Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDP 96-10; Cade Tentative Parcel Map; Hillside Development Permit (HDP) (3)rcc . . ,-- STATE OF CALIFORNIA -THE RESOURCES AGENC ."4 PETE WILSON. Gonrnw CALIFORNIA COASTAL Ctt*lMlSSlON SAN OIEGO AREA 3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, SUITE 200 SAN OIEGO, CA 921051725 (61 9) 521 -8036 Mr. Gary Wayne Assistant Planning Director City of Carlsbad Planning Dept. 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 March 26, 1998 'i .. I. \ ?A p3 i Re: Coastal Development Permit Application "96-159 - Cade City of Carlsbad Minor Subdivision Approval MS 96-01 Dear Mr. Wayne: This is regarding the above referenced City approval of a two-lot subdivision located adjacent to the north shore of Aqua Hedionda Lagoon (Applicant: Steven Cade). The coastal development permit application is currently submitted to this office and pending review by the Coastal Commission. A condition of City subdivision approval requires the applicant to record an irrevocable offer of dedication to the Coastal Conservancy, City of Carlsbad, or their designee, for a 25 ft. wide public access easement for a north shore trail located landward of the mean high tide line, where feasible. Such a requirement is consistent with the City's Aqua Hedionda LCP Land Use Plan &UP) as certified by the Coastal Commission. A separate condition requires removal of any obstruction to public access of the trail within the easement within 10 days of a public agency or private association's agreement to accept responsibility for maintenance and liability consistent with Section 30212 of the Coastal Act. We would like to obtain written confirmation from the City regarding its intent to accept the easement. We would also like to review the draft documents which would be recorded to comply with this condition. The provision of a trail along the north shore of Aqua Hedionda Lagoon is a long-term goal recognized in the LUP which would, presumably, be similar to the trail along the north shore of Batiquitos Lagoon. In this particular case, however, the applicant has installed a fence which is currently an impediment to public access across the property. The City's condition of approval does not require the obstruction to be removed until the easement is accepted? so timely acceptance of the easement is important for continued public use of the area. Additionally? the applicant has included a note on the plan submitted to this office which suggests he plans to install an electronic gate across the easement with timer, which will be opened to the public for use fiom sunrise to sunset upon acceptance of the offer of dedication. This restriction on hours of public use does not appear to be consistent with the City approval of the subdivision. Further, it is inconsistent with our understanding of the condition which requires the fence to be removed upon acceptance of the easement. Please explain the City's position regarding the retention of the electronic gates and what process the applicant would be required to complete in order to obtain City approval for March 26, 1998 Page 2 the gates to remain andor to restrict the hours of public use of the easement to daytime hours only. As you know, the maintenance and liability of public access trails is always a sensitive issue, which must be resolved by the accepting agency in order to allow significant public recreational benefits such as the north shore trail to continue to be provided. In past permit applications on surrounding properties, both the City and the Coastal Commission have required access easement dedications and construction of trail improvements; however, our records show only one easement has been accepted by the City to date. Please let us know if a meeting between City and Coastal Commission staff is appropriate to discuss fbture implementation of the north shore trail. We are concerned about the City’s intent to implement the Aqua Hedionda LUP policy for reasons described above and also because we have recently received an application for residential construction on a north shore property which does not include a City-required public access easement. Please let us know why dedication of a public access easement as a condition of development approval was not required by the City in HDP 97-12 Huber Residence. Additionally, at a recent site visit with the two applicants, both mentioned the City’s intent to complete work within the City sewer easement that also parallels the shoreline of the lagoon. Please advise us of the nature and timeline for this work and how it might affect the fbture trail alignment and installation of public trail improvements in the area. We would appreciate a written response regarding the City’s intent to accept the access easement and the consistency of the applicant’s proposal to keep the gates and restrict the trail’s hours, with the City approval, so we can consider the City’s position in formulating our st& recommendation on the project. We would also like to circulate the City7s position regarding acceptance of the trail easement to the Coastal Commission as part of the staff report. As it appears the project will be scheduled for the May 12-15, 1998 hearing, a reply by April 15, 1998 would be greatly appreciated. Please call if you have any questions or are not able to provide a written response by that date. Thank you in advance for your reply. Permits and Enforcement cc: Bill Ponder Anne Hysong Amy Roach Richard Rudolph Deborah Lee (de.&)