area 1 - The "Fingers" Area
The applicant proposes an expansion of the RMH (10-20 du's/acre) designation
into the wetlands area. He proposes a wetlands enhancement plan as a tradeoff
to encroachment into the wetlands area. Both staff and the Planning Commission
recommend approval of this request with a condition that this proposal be
approved by the Coastal Commission.
Area 2 - Adjacent to Kelly Park
The applicant proposes an amendment to change the existing open space
designation of this wetlands area to RMH (10-20 du's/acre). Both the Planning
Commission and staff recommend denial of this request. The Commission and
staff believe this is a significant wetlands area and should remain as open
space.
Area 3 - Proposed Alignment of Kelly Drive
The applicant originally proposed the alignment of Kelly Drive into the wetlands
area to expand the RMH (10-20 du's/acre) designation southward. At the public
hearing, the applicant withdrew this request. Both the Planning Commission and
staff recommend denial of this request and, therefore, concur with the
applicant's withdrawal.
Area 4 - Adjacent to El Camino Real
The applicant proposes to expand the buildable area of this site and change the
density from RLM (0-4 du's/acre) to RMH (10-20 du's/acre). This would result in
a 10 fold increase in the total number of units that could be built here. Both
the Planning Commission and staff can support the expansion of the RLM (0-4
du's/acre) designation, however, recommend denial of any increase in general
plan density on this site.
Page 2 of Agenda Bill No.
Area 5 - Kelly Hill
The applicant proposes a change to the general plan from RL (0-1.5 du's/acre)
and RLM (0-4 du's/acre) to RM (4-10 du's/acre). Approval of Area 5 constitutes
a significant density increase of the overall site and staff believes the
increase in density on this portion of the property is a tradeoff for protection
and preservation of existing land use designations in areas 2, 3, 4 and 6. Both
the Planning Commission and staff reconroend approval of this request.
Area 6 - Adjacent to Cannon Avenue
The applicant proposes a change to the open space designation to recreation
cormercial. The Planning Commission is recommending approval of the applicant's
request. Staff believes this site should remain as open space since it is a
wetland area and because it would preserve the high visual quality of the Agua
Hedionda Lagoon wetlands area on the north and west side of Cannon Road.
The Department of Fish and Game has reviewed this proposal and has submitted a
letter with its recommendations (see attached letter). This agency opposes
the applicant's requests in areas 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6.
At the public hearing, a number of people living in the vicinity spoke in
opposition to any changes of areas 1, 2 and 3. Also, a few people opposed any
change to the existing Agua Hedionda Local Coastal Plan because they felt it is
a good plan resulting from many years of review by both the City Council and
Coastal Commission.
FISCAL IMPACT
The applicant will be required to provide all necessary public improvements at
the time of development of the property. Also, the applicant has agreed to pay
a public facilities fee to offset the cost of providing other public services to
the property.
EXHIBITS
1. Location Map
2. Exhibit 'X1, dated November 1, 1983
3. PC Resolution Nos. 2207, 2208 & 2209
4. Staff Report, dated October 26, 1983 w/attachments
5. Letter from Department of Fish & Game, dated October 25, 1983
LOCATION MAP
THUNDERBIRD
RANCH
CITY OF CARL
DRIVE
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
AGUABBSST
CAL COMMUNITIES GPA-65(B)/ZC-291
APPLICANT 'S PROPOSAL
I EXPAND RMH
II- OS TO RMH
III-NO CHANGE
IV-RLM & OS TO RMH
V-RLM & RL TO RM
VI-OS TO RC
PC RECOMMENDATIONS
I-EXPAND RMH
II-NO CHANGE
III-NO CHANGE
IV- EXPAND RLM
V-RLM & RL TO RM
VI- OS TO RC
EXHIBIT X
NOV. 1, 1983
EXISTING WETLANDS BOUNDARY
PROPOSED OPEN SPACE BOUNDARY
CAL COMMUNITIES GPA/LU 70(C)/AHLCP
1
CASE NO: EIR 83-4
6
WHEREAS, on the 26th day of October, 1983, the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held public hearing on EIR 83-
8
4 pursuant to the provisions of Title 19 of the Carlsbad Municipal
9
Code; and
11
10
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2207
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT,
EIR 83-4, FOR A PROJECT GENERALLY INCLUDING:
1) A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE, AND
2) A PREANNEXATIONAL ZONE CHANGE.
APPLICANT: CAL COMMUNITIES, INC.
comments and documents of all those persons testifying at the
public hearing; and
•Lo
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has received EIR 83-4
14
according to the requirements of Title 19 of the Carlsbad Municipal
15
,Code;
16
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
17
18
19
20
of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
2. That the Environmental Impact Report EIR 83-4 will be amended
to include the comments and documents of those testifying at
the public hearing and responses thereto hereby found to be in
good faith and reason by incorporating a copy of the minutes of
said public hearings into the report.
3. That the Planning Commission finds and determines that the
Environmental Impact Report EIR 83-4 has been completed in
conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the
state guidelines implementing said Act, and the provisions of
Title 19 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and that the Planning
Commission has reviewed, considered and evaluated the informa-
tion contained in the report.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4. That the Environmental Impact Report EIR 83-4 as so amended and
evaluated, is recommended for acceptance and certification as
the final Environmental Impact Report and that the final
Environmental Impact Report as recommended is adequate and
provides reasonable information on the project and all
reasonable and feasible alternatives thereto, including no
project.
5. That each and every significant environmental impact identified
in the Environmental Impact Report would be overruled or
counterbalanced by changes or alteration in the project which
would mitigate against said adverse impacts or, in certain
circumstances, that mitigation of such adverse impacts would
not be feasible under the circumstances and under the economic
and social needs objectives and concerns in providing the
improvements if the project were to be approved, would be
included as conditions of approval of the project.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on
the 26th day of October, 1983, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairman Schlehuber, Commissioners Rombotis,
Marcus, Lyttleton, Farrow and Rawlins.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Friestedt.
ABSTAIN: None.
CLARENCE SCHLEHUBER, Chairman
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
20
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HdLZMIl&LER
LAND USE PLANNING MANAGER
PC RESO NO. 2207 -2-
1
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2208
2
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
3 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMEN1^
TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE LAND
4 USE DESIGNATIONS OF THE AGUA HEDIONDA LOCAL COASTAL PLAN T(f)
DESIGNATE VARIOUS PARCELS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON
5 PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED BETWEEN THE EASTERLY EDGE OF
AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON AND EL CAMINO REAL
6 APPLICANT: CAL COMMUNITIES, INC.
CASE NO. GPA-70 ( C ) __7 - : - : -
WHEREAS, a verif iedapplication for an amendment to the
8
General Plan designation for certain property located, as shown on
9
Exhibit "C", dated October 5, 1983, attached and incorporated
10
herein, have been filed with the Planning Commission; and
11
WHEREAS, said verified applications constitute a request
12
for amendment as provided in Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal
J-O
Code; and
14
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and
15
considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons
16
desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
17
relating to the General Plan Amendment.
18
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
19 I
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
20 A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
21 B) That in view of the findings made and considering the
applicable law, the decision of the Planning Commission is to
22 recommend APPROVAL of GPA-70 (C), as shown on Exhibit "X", dated
November 1, 1983.
23
Findings:
24 -
1) The subject property is physically suitable for development
25 permitted in the respective land use designations, as discussed
in the staff report.
26
2) The uses allowed in the proposed land use designations will be
27 compatible with surrounding land uses and with other elements
of the General Plan.
28
7
2
4
these impacts as described below:
5 A. Land Use
/?
Impact ; The proposed development of the site could have a
7
B. Biological Resources
12 Impact; Development of the subject property for
13 habitats.
14"
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3) The uses allowed in the proposed land use designations will be
compatible with future land uses, as discussed in the staff
report.
4) That all significant environmental issues have been mitigated,
or the project has been changed so as to mitigate these
impacts, or social or economic factors exist which override
potential adverse impact on sensitive biological habitats.
Mitigation; Impacts on land use will be mitigated by
requiring the applicant to master plan the property. Said
master plan will provide restrictions on the development
of sensitive areas. The City is adopting the floodplain
overlay zone on portions of the property within the 100
year floodplain.
residential use could adversely effect sensitive wetlands
Mitigation; The Master Plan for the development of the
area will provide restrictions on development adjacent to
the wetlands. Portions of the remaining wetlands will be
enhanced to the satisfaction of the Department of Fish and
Game. A six foot high chain link fence will be
constructed around the edge of the wetlands area.
Agriculture
Impact; Annexation and future development of the site
without some preservation of the existing agriculture on
the hill would be a significant impact based on County and
State agency policies.
Mitigation; The City of Carlsbad has no exclusively
agricultural general plan designation. Some of the
existing agricultural uses in the floodplain will be
retained.
D. Traffic
Impact; The proposed project will increase the amount of
traffic in the area of the project.
26 Mitigation; There should be no adverse traffic impacts if
27 all roads serving the project and the surrounding
neighborhood are constructed to their planned width.
28
PC RESO NO. 2208 -2-
Hydrology/Water Quality
Impact; There will be no direct impacts on hydrology and
water quality from the proposed project, however, indirect
or future impacts could occur with development.
Mitigation: The City has placed the Floodplain Overlay
zone on the portions of the site within the 100 year
floodplain. When development plans are approved special
grading requirements may be necessary to protect this area
from urban runoff and sedimentation.
Air Quality
Impact; The project, at development would result in an
incremental impact to regional air quality.
9 Mitigation; Various mitigation measures such as rideshare
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
25
26
27
28
and transit programs should be included in the master
plan. Additionally, the need to provide diverse housing
types in the City of Carlsbad overrides this impact.
Finally, effective long term mitigation must be on a
regional basis.
Cultural Resources
Impact; The proposed project will not have a direct
impact on cultural resources, however, four potentially
significant sites were found on the property and could be
impacted at time of development.
16
Mitigation; Testing, excavation, and preservation of the
17 four significant sites as identified by an Environmental
Impact Report will be required prior to issuance of a
18 grading permit.
19 H. Visual Quality/Aesthetics
20 Impact; No direct impacts would be created by the project,
Future development under the proposed designations could
21 have a visual impact on the north and south shores of Agua
Hedionda Lagoon.
22
Mitigation; Mitigation will have to occur at the master
23 plan and at specific project levels. Mitigation will
include design of projects in accordance with the Agua
24 Hedionda Local Coastal Plan, preservation of specific
areas, clustering development and special landscaping
requirements.
I. Community Services
Impact; No direct impacts will be created by this
project. Future development of the site could result in
potential impacts relating to water conservation, solid
waste disposal, energy conservation, police and fire
protection and hospital facilities.
PC RESO NO. 2208 -3-
* I,
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
...
i
i
Mitigation: Some
mitigated by the
Condition
.__..
of these potential impacts can be
payment of public facilities fees.
1 . This general plan amendment is granted subject to the
unconditional certification of an amendment to the Agua
Hedionda Local Coastal Plan by the California Coastal
Commission. If said certification is not granted, the
portions of this general plan amendment located within the
Agua Hedionda Local Coastal Plan shall remain under the
existing general plan designations. If the Coastal
Commission conditionally certifies the amendment
additional action by the City Council will be required.
PASSED, APPROVED
Planning Commission of the
26th day of October, 1983,
AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
City of Carlsbad, California, held on th
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairman Schlehuber, Commissioners Rombotis,
Marcus, Lyttleton, Farrow and Rawlins .
