Loading...
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.