HomeMy WebLinkAboutLCPA 97-09; Kelly Ranch; Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) (12)KELLY RANCH
NOTICE: THIS LETTER IS BEING SENT TO ALL COMMISSIONERS,
ALTERNATES, EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS AND STAFF AT THE SAME TIME.
October 1,1999
Ms. Sara Wan
Chairperson
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
22350 Carbon Mesa Rd.
Malibu, CA 90265
RE: CARLSBAD LCP AMENDMENT 2-99D
WEDNESDAY; OCT. 13; ITEM 17A
KELLY RANCH
Dear Chairperson Wan:
Kelly Land Company, the owners of Kelly Ranch in Carlsbad, which is the
subject of the above-referenced LCP amendment, has reviewed the land use
and implementation modifications proposed by Coastal Staff in their Staff
Recommendation report. The intent of this letter is to articulate opposition
to several of the Staff recommended changes which we believe are not
supported by the facts nor do they recognize the unusual coastal-related
history of the project. We have included with this letter an informational
summary booklet on the history, planning and policy compliance of the Kelly
Ranch project for the Commission’s reference.
Briefly, the attached booklet provides an overview of the proposed project
compared to the “old” plan and demonstrates the advantages of the new
project. The new plan includes:
0 Far more open space;
0 Far fewer dwelling units;
Far higher quality of open space, including connected corridors;
More public view areas; and, very importantly,
A multi-family housing component with approximately 130
“affordable housing” units.
0 A large, well-located stand-alone nature center;
Ms. Sara Wan
October 1,1999
Page 2
The City of Carlsbad-proposed LCP Amendment represents policy
modification resulting from the past two years of site investigation and
analysis of the Kelly Ranch site by the City, the California Department of Fish
& Game, and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. That review was performed
under the more restrictive land use and environmental standards adopted by
the City and resource agencies since the Coastal Commission approval of the
original Kelly Ranch project in 1985. The City and the Resource Agencies
have worked jointly to modernize the development design of Kelly Ranch
into compliance with updated environmental policies, while balancing the
development rights of the property owner. This balance has resulted in a
Kelly Ranch design far more sensitive to the environment than the original
approval, even though the 1985 coastal permit was vested, and applicable
coastal policies remain unchanged.
The Kelly Ranch project has several clear advantw over the 1985 coastal
permit, including the provision of multi-family and income-restricted
affordable housing, a significant reduction in overall dwelling units, the
elimination of commercial uses and replacement with a public nature center,
and additional natural habitat protection in a preserve program which
ensures long-term biological viability.
Unfortunately, the Coastal Staff position, if strictly interpreted, will &inate
the feasibility of the multi-family / affordable housing project, and as a result,
render the entire project, including the construction of Cannon Road,
infeasible. Obviously this is a serious matter to Kelly Land Company and the
City, and the motivation for the transmittal of this letter.
.. s of oDDosltlo~
The areas which Kelly Land Company takes issue with the Coastal Staff
position are as follows:
1. Planning Area A
A. J,and use downzonirg . Kelly Land Company does not
believe that the Staff-proposed downzoning of Area A from existing RMH to
RM is justified. This is a reduction from 111 dwelling units to 58 units (a
reduction of 53 units), and has a severe impact on the use and value of the
land. We are reluctantly willing to cooperate with this downzoning’ subject
to Commission cooperation on the Area A public access issue.