NOES : None .
ABSENT: Commissioner Friestedt
ABSTAIN: None.
ATTEST:
CLARENCE SCHLEHUBER, Chairman
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
"* s~*. ^^\
MICHAEL J. HqLZMItKER
LAND USE PLANNING MANAGER
PC RESO NO. 2208
-
-4-
/o
1
2
3
4
5
10
11
12
13
14
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2209
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APROVAL OF A ZONE
CHANGE FROM R-A-10 AND COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO R-R-2 TO CITY
OF CARLSBAD P-C WITH AN F-P OVERLAY ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED BETWEEN THE EASTERLY EDGE OF AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON
AND EL CAMINO REAL.
APPLICANT: CAL COMMUNITIES, INC.
CASE NO: ZC-291
6 WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property, to
7 wit:
8 Portion of Lots "F" and "I" of Rancho Agua Hedionda
9 according to Map 823 filed November 16, 1896,
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad, and referred to the
Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request as
provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 26th day of
15 October, 1983, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by
16 law to consider said request; and
17 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and
considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons
19 desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
20 relating to the Zone Change; and
21 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
22 Commission as follows:
23 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
24 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the
Commission recommends APPROVAL of ZC-291, based on the
25 following findings and subject to the following conditions:
26 Findings;
27 1) The project is consistent with the City's General Plan since
the proposed residential densities are within the density
28 ranges specified for the properties as indicated on the Land
Use Element of the General Plan.
2
posed.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
project.
13
14
15
17
18
19
20
26
27
28
2) The site is physically suitable for the type and density of
the development since the site is adequate in size and shape
to accommodate residential development at the density pro-
3) The project is consistent with all City public facility pol-
icies and ordinances since:
a) The Planning Commission has, by inclusion of an
appropriate condition to this project, insured that the
final map will not be approved unless the City Council
finds that sewer service is available to serve the
project. In addition, the Planning Commission has added a
condition that a note shall be placed on the final map
that building permits may not be issued for the project
unless the City Engineer determines that sewer service is
available, and building cannot occur within the project
unless sewer service remains available, and the Planning
Commission is satisfied that the requirements of the
public facilities element of the general plan have been
met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this
b) The Carlsbad School District has written a letter, dated
September 12, 1983, stating that school facilities will be
available to this project.
4) The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future
land uses since surrounding properties are designated for
residential development on the general plan.
16
5) That all significant environmental issues have been
mitigated, or the project has been changed so as to mitigate
these impacts, or social or economic factors exist which
override these impacts as described below:
A. Land Use
Impact; The proposed development of the site could have
a potential adverse impact on sensitive biological
habitats.22
Mitigation: Impacts on land use will be mitigated by
requiring the applicant to master plan the property.
Said master plan will provide restrictions on the
development of sensitive areas. The City is adopting the
floodplain overlay zone on portions of the property
within the 100 year floodplain.
////
////
PC RESO NO. 2209 -2-
/l
2
3
4
5
6
constructed around the edge of the wetlands area.
Agriculture
8
9
10
11
12
retained.13
D. Traffic14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
28
B. Biological Resources
Impact; Development of the subject property for
residential use could adversely effect sensitive wetlands
habitats.
Mitigation; The Master Plan for the development of the
area will provide restrictions on development adjacent
to the wetlands. Portions of the remaining wetlands will
be enhanced to the satisfaction of the Department of Fish
and Game. A six foot high chain link fence will be
Impact; Annexation and future development of the site
without some preservation of the existing agriculture on
the hill would be a significant impact based on County
and State agency policies.
Mitigation; The City of Carlsbad has no exclusively
agricultural general plan designation. Some of the
existing agricultural uses in the floodplain will be
Impact: The proposed project will increase the amount of
traffic in the area of the project.
Mitigation; There should be no adverse traffic impacts
if all roads serving the project and the surrounding
neighborhood are constructed to their planned width.
E. Hydrology/Water Quality
Impact; There will be no direct impacts on hydrology and
water quality from the proposed project, however, indirect
or future impacts could occur with development.
Mitigation; The City has placed the Floodplain Overlay
zone on the portions of the site within the 100 year
floodplain. When development plans are approved special
grading requirements may be necessary to protect this area
from urban runoff and sedimentation.
F. Air Quality
Impact; The project, at developent would result in an
incremental impact to regional air quality.
26
Mitigation; Various mitigation measures such as rideshare
and transit programs should be included in the master
plan. Additionally, the need to provide diverse housing
types in the City of Carlsbad overrides this impact.
Finally, effective long term mitigation must be on a
regional basis.
PC RESO NO. 2209 -3- »-?
1
2
3
impacted at time of development.
4
7
8
10
11
12
14
17
18
20
G. Cultural Resources
Impact; The proposed project will not have a direct
impact on cultural resources, however, four potentially
significant sites were found on the property and could be
Mitigation; Testing, excavation, and preservation of the
four significant sites as identified by an Environmental
Impact Report will be required prior to issuance of a
grading permit.
H. Visual Quality/Aesthetics
Impact; No direct impacts would be created by the
project. Future development under the proposed
designations could have a visual impact on the north and
south shores of Agua Hedionda Lagoon.
Mitigation; Mitigation will have to occur at the master
plan and at specific project levels. Mitigation will
include design of projects in accordance with the Agua
Hedionda Local Coastal Plan, preservation of specific
areas, clustering development and special landscaping
requirements.
i . Community Services
Impact; No direct impacts will be created by this
project. Future development of the site could result in
potential impacts relating to water conservation, solid
waste disposal, energy conservation, police and fire
protection and hospital facilities.
Mitigation; Some of these potential impacts can be
mitigated by the payment of public facilities fees.
Other potential impacts can be mitigated by the payment
of public facilities fees.
Condition21
1) This zone change is granted subject to the unconditional
certification of an amendment to the Agua Hedionda Local
Coastal Plan by the California Coastal Commission. If said
certification is not granted, the portions of this zone
change located within the Agua Hedionda Local Coastal Plan
shall remain under the existing zone change. If the Coastal
Commission conditionally certifies the amendment additional
action by the City Council will be required.
26
27 ""
////PC RESO NO. 2209 -4-
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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on
the 26th day of October, 1983, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairman Schlehuber, Commissioners Rombotis,
Marcus, Lyttleton, Farrow and Rawlins.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Friestedt.
ABSTAIN: None.
CLARENCE SCHLEHUBER, Chairman
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. R6LZM3feLER
LAND USE PLANNING MANAGER
PC RESO NO. 2209 -5-
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
I.
STAFF REPORT
October 26, 1983
Planning Commission
Land Use Planning Office
EIR 83-4/GPA/LU-70(C)/ZC-291 - CAL COMMUNITIES - Request
for a General Plan Amendment, amendment to the Agua
Hedionda Local Coastal Plan, Zone Change, Pre-
Annexational Zone Change and Certification of an
Environmental Impact Report involving 433 acres of
property generally located between the easterly edge of
Agua Hedionda Lagoon and El Camino Real.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission: (1) ADOPT
Resolution No. 2207 recommending CERTIFICATION of EIR 83-4, and
(2) ADOPT Resolution Nos. 2208 and 2209 recommending APPROVAL of
GPA/LU 70(C) and ZC-291 per Staff's recommendations to the City
Council based on the findings contained therein.
II.PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This application is a request for an amendment to the general
plan, an amendment to the Agua Hedionda Local Coastal Plan and a
zone change on a number of different parcels within a 433 acre
holding, generally known as the "Kelly Ranch", located as
described above. The existing and proposed general plan
designations are shown on Exhibit "A" and the existing and
proposed zoning are shown on Exhibit "B".
The existing General Plan designations would allow a maximum of
approximately 1254 dwelling units to be constructed on the
subject property. The proposed General Plan Amendment would
theoretically allow approximately 2800 units to be constructed
on the property. However, existing topographical constraints
make it impossible for the applicant to construct this number of
units. The applicant has proposed a preliminary development
plan for the property with a maximum of 1600 dwelling
units. This would be approximately 25 percent more units than
the existing general plan designations would permit. The
environmental impact report for this project is based on'a
maximum of 1600 dwelling units along with two commercial areas.
The proposed amendments to the General Plan and Agua Hedionda
Local Coastal Plan would effect six areas as shown on the
exhibits. The overall effect would be an increase in density on
the hill south of the future extension of Cannon Road and a
reduction in the amount of area that has been designated as OS,
Open Space, by the General Plan and Agua Hedionda Local Coastal
Plan. The applicant proposes to replace the eliminated open
space areas with residential development and recreational
commercial uses.
The subject property is effected by two local coastal plans, the
Carlsbad Local Coastal Plan and the Agua Hedionda Local Coastal
Plan. Exhibit "E" shows the boundary of the two plans. The
Carlsbad Local Coastal Plan has been adopted by the state, but
has not been adopted by the City of Carlsbad. The Agua Hedionda
Local Coastal Plan was recently approved by both the City of
Carlsbad and the State Coastal Commission after nearly eight
years of negotiation and compromise. Some of the applicant's
requests would conflict with the plan as it was approved. The
City Council also amended the General Plan on February 15, 1983
to conform to the approved Agua Hedionda Local Coastal Plan.
If the requested General Plan Amendment and Agua Hedionda Local
Coastal Plan Amendment are approved, certain other policies of
the Agua Hedionda Local Coastal Plan would also have to be
changed. Specifically, the policy of the Agua Hedionda Local
Coastal Plan that prohibits development within the wetlands area
would have to be changed since the applicant is proposing to
encroach into this area.
This report, will be divided into three parts: a discussion of
the major issues identified in the Environmental Impact Report,
a discussion of the general plan amendment, and a discussion of
the zone changes.
III. EIR 83-4
The environmental impacts associated with this project can be
divided into two types: (1) direct impacts created by the
general plan amendment, prezoning and annexation applications,
and (2) potential impacts of future development that may occur
as a result of these applications.
A. Direct Impacts Created by the GPA, Zone Change and
Annexation
Land Use Impacts
Prezoning
Approximately 342 acres of the subject property are
located in unincorporated San Diego County. The P-C
zone could result in higher density than allowed by the
existing county zoning designation.
The P-C zone requires the submittal of a master
development plan for the entire property. This could
result in a "positive" impact if the property is
comprehensively planned and all environmental resources
are considered and incorporated into the plan. It is
likely that environmental impacts would be more easily
mitigated if the project is reviewed under one Master
Plan by one jurisdiction.
-2-
17
General Plan Amendment
The proposed general plan amendment could result in a
more than 25 percent increase in residential and
commercial development over what is presently allowed by
the existing general plan designations. This increase
is based on a maximum of 1600 dwelling units along with
a neighborhood commercial and recreational commercial
area. Since the Environmental Impact Report was
proposed, the applicant has dropped his request for
neighborhood commercial on El Camino Real and instead is
proposing RMH (Residential Medium High Density; 10-20
du's/ac).
Any intensification of land uses could potentially
result in significant environmental impacts. These
impacts will be identified and mitigated if possible at
the time a Master Plan is submitted and reviewed by the
City.
Annexation
Annexation of the property would put jurisdictional
control of the property in the City of Carlsbad. The
Environmental Impact Report indicates that a beneficial
impact is likely to occur even though the City would be
providing services.
Traffic Impacts
The Environmental Impact Report addresses the effect the
proposed project will have on Cannon Road, El Camino
Real, Park Drive and Kelly Drive. The applicant
proposes to construct Cannon Road through the project
and extend Kelly Drive along the northerly edge of Agua
Hedionda Lagoon. Kelly Drive will then cross the
wetlands area to intersect with Cannon Road
approximately a quarter of a mile west of the
intersection of El Camino Real and Cannon Road. The
traffic section of the Environmental Impact Report
concludes that there will be no significant adverse
traffic impacts as proposed.
Biology
The proposed annexation, general plan amendment and zone
change would result in a loss of lands designated as
open space. This could result in the ultimate loss of
wetland areas as defined by the Department of Fish and
Game. The applicant has proposed an enhancement plan to
mitigate the adverse effects caused by filling the
wetland areas. This plan has been reviewed on a
preliminary basis by the Coastal Commission and Fish and
Game Staff. These agencies have responded unfavorably
to the proposed enhancement plan because existing
coastal policies preclude intrusion into defined
wetlands. The Agua Hedionda Local Coastal Plan also
prohibits intrusion into wetland areas.
-3-
B. Potential Environmental Impacts From Future Development
Land Use Impacts
The proposed land use designations for areas I, II,
III, IV and VI are different than those approved as
part of the Agua Hedionda Local Coastal Plan (for
location of the individual areas, please refer to
attached exhibits). The proposed land use designation
for area V is different than that approved by the state
as part of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Plan. Potential
impacts that could occur at the development stage
include impacts to biological resources hydrology,
water quality, agriculture and cultural resources and
visual resources.
Exact impacts and their corresponding mitigation
measures cannot be determined until a master plan is
submitted by the applicant.
Biology
Potential impacts to biological resources could occur
at the time of project development. Specifically, the
loss of coastal salt marsh, fresh water marsh and
riparian habitats are considered significant potential
biological impacts. The applicant proposes to mitigate
these impacts by an enhancement plan as previously
discussed. Impacts to the biological habitats will be
further mitigated by fencing and an adequate setback
from wetlands as determined by the State Department of
Fish and Game.
Exact impacts and corresponding mitigation measures
resulting from future development cannot be determined
at this time. These impacts and mitigation measures
would have to be identified at the time of the
submittal of a development proposal.
Agriculture
The proposed land use designation on Area V will result
in the conversion of existing agricultural land. If
fully developed, Area V would be in conflict with
existing Coastal Commission policies regarding
agricultural land preservation. Mitigation measures
would include relocating some of the agricultural uses
to the flood plain area, subject to the approval of the
Department of Fish and Game.
Hydrology/Water
Development of the subject property could result in
adverse impacts to Agua Hedionda Lagoon water quality.
Some of the areas the applicant proposes to develop are
within the 100 year flood plain.
-4-
Appropriate floodproofing measures will be
incorporated into the project design to provide 100-
year flood protection to the development areas located
in the 100-year flood plain. These measures could
include channelization, walls, elevation of building
pads or relocation of development areas outside of the
existing 100-year flood plain.
Cultural Resources
The Environmental Impact Report identifies eleven
archeological sites and two paleontological sites.
Four of the archeological sites are considered
important cultural resources. The Environmental Impact
Report provides a detailed excavation and preservation
plan for the four significant archeological sites and
the two paleontological sites. These mitigation
measures will have to be implemented prior to issuance
of a grading permit.
Visual
Implementation of the proposed project would exert a
long-term impact upon the present aesthetic character of
the study area. The proposed development will transform
145 acres of the existing open space/rural character of
the Kelly Ranch to that of a more urban area.
Preliminary studies provided by the developer indicates
that visual impacts would be created in Area I but would
not be significant in Area III. Exact impacts and
their corresponding mitigation measures cannot be
determined until a master plan is submitted by the
applicant.
Air Quality
Staff believes that EIR 83-4 was prepared in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act and has
adequately identified and discussed both the direct
impacts resulting from the project presently under
consideration (GPA, ZC and Annexation) and the
potential impacts which will have to be addressed when
a master plan for the property is considered. For
these reasons, staff is recommending Certification of
EIR 83-4.
IV. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
Planning Issues
1 ) Is the proposed land use appropriate for the site?
2) Is the proposed land use consistent with
surrounding land uses?
3) Can the proposed changes be justified by the
applicant's proposed enhancement plan?
A. General Plan Amendments
The applicant is requesting a number of changes to the
existing General Plan designations of the subject
property. For purposes of clarity, the property has
been divided into six areas and each will be discussed
separately. The six areas of concern are shown on the
attached exhibits. All the areas except area V and a
portion of area VI are located within the Agua Hedionda
Local Coastel Plan.
Area I
This area adjacent to Park Drive is generally referred
to as the "fingers" area. It consists of several
finger like projections of fill material. The area
between the fingers consists of tidal flat which is
inundated by the higher-high tides. The wetlands
boundary is located at the base of the fingers, thus,
both the inundated areas and the fill material are
considered wetlands by the Department of Fish and Game.
The Agua Hedionda Local Coastal Plan would allow
development 100 feet behind the wetlands boundary,
unless otherwise approved by the Department of Fish and
Game.
The applicant is requesting to expand the amount of
buildable area by filling in half the tidal flats
between the fingers. This would entail cutting off the
ends of those fingers for use as fill material. The
extreme tips of the fingers would remain and be enlarged
as islands and would be separated from the mainland by
a tidal channel. These islands consisting of mudflats
and upland areas would be planted with native species
to enhance their habitat value.
Staff believes the proposed enhancement plan has
biological merit, but has concerns about the
future maintenance of the enhanced area. The
applicant's environmental consultant has indicated that
maintenance would be necessary until the enhanced
habitat has established itself. After this time,
however, the consultant believes the habitat would be
naturally maintained. The issue of the enhancement plan
and the maintenance of enhanced wetlands must be
addressed by both Fish and Game and the Coastal
Commission. Staff is only willing to support the
general plan amendment if the Coastal Commission and
Fish and Game approve the enhancement plan. Staff has
added a condition to the General Plan Amendment which
states that approval of the general plan amendment is
subject to Coastal Commission approval of the Agua
Hedionda Local Coastal Plan.
-6-
Area II
The applicant proposes approximately two acres of RMH,
Residential Medium High, 10-20 du/ac, in this area. It
is presently designated OS, open space. The area
proposed for development is presently occupied by salt
marsh, freshwater marsh and disturbed area. The
applicant proposes to enhance an existing riparian area
adjacent to this site as a tradeoff for residential
uses on the remaining area.
Staff is opposed to this change and believes that this
area should remain as open space. Although a portion
of the site is disturbed, the Department of Fish and
Game has indicated that this area will regenerate if it
is left undisturbed. The site is adjacent to Kelly
School and Park and serves as a significant visual open
space corridor. The proposed medium-high density
residential development would destroy the open space
feeling created by these uses. In addition, the
proposed medium-high density type development would be
incompatible with the existing single family
residential development located along this portion of
Park Drive.
Area III
As shown by Exhibit "A", this area is designated RMH,
Residential Medium-High, 10-20 du/ac. The applicant
proposes to expand the amount of developable area by
costructing the future extension of Kelly Drive into
the wetlands area. This would destroy existing
freshwater marsh and riparian areas.
Staff can see no justification for this expansion and
believes that all development, including Kelly Drive,
should occur only in areas designated as RMH by the
existing General Plan. The only exception to this
would be for the construction of a portion of Kelly
Drive, adjacent to the old Thunderbird Ranch (see
Exhibit "A"). This section would have to encroach into
the riparian habitat to provide access to Area IV due
to topographical constraints.
Area IV
This area adjacent to El Camino Real is designated RLM,
Residential Medium-Low, 0-4 du/ac, and OS, Open Space by
the general plan. The applicant proposed to change this
area to neighborhood commercial originally, then to
RM, Residential Medium Density, 4-10 du/ac. At the D.
C. C. meeting held on October 18, 1983, the applicant
changed his request to RMH, Residential Medium High
Density, 10-20 du's/acre which would be five times the
maximum density now allowed on the site. With the
added expansion of this area as proposed by the
applicant, the density would increase ten-fold.
-7-
This area is presently occupied by eucalyptus woodlands,
riparian habitat and fallow fields. The applicant is
proposing to channelize and enhance Agua Hedionda Creek
adjacent to the future Cannon Road as a tradeoff for the
elimination of the existing habitats on this site. To
provide access to this area, the applicant proposes to
bring Kelly Drive across the wetlands to connect with
Cannon Road
Staff believes that the applicant's proposal is in
conflict with the goals of the El Camino Real Corridor
Study which was recently approved by the City Council.
The El Camino Real Corridor Study points out that the
section of El Camino Real between the Country Store and
the North Roll Development is the most rural area along
the entire roadway. The type of development permitted
in an area designated RMH would be incompatible with
the rural character of this area.
Staff cannot support the applicant's request for RMH,
10-20 du/ac at this site. Staff believes RLM, 0-4
du/ac is the most appropriate designation for this
area. The properties to the north and east of the
subject property are designated RLM, while the property
to the west is designated as open space. Staff
believes that the type of development permitted by an
RLM designation would be more compatible with future
development on these properties than would the type of
development allowed by a general plan designation of
RH. In addition, a designation of RLM would allow for
development yet still maintain the rural, expansive
atmosphere of this section of El Camino Real.
Staff could support an expansion of the developable
area as shown by Exhibit "C" even though this would
entail the destruction of a riparian area and filling
of areas designated as wetlands by the Department of
Fish and Game. The Engineering Department has informed
staff that it will be necessary to channelize Agua
Hedionda Creek from El Camino Real to the westerly side
of the future extension of Kelly Drive to avoid future
erosion problems during periods of high water. The
applicant has proposed an extensive enhancement plan
for the portion of Agua Hedionda Creek that will be
channelized.
This enhanced area along with Cannon Road will provide a
natural break between the RLM, 0-4 du/ac development on
this site and the RM, 4-10 du/ac development to the
south of Cannon Road
-8-
Area V
The applicant is proposing a general plan change from RL
(0-1.5 du's/ac) and RLM (0-4 du's/ac) to RM (4-10
du's/ac) on approximately 150 acres of land generally
known as Kelly's Hill. Staff believes this is
a significant tradeoff for the applicant in exchange for
preserving the lagoon wetland areas as previously
discussed. This change would more than double the
maximum allowed density on this portion of the
property.
Staff believes the proposed increase in density can
only be justified by the preservation of the lagoon
wetland and open space areas as outlined on this report
and as presently required by the Agua Hedionda Local
Coastal Plan.
Area VI
This area is located on the northwesterly side of the
future extension of Cannon Road. A portion of this
site is covered by salt marsh, while the remaining
portion of the site consists of a rather steep hill
criss-crossed with powerline easements. The portion of
the site occupied by the salt marsh is designated OS
while the hill is designated RM.
The applicant proposes to change the OS designation to
RC (Recreational Commercial) and the RM designation to
OS. The applicant feels that this is justified because
he believes the salt marsh is not a viable wetlands
area since it is separated from the main portion of the
salt marsh by a dirt road.
Staff cannot support the applicant's request and
recommends that the site remain as open space as
presently designated by the General Plan. The
Department of Fish and Game has indicated that the
isolated salt marsh area could become a viable part of
the overall salt marsh west of the dirt road if this
road was removed.
In addition, staff believes the visual aesthetics of
this area would be adversely effected by development in
the low-lying wetlands areas to the north and west of
Cannon Road. Staff believes the most suitable and
visually acceptable land use in the area north and west
of Cannon Road is open space.