* P. 11, Item A[l][b]; P. 27, Para. 2
2
Ms. Sara Wan
October 1,1999
Page 3
B. Public access. Adequate public access to the Agua
Hedionda wetland viewing areas will be provided in conjunction with
development of Area A. The proposed public parking and pedestrian trails to
the wetlands proposed on both sides of Area A are demonstrated on Page 6 of
the informational booklet accompanying this letter. It is our conclusion that
the public would prefer to park in an easily accessible public lot with a
convenient trail nearby to access the wetland viewing areas, rather than
entering and parking within the multi-family neighborhood, which has no
direct access to the viewing areas. As a result of the proposed installation of
adequate nearby public access, we request deletion of the requirement for
internal Area A public access, and the prohibition of gates, from the
Commission action.2
f\Jo te: Regarding Vista Po ints as referenced in footnote 4 below
as they relate to Planning Areas I or J, Kelly Land Company has
made significant contributions to public enjoyment and access of
coastal resources through dedication of the lagoon and the
creation of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation Nature
Center directly adjacent to the lagoon.
2.
minimum development setback of 30-feet from native areas in order to
accommodate tree landscaping for screening purpose^.^ We are informed by
the City of Carlsbad that fire prevention policy prohibits tree planting
anywhere within rear yards of habitat-adjacent homes. Further, it is our and
the City of Carlsbad’s conclusion that the potential for view impacts of the
subject homes is negligible because of the significant sight distance involved
(Cannon Road - over 1/2 mile, Park Drive - 3/4 mile, 1-5 - 1.5 miles), and that
especially in the absence of screening trees, an increased setback will not
significantly affect the public’s view of the development. We concur with the
policy disallowing clearcut of environmentally sensitive habitat areas, but
request that the Commission delete the requirement for a 30-foot Brush
Management Zone 1, and allow for Zone 1 design in compliance with City
30-foot Bru sh Manavement Zon e 1. Coastal Staff proposes a
policy.
3. plannirg Area 1,
A. Vista point. Kelly Land Company opposes the need for a vista
point on Area L.4 Many surrounding public streets include adequate
opportunities for the public to observe the wetlands and coastline.
* P. 12, Item 5[c]; P. 35, Para 4 ’ P. 16, Item 14; P. 17, Item 19[fl; P. 18, Item 23; P. 34, Para. 3
P. 16, Item 15; P. 34, Para 2
Ms. Sara Wan
October 1,1999
Page 4
B. public streets . Kelly Land Company opposes Staff
recommended wording which requires a public street system and the
prohibition of gates in Planning Area L.5 Due to City policies regarding public
street design (street widths, turning radii, maximum grades, etc.) this
requirement of public street design is inconsistent with the requirement for
clustering development into the buildable portion of the property.
The prohibition of gates is unnecessary in that Area L is well inland from the
coast, and no coastal access through this property is necessary or desirable.
Adequate public access exists in front of Area L, closer to the coastline,
including the nature center.
C. en Sv ace Boundarv . Because Planning Area L is subject to
future planning and review under another ownership, the final position on
this item should be up to that property owner.6 However, universally, we do
not believe the provisions of B. 8. b. are necessary at this time since future
review will address the precise open space boundaries appropriate for this
area. No development rights are granted as a function of lot creation or LCPA
action. The City of Carlsbad, Resource Agencies and property owner should be
allowed to deal with this planning function in the proper context at the time
of development proposal review. B.8.b. should be deleted.
4. FroDosed Road 'H"; Although the Coastal Staff-suggested
modifications to the LCP Amendment do not address the alignment of
proposed road "H', the Chapter 3 Consistency Findings infer (although they
do not conclude) that a potential problem exists with the designed alignment
of the road. The findings state; "The road, known as HH, in the southeast corner of the core area is of special concern as it proposes significantly more impact into dual criteria areas than the previous design approved in the master pIan. " This statement is not accurate.
A flaw inherent in the 1985 Kelly Ranch coastal permit (master plan) was that
the permit was based upon a planning-level of design, and was never fully
engineered. Unfortunately this lack of engineering portrayed an overly-
optimistic concept of the extent of vegetation preserved in several areas,
including the location of Road 'HH. We have made every effort to
demonstrate to Coastal Staff that the actual grading necessary in order to
construct the 1985-design Road 'HH would be greater than that proposed by
the 1999 design. In addition, as mentioned in the Staff Recommendation, the
1999 design avoids what would be a significant "take' of southern maritime
chaparral vegetation including Del Mar manzanita, a listed endangered plant.