-9-
The intent is to create a single large open space area
on the floodplain defined by the road patterns with no
further urban encroachments within the floodplain
beyond those roads.
The applicant has recently discussed the possibility of
realigning Cannon Road to the west of this site (see
Exhibit "F"). Staff has had inadequate time to review
this proposal to determine whether it would be feasible
to connect this new alignment to the approved alignment
of Cannon road to the west of the Kelly Ranch. If it
was possible to realign Cannon Road to the west it
would substantially reduce the amount of grading, but
would result in additional encroachment into the
wetlands. This proposal also has not been formally
reviewed by the Department of Fish and Game or the
Coastal Commission.
If it was determined that this revised alignment was
preferable to the existing alignment, staff could
support a general plan designation of RC on the
property to the east of Cannon Road. However, with
either alternative, staff could only support OS, open
space, to the west of Cannon Road for the reasons
previously stated.
Because of the site's unique characteristics and
relationship to Agua Hedionda Lagoon, it is important to
analyze individual areas in light of the total project.
Staff believes that each area described above is
linked with the others in terms of land use tradeoffs.
Staff believes its recommendation is the best compromise
in achieving development potential for the applicant
while preserving and enhancing the unique wetland
resource of Agua Hedionda Lagoon.
V. Analysis - Zone Change
Planning Issues
1. Is the proposed zoning consistent with the general
plan designation on the property?
2. Is the proposed zoning consistent with the
surrounding zoning and land use?
-10-
Discussion
As shown by Exhibit "B" , most of the site is located in San
Diego County and zoned R-R-2. The portion of the site located
within the City of Carlsbad is zoned R-A-10. The applicant is
proposing to zone the entire site P-C, Planned Community. The
P-C zone requires that a master plan be prepared before any
development can take place. The applicant is aware of this and
has already submitted a preliminary master plan for staff
review. Staff believes that the most appropriate zone for the
wetland areas is open space. This zone would ensure the future
preservation of this area as open space. With this zone,
however, the Planned Community portions of the property would be
split into small fragments. Such fragments would be difficult
to plan under one master plan.
For this reason, staff can support the P-C zone on the entire
property.
Staff is recommending that in addition to the P-C zone that the
FP zone (floodplain overlay) be applied to portions of the
project that are within the 100 year floodplain.
In summary, the land uses shown on Exhibit "D" are appropriate
for the site and compatible with all other elements of the
general plan. Staff can support the applicant's request for P-C
zoning if the FP, floodplain overlay is put on the portions of
the property within the 100 year floodplain as shown by Exhibit
"D".
The Commission should be aware that staff is recommending
that approval of the portion of the proposed General Plan
Amendment located within the Agua Hedionda Local Coastal Plan is
subject to the Coastal Commission's approval of an amendment to
the Agua Hedionda Local Coastal Plan.
Normally conditions are not added to a General Plan Amendment,
however, a condition is necessary in this case. If the Coastal
Commission did not approve the General Plan Amendment as
approved by the City, it would be necessary for the City to re-
amend the General Plan to bring it into conformance with the Agua
Hediond Local Coastal Plan.
Attachments
1. Planning Commission Resolution No's. 2207, 2208 and 2209
2. Location Map
3. Background Data Sheet
4. Disclosure Form
5. Letter dated October 4, 1983
6. Exhibit "A" - existing and proposed General Plan
Designations
7. Exhibit "B" - existing and proposed zoning
8. Exhibits "C" and "D" - staff .recommendations
9. Exhibit "E", Coastal Plan Boundaries
10. Exhibit "F", Alternative Alignments for Cannon Road
MH:ad
10/14/83
-11-
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: EIR 83-4/GPA-70(C)/ZC-291
APPLICANT: CAL COMMUNITIES, INC.
REQUEST AND LOCATION: General Plan Amendment and Zone Change for properties
located between the east end of Agua Hedionda Lagoon and El Camino Real
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Portion of Lots F & I of. Rancho Agua Hedionda according to
207-101-12
Map 823 filed November 16, 1896 APN; 207-100-15
208-020-17,28,30,32,33
Acres 433 Proposed No. of Lots/Units
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation
Density Allowed Density Proposed
Existing Zone R-A-10 + County Proposed Zone PC with FP overlay
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:
Zoning Land Use
Site R-A-10 + County Agriculture,SFD + Vacant
North R-A-10 + R-1 SFD
South County Vacant
East RMHP + County Mobile Homes + Vacant
West OS + PU Lagoon
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District Carlsbad Water Carlsbad Sewer Carlsbad EDU's
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated November 5, 1982
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Negative Declaration, issued
X E.I.R. Certified, dated October 26, 1983
Other,
IE aftpr th- information you have submitted has been review-*!, it is datermir.ecl
that further information - s equired, you will be so ad- s 1.
APPLICANT : __C_al_ £cfflmumLttes-,--Inc-Name (individual, partnership, joint venture, corporation, syndication)
_£A_
Business-Address
(714) 559-6200
Telephone Number - .
Cal CongQuqiti.es. Inc. (Attn: Wayne Callaghan)
Name
18002.j&ypark Circle, Irvine, CA 92714
Business Address
(714) 559-6200 .
Telephone Number
MEMBERS : Kaufman & broad (Attn t Ken~ Glandt >
Name •(individual, partner, joint Home ?iddress
venture, corporation, syndication)
138-So. Imperial. Anaheim. CA 92507
Business Address
714-921-0500
Telephone Ku=iLsr Telephone isuiuber
Kelly Family Trust No. 1 (Attn: Allan 0. Kelly /Rather ing _M._JKelly)
Home Address
P.O. Box 1065, Carlsbad, CA 92008
3\isinas; Addi'a&s
714-438-0668
ans Ku^b^r Telephone iiunibs-i
Rancho Agua Hedionda
Marie-Louise Kelly
Marvin H. Sippel
j.a Aregyi,paf _ Car 1 sbad^CA^ 92008
Lucia Carolyn Sippel 4679 El Camino Real Carlsbad, CA 9200R
(Attach mora sheets if necessary)
I/We declare under penalty of perjury that the information contained in thin dis-
closure is true and correct and that it will reiaain true and correct and nay be'
relied uoon as being true and correct until amended.
(L
Applicant
.-1 "
M M M <O \
Aqc-nc, O.-.-nar, Partner '
MICHAEL BRANDAAAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH • PLANNING AND PROCESSING • RESOURCE
18021 SKY PARK CIRCLE, SUITE E-2, IRVIN^OX 92714 71^^-8042
October 4, 1983 '^ *0fjjn- ^
IS &&
Mr. Michael Howes
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
SUBJECT: Review Comments on Kelly Ranch Biological Enhancement Plan
Dear Mike:
We have reviewed the Kelly Ranch Biological Enhancement Plan prepared by Elf end
Associates, dated September 1983. As the City's environmental consultant, we offer
the following comments on the document.
The Enhancement Plan (hereafter, the Plan), as presented, is intended to mitigate
impacts of the proposed development by creating a habitat of equal or greater value
within the project boundaries. In general, we concur with the intent of the
enhancement plan and believe that the concepts proposed will mitigate many of the
adverse environmental effects from development of the property. There are,
however, proposals in the Plan which conflict with adopted LCP policies and which
need to be expanded or refined before a full understanding of the Plan's value to
coastal resources can be gained. Our comments address the following topics: Policy
Consistency; Habitat Quality Trade Offs; and Long-Term Maintenance.
Policy Consistency
The Plan will conflict with two (2) adopted coastal policies. Specifically, the project
will result in the filling of defined wetland areas, as mapped by the Coastal
Commission and the Department of Fish and Game and the construction of dwelling
units within the wetlands boundary and within 100 feet of the wetlands boundary.
These impacts have been previously identified in the draft EIR as being inconsistent
with the Agua Hedionda and Carlsbad Mello II Local Coastal Programs.
These policy conflicts cannot be resolved, in our opinion, without substantial
discussion in subsequent stages of planning between the Coastal Commission staff,
the Applicant and his consultants, the Department of Fish & Game and the City of
Carlsbad. The following questions are germane to the development of a consensus
regarding the extent of enhancement proposed for the "fingers" area:
1. Is the existing wetlands boundary subject to realignment in response to the
enhancement plan and detailed biological investigations conducted by the
applicant or another qualified biologist with credentials acceptable to all
parties involved?
2. What are the setback requirements-in an enhancement area? Can the 100
foot setback requirement be reduced to account for specific features of
the Plan (e.g., fences, berms)?
Mr. Michael Howes
October 4, 1983
Page 2
3. What relative value should be attached to various habitats in evaluating
the enhancement Plan? Are low mudflats more valuable than high
mudflats? What is an appropriate patio of acreage of these habitats for
sustaining a viable wetlands habitat?
4. What development credit will be allowed to a developer for
restoring/enhancing wetland areas?
5. If ownership of the open space/wetlands area is transferred to the State,
who will be responsible for maintenance of the enhancement program?
These topics require information that is normally not available at the general plan
amendment and zone change stage of processing. Perhaps conditions of approval to
the zone change action could provide a mechanism for addressing additional
information needs during subsequent processing actions involving the City, the
Coastal Commission and the Department of Fish and Game.
Habitat Quality Tradeoffs
Section 3.0, SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS (p. 22), of the Plan concludes that
enhancement activities will create a quality of wildlife habitat that is equal to or
greater than that which is lost through development of the property. We can see the
reasoning behind this statement and concur with the concept proposed. However, we
believe that more information is needed before reviewing agencies can validate this
conclusion. Such information should be provided during consideration of site plans or
tentative tracts.
For example, the summary table presented on p. 22 of the Plan was categorized by
habitat type, including coastal wetland, tidal channel as well as riparian/marsh
habitats. This information should be presented in a way that portrays like habitat
types, rather than mixing habitats. Table A (attached) indicates that the net habitat
change after implementation of the Plan is +10.2 acres, if the tidal channel is
discounted. More importantly, on a habitat by habitat basis, total wetlands habitat
after enhancement would apparently be reduced by 18.3 acres and woodland habitat
would be reduced by 6.0 acres. The only habitat increase from the enhancement plan
would be 27.5 acres of riparian/marsh area. While this is an important habitat
onsite, it is not as valuable in the view of the Coastal Commission and the
Department of Fish and Game as the coastal wetlands habitat that would be
impacted by the proposed development.
Quality of the habitat enhancement area is an important factor in determining the
net result of the proposed enhancement actions. Before a determination can be
made regarding the disposition of the proposed Plan, more definitive information is
needed regarding the amount and type of vegetation that will be established in the
"enhanced" fingers area. For example, the Plan (p. 9) states that Salicornia will be
established and an attempt to establish cordgrass will be made in the "Fingers"
Location. Information concerning the location, density of individual specimens and
supporting environmental conditions is needed to assist in judging whether fewer
acres of higher quality wetlands habitat can balance the loss of existing quality
habitat acreage. As previously noted, this information could be requested of the
applicant during more detailed stages of planning.
Mr. Michael Howes
October 4, 1983
Page 3
Long-Term Maintenance
The Plan's provisions for long-term maintenance of the reconfigured wetlands habitat
needs further definition. As shown below, the Plan identifies several potential
options for maintaining some aspects of the Plan while other areas of responsibility
are unclear. Long-term maintenance is important to the continuing viability of the
enhancement area, and specific agencies or responsible parties (e.g., developers or
homeowner's association) should be identified.
Enhancement Plan
Maintenance Action
Long-term maintenance
of the proposed channel
and slopes
Damage to fence lines
o Active Biological Monitoring
and Maintenance (short-term
3 years)
o Ultimate management of all
Enhancement sites and other
natural areas
Agency/Group Responsibility
(per the Plan)
Unclear
Developer, HOA or Non-Profit
Organization
Unclear
HOA, Special District Non-Project
Organization, State Agency or Local
Agency
In conclusion, further information regarding the issues identified in this letter is
needed before a thorough assessment of the viability of the Plan can be completed.
These materials should be requested of the applicant during subsequent and more
detailed stages of development processing and planning. We would be pleased to
meet with City staff and the Applicant to clarify and expand upon our comments.
Should you have any questions regarding the information provided herein please call
me.
Sincerely,
lomas E. Smith, Jr. AI
Project Director
Jl
TABLE A
ASSESSMENT OF KELLY RANCH ENHANCEMENT PLAN
SUMMARY OF HABITAT CHANGES:
AREA/HABITAT PRESENT PLANNED NET CHANGE
ALL 56.3 acres
Components of Net Change:
1. Tidal Channel
2. Salicornia (wetlands)
3. Riparian/Marsh
4. Uplands (wetlands)
5. High Mudflats (wetlands)
6. Low Mudflats (wetlands)
7. Eucalyptus (woodlands)
Analysis
• Net change in wetlands habitats
(less tidal channel)
• Net change in Riparian/ Marsh
• Net change in Woodland (Eucs)
• Net change in Tidal Channel
66.5 acres + 10.2 acres
+7.0 acres
-14.5 acres
+2 7. 5 acres
-3.5 acres
-4.8 acres
+4.5 acres
-6.0 acres
-18.3 acres
+27.5 acres
-6.0 acres
+7.0 acres
EXHIBIT A
OCTOBER 5,1983
EXISTING
PROPOSED
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS
RMH 10-20 DU/AC
RM 4-10 OU/AC
RLM 0-4 DU/AC
RL 0-1.5 DU/AC
N NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
RC RECREATIONAL COMMERCIAL
OS OPEN SPACE
CAL COMMUNITIES
EXISTING &
PROPOSED GPA
EXHIBIT B
OCTOBER 5,1983
EXISTING
PROPOSED
ZONING DESIGNATIONS
R-A-10 RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTUREMINIMUM LOT SIZE: 10,000 9JF.
R-R-2 RURAL RESIDENTIAL
MINIMUM LOT SIZE: 1-ACRE
PC PLANNED COMMUNITY
CAL COMMUNITIES
EXISTING &
PROPOSED ZONING
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
I NO CHANGE
II-NO CHANGE
III NO CHANGE
IV-EXPAND RLM
V-RLM & RL TO RM
Vl-RM TO OS
EXHIBIT C
OCT. 5, 1983
EXISTING WETLANDS
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
EXHIBIT D
OCT. 5,1983
PC
STAFF RECOMMENDATION-ZONING
EXHIBIT E
OCTOBER 5, 1983
AGUAHEDIONDA/
LOCAL
COASTAL CARLSBAD
LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM AREA
PROGRAM
CAL COMMUNITIES
EXHIBIT F
OCTOBER 5, 1983
ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENT
OF CANNON ROAD
ADJACENT TO AREA VI
CAL COMMUNITIES
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
1416 NINTH STREET
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814
(916) 445-3531
October 25, 1983
Mr. Mike Hause
City of Carlsbad
Department of Planning
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mr. Hause:
The Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the General Plan Amendment request
and proposed development of the Kelly Ranch property adjacent to Agua Hedionda
Lagoon. Our concerns relate to seven distinct aspects of the proposal;
1. Fill deposition within wetlands associated with the "Fingers" area;
2. Fill deposition and channelization within salt marsh, and fresh water
marsh associated with the area midway between Valencia Road and Alondra
Way on the north shore of Agua Hedionda Lagoon;
3. The proposed extension of Kelly Drive which results in fill deposition
within environmentally sensitive riparian areas;
4. Fill deposition and proposed residential development of a riparian area
southeast of El Camino Real on the north shore;
5. Proposed extension of Cannon Drive along the south shore which appears
to intrude upon seasonally wet pasture within the 100 year floodplain;
6. Fill of salt marsh habitat for construction of a country club and tennis
courts on the south shore of the Lagoon; and
7. The relationship between proposed residential development within the Mello
II Local Coastal Planning subarea and the possibility of increasing the
intensity of agricultural use within the 100 year floodplain which is
currently zoned for open space.
The enclosed Department staff analysis treats each of these issues in detail.
Additionally, we have analyzed the adequacy of the proposed fish and wildlife
habitat restoration program.
We find that each of the six development proposals mentioned above conflicts
with the City-certified LUP. Further, we find that each of the six proposals
conflicts with Coastal Act sections which involve the protection of wetlands
Mike Hause -2-
and other environmentally sensitive habitat areas. Lastly, we find that
these developmental proposals, both cumulatively and individually, would
result in significant net negative environmental effects upon existing fish
and wildlife resources associated with Agua Hedionda Lagoon. For these reasons,
we urge the City of Carlsbad to deny the General Plan and zoning amendment
sought by the applicant.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this important General Plan and zoning
amendment request. Should you have questions regarding our position, please
contact Earl Lauppe, Region 5, 245 West Broadway, Long Beach, CA 90802, telephone
(213) 590-5177, or Bob Radovich, Environmental Services Branch, 1416 Ninth Street,
Sacramento, CA 95814, telephone (916) 445-1383.
Sincerely,
Director
Enclosure
cc: Michael Fischer, Coastal Commission-S.F.
Mr. Wayne Callaghan, Applicant
ANALYSIS
Specific Developmental Proposals
1 . Proposed Fill Deposition Within Wetlands Associated with the "Fingers"
Area^ Neither the Land Use Plan certified by the City of Carlsbad, nor
the Coastal Act permit fill of wetlands for residential development. Wetlands
described as mudflats in the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the
proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change exist between the upland
fingers. This wetland is inundated by high tides and provides important
forage and resting area for shorebirds when it is inundated. Such high
tidal, flats provide desirable diversity to the over 'ill Agun Hedionda Lagoon
ecosystem, inasmuch as infrequently inundated tidal areas complement frequently
inundated and permanently inundated areas by providing unique benc.fi us to
wildlife. The Department concludes1 that wetlands in the fingers area do not
require major restoration efforts pursuant to Coastal Act Section 30411,
nor are they definable as degraded wetlands. These wetlands are merely at
the upper range of tidal action in Vzhe Lagoon, and maintain values typically
associated with high tidal mudflats. For these reasons, the Department
opposes fill deposition within these wetlands.
^ • Developmental Proposal Involving Fill Deposition and _Chann_eliEjition _Wit hjm
Salt Marsh and Fresh Water .Ma !s
Valencia Road and Alondra Way on the North Sliore_ of A.eua Hc-dlonda _L.':goon.
Again, this proposal conflicts with the City-certified Land Use tflan as
well as Coastal Act Sections regarding the protection of wetlands. Agua
Hedionda Lagoon is one of the 19 wetland areas described in the Department.
report ^Acquisition Priorities for the Coastal Wetlands of California. ';
Within wetlands described in this report 5 uses are limited to "very minor,
incidental public facilities, restorative measures, nature study, commercial
fishing facilitie.s in Bodega Bay, and development in already developed
portions of South San Diego Bay, if otherwise in accordance with this division"
(Coastal Act Section 30233 (c)). Not only does this developmental proposal
conflict with the City-certified Land Use Plan and the Coastal Act, but no
compensation is specifically provided for fish and wildlife habitat losses
involved. The Department is opposed to conversion of such wetland areas.
3, Extension of Kelly Drive. The proposed extension of Kelly Drive involves loss
of environmentally sensitive riparian areas. The City-certified Land Use Plan (LUP)
*<(
Analysis
deleted the extension of Kelly Drive and provides specific assurance that if
it: is necessary to extend Kelly Drive in the future, then Kelly Drive will fill
neither wetland nor environmentally sensitive areas (such as riparian communi-
ties). The Coastal Act limits uses within environmentally sensitive areas
to those uses dependent upon resources provided by such areas. The Department
is opposed to the proposed extension of Kelly Drive through riparian areas,
and/or xvetlands. If this extension could be relocated so as to affect neither
wetlands nor riparian areas, as would be consistent with the City-certified
LUP, then we would withdraw our objections.
4. Fill Deposition and Proposed "Neighborhood Commercial" Development of a
Riparian Area _Southeast of El Camino Real, Extension of a Commercial Connector
Road, and Proposed Cannon Road Development in. This Sector. Fill deposition
within riparian woodlands "of considerable value to birds on the property"
(Draft EIR, page 40) is unacceptable. Again, this proposal conflicts with the
City-certified LUP and Coastaj. Act requirements involving riparian communities.
Additionally, proposed development of this area requires the extension of a
commercial connector road through seasonally wet pasture identified HO wetlands
by this Department. Lastly, according to the Draft EIR, the combination of
the proposed Cannon Drive extension, arid the extension of the commercial
connector road "will necessitate the diversion of existing water flows thereby
eliminating the drainage through this (the subject) riparian channel." The
Department recommends that any development of this parcel be conditioned such
that; the existing riparian area is protected from direct impacts-as well as
indirect impacts associated with elimination of water flows.
5. Caunoii Road Construction^ The precise proposed location for the construe Lion
of Cannon Road.is difficult to determine from available environmental documenta-
tion. If wetland fill for Cannon Road extension is limited to the approximately
0.5 acres northeast of the proposed recreation area discussed below, if this
loss is compensated for on a one-for-one basis, and if Cannon Road remains
above the 100 year floodplain and/or outside that area designated for protection
in the City-certified LUP, then the Department believes that this road construction
would have insignificant effect on biological resources associated with the
southeastern section of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon ecosystem. We also recommend .
that the proposed Cannon Road bridge be resited outside of the area protected
by the LUP.
Analysis
Page' 3
6. Fill of Salt Marsh for Construction of a Country Club and Tenni_s^_Co£rts_._
This proposal conflicts with the City-certified LUP and Coastal Act Sections
dealing with the protection of wetlands. The Department considers this
proposal unacceptable.
7. Relationships Between Planned Developinent_within the Mello II Planning Subarea
and Intensification of Agricultural Uses Within that Area Protected by the
Agua Hedionda LUP. We realize that the City of Carlsbad has not yet certified
the Mello II LUP. However, we note that this LUP, as presently conceived,
requires maintenance of agricultural production. We recommend against maintenance
of agricultural production through intensification of agricultural operations
within portions of the Agua Hedionda LUP area zoned for protection. Intensifi-
cation of agricultural use within the Agua Hedionda Lagoon LUP area would have
negative effect on associated fish.arid wildlife resources.
Adequacy of Proposed Mitigation •
In order to mitigate the negative effects of development described above, the
project sponsor proposes the following mitigation plan:
!• Fingers Area. In exchange for the, loss of 5 to 6 acres of high mudflats and
1.5 acres of salt marsh, the applicant proposes to cut a circular channel.
through portions of the fill area and to isolate the tips of the upland fingers.
The area proposed for fill roughly corresponds to the area of fill removed
by the channel cut. Aside from the fact that such development is not permitted
by the City-certified LUP, the DEIR for the proposal accurately states the
problems associated with the development of the fingers site: "This (salt; marsh)
vegetation is habitat for the (endangered) Belding's Savannah sparrow which
would naturally be displaced by any filling operations. The presence of
residential dwellings (and their associated wildlife disturbance elements -
pets, exploring residents, etc.) near the lagoon would reduce the use of the
shoreline by a variety of water-associated birds" (page 38, DEIR). For this
reason, the proposed development, though arguably retaining wetland acreage,'
would result in significant negative effects upon retained wetland areas.
2. The Area Between Valencia Road and Alondra Way on the North Shore of Agua
Hedionda Lagoon. Approximately three acres of salt-marsh and fresh/brackish
water marsh would be impacted. Additionally, the DEIR points out that the
endangered Beldings Savannah sparrow "could be negatively impacted by develop-
ment activities." Further, use of the shoreline in this area by sensitive
Analysis
Page 4 •
water-associated birds would be largely curtailed due to increased human
disturbance. Mitigation proposed is fa plan to grow willows in what amounts
to a small flood control channel. In addition to the fact that the planting
of willows immediately adjacent to intense urban development is inadequate
and inappropriate mitigation for loss of saltmarsh and fresh/brackish water
marsh, construction of the planned channel would increase water velocities
such that sediment from upstream sources would be more efficiently conveyed to
downstream wetland resources, thereby aggravating existing sedimentation
problems. For these reasons, we find proposed mitigation unacceptable.
3. L2SS_ °^_ the__RiparJan Area Southwest of El' Camino Real on_ the North t_ S_hgre_and
Propose'd Compensation in the Main Chaunel of Agua Hedionda Creek. -The plans
for the compensation area near the main channel are too vague at this time
to permit us to draw conclusions concerning the likelihood of establishing
an extensive riparian area. However, the compensation site has been identi-
fied as wetland (seasonally wet pasture) by the Department. We do not
consider the exchange of wet pasture for riparian area to be a mitigative
action. Channelization of Agua Hedionda Creek in this area would result
in increased water velocities during peak flows and would consequently
result in a downstream shift in sediment deposition areas, thereby increasing
problems with sedimentation in wetland areas downstream. For these reasons,
we find that proposed development of the area southwest of El Caniino Real
results in a net loss of environmentally sensitive habitat equivalent to
the acreage involved in the on-site riparian area, and in an incremental
loss in open space for wildlife. We consider both of these effects to be
substantial, and negative, with or without the proposed riparian restoration
plan.
4. The proposed extension of Cannon Drive and the proposed recreational
development provide no mitigation measures for the loss of four to five
acres of wetland and are unacceptable.
In summary, we emphasize that the developments proposed are not permitted by the.
City-certified LUP which this Department fully supports. Additionally, we find
that the overall effect of the proposed development and proposed mitigation is
substantially negative in term of wildlife habitat acreage and wildlife habitat.
quality. The quality of wetlands and their use by water-associated birds will
be reduced at the fingers site, and a net_ loss of roughly 10 acres of environ-
mentally sensitive riparian and .wetland habitat would occur at the. five \J
remaining sites discussed above.
This concludes our analysis of the proposed General Plan amendment and zone
change for the Kelly Ranch as presented in the City's DEIR. We recommend that
this amendment request be denied by the City of Carlsbad.
f/n
- <
November 15, 1983
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Attm City Council Members and City Manager
Re: Agenda #AB #756?
Gal Communities
The Board of Directors of Bristol Cove Property Owners
Association are concerned about your approval of the above
project and other recently approved projects (KAMAR) along
Park Drive.
We are going the brunt of the increased traffic caused
by those developments. The situation is bad right now. Park Dr.
should have been widened some time ago and we feel that it is
imperative that Tamarack and Elm be extended to El Camino as
quickly as possible to relieve the pressure of the traffic.
We urgently need pedestrian sidewalks for our childrens safety
in walking to Kelly, Magnolia and Valley Jr. High Schools.
BRISTOL COVE PRO.PERTY OWNERS ASSN
irian Lefferdink
Vice President
Carlsbad Journal
Decreed a Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of San Diego County
3138 ROOSEVELT ST. • P.O. BOX 248 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008 • 729-2345
Proof of Publication
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid;
I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter.
I am principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbdd Journal a newspaper of general circulation,
published twice weekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, and which
newspaper is published for the dissemination of local news and intelligence of a general character, and
which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying
subscribers, and which newspaper has been established and published at regular intervals in the said
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, for a period exceeding one year
next preceding the date of publication of the
notice hereinafter referred to; and that the notice
of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been
published in each regular and entire issue of said
newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on
the following dates, to-wit:NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING
GPA/LU-70 (C)/AHLCP/ZC-291
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that
the City Council of the City of Carls-
bad will hold a public hearing at
the City Council Chambers, 1200
Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California,
at 6:00 P.M. on Tuesday, November
15,1983, to consider an applicationfor a General Plan Amendment, a
Zone Change and an amendment to
the Agua Hedionda Local Coastal
Plan on property generally locatedbetween the east end of Agua
Hedionda Lagoon and El Camino
Real and more particularly de-
scribed as:
Portion of Lot I of Rancho Agua
Hedionda according to Hap No
823, filed November 16,1896.
Applicant: Cal Communities
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
November 5 83
19
19.
19
19
SUBJECT PROPERTY
CJ S398: November 5,1983 CAL COMMUNITY?I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
and correct. Executed at Carlsbad, County of San Diego,
State of California on the 5th _
day of November X9 8 3
2M4.82 Clerk of the Printer
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
GPA/nJ-70(C)/AHLCP/ZC-291
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public
hearing at the City Council Chanibers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 P.M.,
on Tuesday, November 15, 1983, to consider an application for a General Plan Amendment,
a Zone Change and an amendment to the Agua Hedionda Local Coastal Plan on property
generally located between the east end of Agua Hedionda Lagoon and El Camino Real and
more particularly described as:
Portion of Lot I of Rancho Agua Hedionda according to Map
823, filed November 16, 1896.
APPLICANT: Cal Communities
PUBLISH: November 5, 1983 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF CAL*LS3AU
'
X/P*
SAM DIEGO
COUNTY
SUBJECT PROPERTY
CAL COMMUNITY S
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will
hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad,
California, at 7:00 p.m. on Vied nose1 ay, Oct 12, 1983, to consider approval of a
General Plan Amendment, a Zone Change and an amendment to the Agua Hedionda
Local Coastal Plan on property generally located between the east end of Agua
Hedionda Lagoon and El Camino Real and more 'particularly described as:
Portion of Lot I of Rancho Agua Hedionda according to Map
823, filed November 16, 1896.
The public hearing for this item will be opened on October 12, 1983, however,
no discussion on the item will take place. The item will be continued to the
October 26,. 1983 Planning Commission meeting and will be discussed at that
time.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend
the public hearing. If you have any questions please call the Land Use Planning
Office at 438-5591,
CASE FILE: GPA/LU-70(C)/AHLCP/ZC-291
APPLICANT: Cal Communities
PUBLISH: October 1, 1983
CITY 0? CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
,.207^1-00-53
L.Ri PARTNERSHIP? LTD*
,'C/0' KAMAR'CONSTRUCTION
P.O. BOX 71
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-250-63
L.R. PARTNERSHIP, LTD^-
C/0 KAMAR CONSTRUCTION
P.O. BOX 71
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-250-64
L.R. PARTNERHIP, LTD
C/0 KAMAR CONSTRUCTION.
P.O. BOX 71
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-250-65
L.R. PARTNERSHIP, LTD
C/0 KAMAR CONSTRUCTION
P.O. BOX 71
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-250-66
L.R. PARTNERSHIP, LTD
C/0 KAMAR CONSTRUCTION
P.O. BOX 71
CARLSBAD, CA 92003
207-250-36
EARL & CAROLYN PENNINGTON^
1820 VALENCIA AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-250-31
GUY C. & BERTHA M. MAHAN^j.
4858 PARK DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-250-30
CHARLES L. & SANDRA
DAUGHERTY TRS
4860 PARK DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-250-29
BARTLEY W. & AURA V. CHRISTIANA
4862 PARK DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-250-28
WILLIAM A. &
CAROLYN L. ROBINSON^
4864 PARK DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-250-27
FREDERICK A. &
BEVERLY A. LORENTSEN4
4866 PARK DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-250-26
JOHN W. & ALBERTA AMOS#
4868 PARK DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-250-21
JAMES L. & CRYSTAL H. LANGFC
4878 PARK DRIVE #
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-250-20
BARTON V. & ANGELINA FORESTE
4880 PARK DRIVE *
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-250-19
JAMES M.E. & ELAINE 0. PARKE
4882 PARK DRIVE *"
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-250-18
MORTON S. & MARY E. O'GRADYJt
4884 PARK DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-250-17
NORRIS W. & MARY W. COCHRAN^
4886 PARK DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-250-16
SHIRLEY A. O'CONNOR^
4888 PARK DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-250-35
JAMES V. & BETTE L. ATKINSON
1810 VALENCIA AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-250-25
BETTE R. .SCHELL ^
4870 PARK DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-250-15
UPINDER & MARLEE A.
4890 PARK DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-250-34
SETA BOYADJIAN
4850 PARK DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-250-24
HELEN VIALA & RENEE VIALA^
9272 CHRISTINE DRIVE
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. 92646
207-250-39
MAJORIE C. LUTZ %
1815 BIENVENIDA CIRCLE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-250-33
JAMES G. & ELEANOR H. BURTON-fc
485^ PARK DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-250-23
ROBERT L. & NANNETTE B. WHITEDfr"
4874 PARK DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-250-40
RICHARD E. & SUSAN H. ANDREWS#
1825 BIENVENIDA CIRCLE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-250-32
RUSSELL W. & NORMA L. RECORE^t
4856 PARK DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-250-22
IRA J. & NORA N. SPENCER^sr
4876 PARK DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-250-41
DONNA M. GRAHAM ^
1835 BIENVENIDA CIRCLE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
J20.7-2SO-36
WILFRED'B. & CAROLINE S.
4918 'LOMA LACUNA DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CALIF. 92008
TIMOTHY M. SWEENEY, THOMAS S. SWEENEY^
SLATE" ' & JOHN SWEENEY
4923 LOMA COURT
CARLSBAD, CA 92007
207-290-18
ISOKAZU TABATA M
4929 PARK DRIVE
CARLSBADi CA 92008
207-280-37
HORST G. & STLVIANE M
VANDER LINDEN
1130 ELM TREE LANE
SAN MARCOS, CA 92069
207-280-38
ENRIQUE M. & PRTRICIA
, ARREGUI
4914 LOMA LACUNA DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-280-39
JOHN S. & TWILA K. MURRAY^-
4912 LOMA LACUNA DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-280-22
PAUL M., JR., &
JU-CHIUNG JONES&
DET 1 3 TFW
APO SAN FRANCISCO, CA 96528
207-280-21
CARL L. & RUTH A HAYWARDJ^
4919 LOMA COURT
CARLSBAD, CA , 92008
207-280-20
RICHARD G. & HORTENSIA NIEVES&
4927 LOMA WAY
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-290-17
JOHN E. & AMRIE C. PETERSj^
4904 LOMA LACUNA DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-290-16
PETER J. LEPO ^
4902 LOMA LACUNA DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-334-01
RICHARD M. & MARY A. REILLY^
4901 VIA AREQUIPA
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-280-40
DAVID A. & ROSE E.
2351 SPRUCE STREET
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-280-19
STEVEN D. & MARJORIE D. FORMAN^
4925 LOMA WAY
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-334-02LAWRENCE P. , JR. , &
KATHLEEN A. VASQUEZ
4903 VIA AREQUIPA
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
(DVA)
207-280-41
HENRY G. & RUTH D.
4908 LOMA LACUNA DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
107-180-18
ANN L. SANCHEZ %
4923 LOMA WAY
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-334-0.3 ,
VALDEMAR G. & JOSEPHINE S.%:
AMAYA "'• -
4905 VIA AREQUIPA
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-280-42
DENNIS C. & WENDY C. TYMER^r
4906 LOMA LACUNA DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-280-14 207-334-04
ROBIN L. & PATRICIA K. HARGETT& BRUCE A« & SHARON K'
4924 LOMA WAY ^907 VIA AREQUIPA
CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-280-26
MIGUEL L. & LYDIA E. ZARATE^-
4929 LOMA LACUNA DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-280-13
NEAL
4926 LOMA WAY
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-334-05
W. ALLAN & MARIE-LOUISE KELLY
4912 VIA AREQUIPA *"
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-280-25
BRET A. & STELLA L. ^
SHALLENBERGER (DVA)
4927 LOMA COURT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-280-24
LAV:REXCE & SUZANNE BACKWOOD^4925 LOMA COURT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-280-12
WILLY P. HAUSER^
4928 LOMA WAY
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-280-11
HAROLD & MILDRED M. LA VIOLETTE-^
4905 LOMA LACUNA DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-334-06
JOHN & SHIRLEY J. MANE
27512 DEL GADO ROAD # "F"
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672
207-334-07 .
RALPH D., JR., & %r
DORIS A. CONZALES (DVA)
4908 VIA AREQUIPA
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
S-
.207-250-42
* MJRTK J. & SfflLEY A. DAHLQJIST&
J 845 BIENVENIEft CIRCLE
" CARLSBAD, GA 92008
207-250-43
PAUL E. & RUTH A. GRANSBURYJt
1855 B1ENVENIDA CIRCLE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-250-11
MICHAEL H. GAVLICK^
4890 ALONDRA WAY
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-250-12
SANDRA R. SHAPIRO-^
4892 ALONDRA WAY
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
,
RICHARD L. CHASE, K. GAY CHASE •*
(P/F) LEWIS L. & PAULINE F. CHASE
4903 PARK DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-280-27
TERRY G. & PHYLLIS M. SHADED
4931 LOMA LACUNA DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-250-44 !
CALVIN F. & LOUELLA E. FOSTER^
1865 BIENVENIDA CIRCLE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-250-13
NICOLA M., JR., & CICELIAjfc
PEREIRA
4894 ALONDRA WAY
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-280-28
JACK R. & SHIELA BERTRAM^
4934 LOMA LACUNA DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-250-45
THOMAS M. & SUZANNE M. GEORGIA
1875 BIENVENIDA CIRCLE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-250-14
DAVID J. & MARILYN J. SPENCER^
4896 ALONDRA WAY
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-280-29
JAMES R. & SANDRA L.
4932 LOMA LACUNA DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-250-46
ROBERT C. WATTS, JR.^:
1885 BIENVENIDA CIRCLE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-241-02
CITY OF CARLSBAD ^
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-280-30
MARK MASON
4930 LOMA LACUNA DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-25CMW
ROBERT L. & SHIELA N. FORMANEKj|r
1870 BIENVENIDA CIRCLE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-241-01
CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
801 PINE AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-280-31
ROGER S. KINCEL
4928 LOMA-LAGUNA DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-250-48
JOHN W. BECKER ^
1860 BIENVENIDA CIRCLE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-101-05
PETER L. & JOANNA ANDERSON&
11447 CRESTA LANE
DUBLIN, CA 94555
207-280-32
PETE, JR., & KATHERINE AVILA^
4926 LOMA LACUNA DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-250-56
STACY J. & NORMA J. HENDERSON^-
4879 ALONDRA WAY
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-280-43
DENNIS W. LACY & LISA A.
4900 PARK DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-280-33
THOMAS J. & GERALDENE M.
4294 LOMA LACUNA DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
&
207-250-57
THERESA W. FREIMAN
JAMES R. CAGLE
^885 ALONDRA WAY
CARLSBAD, CA 920Q8
207-250-58
LINDA E. COOK fc
34^i SEACREST FRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-280-06
CLARENCE 0. &
MARLANNA E. GOODMAN^:
4907 PARK DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-280-05
WILLIAM J. & ANITA C. HOMBURG^
4905 PARK DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-280-34
DENNIS R. & MEREDITH A. HAR£t
4922 LOMA LACUNA DRIVE ^
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
207-280-35
FRANK L. & ELVA L. FEHR, &fc
WILLIAM R. & HENNE M. SUTTLE
4982 VIA MARTA
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
I'el, i t i on l
II
>
4-
<»\9
We, the undersigned, take the following position regarding
Cal Communities development of KelJy Ranch GPA/LU-70(C).
First- The areas proposed for development on the north shore of
the Arua Hedionda Lagoon are restricted by slopes, wetlands, and
a required one hundred foot natural undisturbed buffer from the
edge of the wetlands. Considering these constraints, the
character of the adjacent space and the importance of isolating
and protecting environmentally sensitive areas, it is p.'or
planning to build on this land.
Second- The high density condominiums proposed are totally
incompatible with the adjacent neighborhood of sirirle family
residences, will detract from the surrounding areas, and may
adversly affect property values. We suggest that in order riot
to penalize the lundovmer, that the high density zone be
transferred to another section of Kel]y Ranch.
Finally- Any filling of the current wetlands or disturbance of
a one hundred foot natural buffer around them is contrary to the
recommendations of the Jtate Department of Fish arid Game, in-
consistent with the policies of the city adopted Agua Hedionda
Local Coastal Plan, and destroys limited, valuable, and unique
natural resources which can N>!VEK be replaced. This should no
be allowed.
gx^-JtA^ ^?
J-Stfo /9>5 tftfrtt/es),,/.
^^
1'e t i t, ion
We, the undersigned, take the following position
Cal Conununiliea development of Kelly Ranch GPA/LU-70(C).
First- The areas proposed for development on the north shore of
the Arua Hedionda Lagoon are restricted by slopes, wetlands, and
a required one hundred foot natural undisturbed buffer from the
edge of the wetlands. Considering these constraints, the
character of the adjacent space and the importance of isolating
and protecting environmentally sensitive areas, it is p^or
planning to build on this land.
Second- The hirrh density condominiums proposed are totally
incompatible with the adjacent neighborhood of sirirle family
residences, will detract from the surrounding areas, and may
adversly affect property values. We suggest that in order not
to penalize the landowner, that the high density zone be
transferred to another section of Kelly Ranch.
Finally- Any filling of the current wetlands or
a one hundred foot natural buffer around them is
disturbance of
contrar to the
recommendations of the otate Department of Fish and Game, in-
consistent with the policies of the city adopted Ap;ua Hedionda
Local Coastal Plan, and destroys limited, valuable, and unique ,.
natural, resources which can. NKVEH be replaced. This should nottMv
Ce t i I, i (HI 4
We, the undersigned, take the following position regarding
Gal Communities development of KelJy Ranch GPA/LU-70(0).
First- The areas proposed for development on the north shore of
the Arua Hedionda Lagoon are restricted by slopes, wetlands, and
a required one hundred foot natural undisturbed buffer from the
edge of the wetlands. Considering these constraints, the
character of the adjacent space and the importance of isolating
and protecting environmentaiJy sensitive areas, it is p"or
planning to build on this land.
Second- The hip:h density condominiums proposed are totally
incompatible with the adjacent neighborhood of siriple family
residences, will detract from the surrounding areas, and may
adversly affect property values. We suggest that in order not
to penalize the landowner, that the high density zone be
transferred to another section of KelJy Hanch.
Finally- Any filling of the current wetlands or disturbance of
a one hundred foot natural buffer around them is contrary to the
recommendations of the State Department of Fish and Game, in-
consistent with the policies of the city adopted Arua Hedionda
Local Cojist'il IMari, and destroys limited, valuable, and unique
natural resources which can NKVKH be replaced. T'hia should no
be aJ/lowed.
ST
>\\* UMUI
... ^1
Pe t; i Lion
We, the undersigned, take the following position regarding
Gal Communities development of KelJy Ranch OPA/LU-7U(C).
First- The areas proposed for development on the north sh.ore of
the Arua Hedionda Lagoon are restricted by slopes, wetlands, and
a required one hundred foot natural undisturbed buffer from the
edge of the wetlands. Considering these constraints, the
character of the -ui,1acent space and the importance of isolating
and protecting environmentally sensitive areas, it is p>-or
planning to build on this land.
Second- The hJrrh density condominiums proposed are totally
incompatible with the adjacent neighborhood of sirirle family
residences, will detract from the surrounding areas, and may
adversly affect property values. We suggest that in order not
to penalize the landowner, that the high density zone be
transferred to another section of Kelly Ranch.
Finally- Any filling of the current wetlands or disturbance of
a one hundred foot natural buffer around them is contrary to the
recommendations of the 3tate Department of Fish and Game, in-
consistent with the policies of the city adopted Arua Hedionda
Local Coastal Plan, and destroys limited, valuable, and unique
natural resources which can NEVER be replaced. This should no
be allowed.
Ofar^
Pe t i Lion
',
'We, the undersigned, take the following position regarding
Cal Communities development of KelJy Ranch GFA/LU-70(n).
First- The areas proposed for development on the north shore of
the Arua Hedionda Lagoon are restricted by slopes, wetlands, and
a required one hundred foot natural undisturbed buffer from the
edge of the wetlands. Considering these constraints, the
character of the adjacent space and the importance of isolating;
and protecting environments;jy sensitive areas, it is p^or
planning to build on this land.
Second- The birch density condominiums proposed are totally
incompatible with the adjacent neighborhood of single family
residences, will detract from the surrounding areas, and may
adversly affect property values. We suggest that in order not
to penalize the landowner, that the high density zone be
transferred to another section of KelJy Ranch.
Finally- Any filling of the current wetlands or disturbance of
a one hundred foot natural buffer around them is contrary to the
recommendations of the State Department of Fish and Game, in-
consistent with the policies of the city adopted Ap-ua Hedionda
Local Coastal Flan, and destroys limited, valuable, and unique
natural resources which can Nh'VKR be replaced. This should not
be allowed.
f(fim
'O&TIJ&MC, 18II '()&Jtliw£Mu <^^c .C<**J*Jb&L^
JjfAo.. UjfiJLL*^. d=2&<— 'L
fcJ^2*^.,_ 4ffl.ftfs&f*, Pir '*•''/
^^/(5 ^^r_ OU<'' &uJt£*^ 42002
\^So^fif^J^. * *^_v. ^^ -,^- . ^_
.A^i |fl3 ^o^tfAtfa (WQ? ( ^4<fe^
fwblirFt
C*£J
['e ti I ion 4
We, the undersigned, take the following position regarding
Gal Communities development of Kelly Ranch GPA/HJ-70(C) .
north shore of"
, wetlands and
the
First- The areas proposed for development on the
the Arua Hedionda Lagoon are restricted by slopes,
a required one hundred foot natural undisturbed buffer from
edge of the wetlands. Considering these constraints, the
character of the adjacent space and the importance of isolating
and protecting environmentally sensitive areas, it is p< or
planning to build on this land.
Second- The hinh density condominiums proposed are totally
incompatible with the adjacent neighborhood of sirirle family
residences, will detract from the surrounding areas, and may
adversly affect property values. We suggest that in order riot
to penalize the landowner, that the high density zone be
transferred to another section of Kelly Ranch.
Finallv- Any i' ill ing of the current wetlands or disturbance of
a one hundred foot natural buffer around them iu contrary to the
recommendations of the otate Department of Fish and Game, in-
consistent with the policies of the city adopted Ap:ua Hedionda
Local Coastal Plan, and destroys limited, valuable, and unique/
natural resources which can NEVER be replaced. This should
be allowed.
V"—«w
^S^ ^iri^._9g^l^,_j2^k?J._._
A \ I \ f^* I X-\ X", /I I t
£UJU
'sJMSMqfc/s
t r* </***£/&. &t^L^Jt
(s - /?
Pe t.i tiou
We, the undersigned, t-ukc the following position rerardinp
Gal Communities development of KelJy Ranch GPA/LU-70(C).
First- The areas proposed for development on the north shore of
the Arua Hedionda Lagoon are restricted by slopes, wetlands, and
a required one hundred foot natural undisturbed buffer from the
edge of the wetlands. Considering these constraints, the
character of the adjacent space and the importance of isolating'
and protecting environmentally sensitive areas, it is p- or
planning to build on this land.
Second- The high density condominiums proposed are totally
incompatible with the adjacent neighborhood of single family
residences, will detract from the surrounding areas, and may
adversly affect property values. We suggest that in order not
to penalize the landowner, that the high density zone be
transferred to another section of Kelly Hanch.
Finally- Any filling of the current wetlands or disturbance of
a one hundred foot natural buffer around them is contrary to the
recommendations of the otate Department of Fish and Game, in-
consistent with the policies of the city adopted Ar;ua Hedionda
Local Coastal Plan, and destroys limited, valuable, and unique
natural resources which can NEVER be replaced. This should
be allowed.
He ti tiori
We, the undersigned, tjkc the following position regarding
Cal Communities development of KelJy Ranch GPA/LU-70(C).
First- The areas proposed for development on the north shore of
the Agua Hedionda Lagoon are restricted by slopes, wetlands, and
a required one hundred foot natural undisturbed buffer from the
edge of the wetlands. Considering these constraints, the
character of the Adjacent space and the importance of jr.ulating
and protecting environmentally sensitive areas, it is pre-
planning to build on this land.
Second- The hirrh density condominiums proposed are totally
incompatible with the adjacent neighborhood of sirirle family
residences, will detract from the surz'ounding areas, and may
adversly affect property values. We suggest that in order not
to penalize the landowner, that the high density zone be
transferred to another section of KelJy Ranch.
Finally- Any filling of the current wetlands or disturbance of
a one hundred foot natural buffer around them is contrary to the
recommendations of the State Department of Fish and Game, in- X^N
consistent with the policies of the city adopted Agua Hedionda/ /\
Local Coastal Plan, and destroys limited, valuable, and uniqut
natural resources which can NEVER be replaced. This should
be allowed.
_^j^.J^*^L
^^m^2^K, «% £JL
.&ji**~ ^ rt&eeb-Z'f** &•« r / C,YC,(*-~
/f_
c/
IT
I'e ti t ion
We?, the undersigned, t iko the
Cal Communities development of Kel.
i'ol lowing pouition regarding
y Ranch GPA/LU-70(C) .
First- The areas proposed for development on the north shore of
the Afua Hedionda Lagoon are restricted by slopes, wetlands, and
a required one hundred foot natural undisturbed buffer from the
edge of the wetlands. Considering these constraints, the
character of the adjacent space and the importance of isolating
and protecting environmentally sensitive areas, it is p-or
planning to build on this land.
Second- The hip;h density condominiums proposed are totally
incompatible with the adjacent neighborhood of sinrle family
residences, will detract from the surrounding areas, and may
adversly affect property values. We suggest that in order not
to penalize the landowner, that the high density zone be
transferred to anothez* section of KelJy Ranch.
Finally- Any filling of the current wetlands or disturbance of
a one hundred foot natural buffer around them is contrary to the
recommendations of the otate Department of Fish and Game, in-
consistent with the policies of the city adopted Ap:ua Hedionda
Local Coastal Plan, and destroys limited, valuable, and unique ^l^
natural resources which can NEVER 'be replaced. This should not
be allowed.
rf* #yy ' s
•X^-y jf C^fj?sL~(s<^!/f^,~
Petition
'we, the undersigned, take the following position rerarding
Gal Communities development of Kelly Ranch GPA/LU-70(C).
First- The areas proposed for development on the north shore of
the Arua Hedionda Lagoon are restricted by slopes, wetlands, arid
a required one hundred foot natural undisturbed buffer from the
edge of the wetlands. Considering these constraints, the
character of the adjacent space and the importance of isolating
and protecting environmentally sensitive areas, it is p'-or
planning to build on this land.
Second- The high density condominiums proposed are totally
incompatible with the adjacent neighborhood of siriple family
residences, will detract from the surrounding areas, and may
adversly affect property values. We suggest that in order not
to penalize the landowner, that the high density zone be
transferred to another section of Kelly Ranch.
Finally- Any filling of the current wetlands or disturbance of
a one hundred foot natural buffer around them is contrary to the
recommendations of the otato Department of Fish and Game, in-
consistent with the policies of the city adopted Arruu Hedionda
Local Coastal Plan, and destroys limited, valuable, and unique
natural resources which can NKVEH be replaced. This should n~
be allawed.
I'e t i I, ion
We, the undersigned, fc jkc the following position rerarding
Cal Comniunibies development of KelJy Ranch OPA/LU~70(n) .
First- The areas proposed for development
the Arua Hedionda Lagoon are restricted by
on the north shore of
slopes, wetlands, and
a required one hundred foot natural undisturbed buffer from the
edge of the wetlands. Considering these constraints, the
character of the adjacent space and the importance of isolating
and protecting environmenta • ly sensitive areas, it is p^ or
planning to build on this land.
Second- The hirh density condominiums proposed are totally
incompatible with the adjacent neighborhood of sinrle family
residences, will detract from the surrounding areas, and may
adversly affect property values. We suggest that in order not:
to penalize the landowner, that the high density zone be
transferred to another section of Kelly liarich.
Finally- Any filling of the current wetlands or disturbance of
a one hundred foot natural buffer around them is contrary to the
recommendations of the 3tate Department of Fish and Game, in-
consistent with the policies of the city adopted Arua Hedionda
Lccal Coastal Plan, and destroys limited, valuable, and unique
natural resources which can NKVEH be replaced. This should not'
be allowed.
- ~ __,
/IA^M^ [JU4C/l&
CV&JLQ
(^^
I'e lit ion
We, the uri iersigned, tike the following position re^ardinr
Gal Communities development of Kelly Ranch GPA/LU-70(n) .
First- The ureas proposed for development on the north shore of
the Arua Hedionda Lagoon are restricted by slopes, wetlands, and
a required one hundred foot natural undisturbed buffer from the
edge of the wetlands. Oonsiderinr these constraints, the
character of the ud.iacent space and the importance of isolating
and protecting environmentally sensitive areas, it is P' or
planning to build on this land.
Second- The
incompatible
hirh density condominiums proposed are totally
with the adjacent neighborhood of sinrle family
residences, will detract from the surrounding areas, and may
adversly affect property values. We suggest that in order riot
to penalize the landowner, that the high density zone be
transferred'to another section of Kelly Ranch.
Finajtiy- Any filling of the current wetlands or disturbance of
a one hundred foot natural buffer around them is contrary to the
recommendations of the State Department of Fish and Game, in-
consistent with the policies of the city adopted Ar:ua Hedionda
Local Coastal Plan, and destroys limited, valuable, and unique
natural resources which can NEVER be replaced. This should not
be allowed.
Pet iti u.i
" We, the undersigned, take the following position regarding
Cal Communities development of Kelly Ranch GPA/LU-70(C).
First- The areas proposed for development on the north shore of
the Agua Hedionda Lagoon are restricted by slopes, wetlands, and
a required one hundred foot natural undisturbed buffer from the
edge of the wetlands. Considering these constraints, the
character of the adjacent space and the importance of isolating
and protecting environmentally sensitive areas, it is p< or
planning to build on this land.
Second- The high density condominiums proposed are totally
incompatible with the adjacent neighborhood of sinrle family
residences, will detract from the surrounding areas, and may
adversly affect property values. We suggest that in order not
to penalize the landowner, that the high density zone be
transferred to another section of Kelly Ranch.
Finally- Any filling of the current wetlands or disturbance of
a one hundred foot natural buffer around them is contrary to the,
recommendations of the State Department of Fish and Game, in-
consistent with the policies of the city adopted Ap-ua Hedionda
Local Coastal Flan, and
natural resources which
b(B^~allq>wed.
destroys limited, valuable, and unique
can NEVER be replaced. This should no
•^-••t I.! till UTfi ii^^-
>..
t,iea tle-ve In p
it-.- »,ho i'^-ito-Winf; poult, Lun ro'".ardiru'
of Kffl'ly^'Rahch GPA/LU-?0(<0 .
propoc-ed for development on the north a^ore nf
Laroon are restricted by slopu.s, v/ft lands, and
required one hundred foot: natural undisturbed buffer from the
edge of the wetlands. Considerinr these• constraints, the
character of the adjacent -.pace and the importance of isolating
and-' protecting environment ; ly sensitive, areas , it is p- or
planning; to build on this land. ^ife;,.,:^
Second- The hitrh density condominiums proposed are totally
incompatible with the adjacent neighborhood of sinrle family
residences, will detract frcr-i the surrounding areas, and may
adversly iffeet property values. We suggest that in order not
to penalise the landowner, that tho hiiih dennity zone be
transferred to another :-;uc:t Lori of Kelly Kanch. r^"*.'
'--. ..:. . - - ' :3':>V' "'''' " '-"*-'•./
Finallv- Any filling of the current• wetlands or disturbance o£
a one hundred foot natural buffer arounct them is contrary to the
recommendations of the Jtatc Department ^:f Fish and
consistent with the policies of thelcity, adopted Arua .
Local Coastal Plan, and destroys limited, valuable, ar.d unique
natural resources which can lih'VEH be replaced. ''hi;; should no
be allowed.
i'eli I ion
{
Gal
We, the undersigned, take the following position regarding
Communities development of Kelly Ranch GPA/LU-70(C) .
First- The areas proposed for development on the north shore of
the Arua Hedionda Lagoon are restricted by slopes, wetlands, and
a required one hundred foot natural undisturbed buffer from the
edge of the wetlands. Considering these constraints, the
character of the adjacent space and the importance of isolating
and protecting environmentally sensitive areas, it is p-or
planning to build on this land.
Second- The hJrh
incompatible with
density condominiums proposed are totally
the adjacent neighborhood of sinrle family
residences, will detract from the surrounding areas, and may
adversly affect property values. We suggest that in order riot
to penalize the landowner, that the high density zone be
transferred to another section of KelJy Hanch.
Finally- Any filling of the current wetlands or disturbance of
a one hundred foot natural buffer around them is contrary to the
recommendations of the State Department of Fish and Game, in-
consistent with the policies of the city adopted Ap;ua Hedionda
Local Coastal Plan, arid destroys limited, valuable, and unique
natural resources which can NEVEK be replaced. This should not
be allowed.