P. 16, Item 17
P. 13, Item B.8.b ' P. 28, Para. 3
4
Ms. Sara Wan
October 1,1999
Page 5
We request that the Commission confirm with Coastal Staff, and agree with
the City of Carlsbad, the Department of Fish & Game and the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service that although the Road 'HH alignment is "of special
concern", it is located in the most appropriate alignment to accommodate the
applicable environmental and coastal policies.
4.
Consistency Findings reference is of concern to Kelly Land Company. The
wording; "The proposed increase in residential intensity within Planning
Areas D, G and H is acceptable ... However, the area encompassed by these
planning areas contains two pockets of dual criteria slopes. 'j8 The wording of
this finding tends to infer (but does not conclude) that the referenced two
isolated pockets of slopes are in need of protection.
Two Dual Cn ' teria Pockets on Ar eas D, G an d H. Another Chapter 3
We are concerned that this inference will have the effect of requiring
substantial changes to the plans fully analyzed and recently approved by the
City of Carlsbad, the Department of Fish & Game and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service. As mentioned in the Staff Recommendation this design
accommodates far greater and more restrictive habitat preservation policies,
including large habitat corridors, than the approved 1985 (See page 7 in the
attached booklet). These isolated pockets are of minimal habitat value.
Further, the protection of the isolated areas will impact the proposed
apartment/ affordable housing project design to such a degree that the for-
rent project becomes totally infeasible to develop.
The problem can be solved by the Commission. The Staff Recommendation
acknowledges the significant benefits associated with the apartment project.
Kelly Land Company is informed by Coastal Staff that the Commission is
authorized to (and occasionally does when mitigating circumstances allow)
permit encroachments into dual criteria habitat in excess of the 10% limit set
by the Carlsbad LCP. However, Coastal Staff does not feel comfortable in
recommending such encroachments.
In an effort to resolve this matter, the City of Carlsbad recently proposed
additional revised LCP wording which would allow minor dual criteria policy
flexibility under mitigating circumstances. This proposed wording is shown
on Exhibit A to this letter. Kelly Land Company urges the Commission to
adopt this wording with this LCP Amendment, inasmuch as it will result in
additional flexibility for the Commission to achieve common goals with the
Resource Agencies, with no net relaxing of the regulations.
P. 37, Para. 4
Ms. Sara Wan
October 1,1999
Page 6
Conclusion
The Kelly Ranch project is the result of an arduous collaboration between the
City and the Federal and State Resource Agencies to determine the design that
is most protective of environmental resources. The new plan addresses the
new, modem regulatory standards including open space, habitat preservation,
hillside protection, affordable housing, public access, community facilities,
architectural regulations and other rules not in existence in 1985. With the
exception of the issues articulated above, the LCP policy changes proposed by
the City and Coastal Staff are in-line with these standards, and preserve
appropriate development rights of the landowner through a balance of
priorities consistent with Coastal Act Section 30007.5.
Coastal projects of this complexity, with a history of environmental and land
use actions necessarily requires a thoughtful and careful application of
regulations and 'common sense' to achieve the best results. Approval of your
Staff's recommendations with our modifications suggested above will
achieve the optimum result of promoting environmental protection and the
provision of affordable housing stock in the coastal zone.
Thank you for consideration of our comments. We hope that the
Commission will concur and approve them. We will be available at the LCP
Amendment hearing to answer specific questions you may have.
Sincerely ,p
w/ At tachments
cc Commissioner Dave Potter, Vice Chair
Commissioner Cynthia McClain-Hill
Commissioner Christina L. Desser
Commissioner Nancy Flemming
Commissioner Pedro Nava
Commissioner Mike Reilly
Commissioner Shirley S. Dettloff
Commissioner Cecilia Estolano
Commissioner Paula Daniels
Commissioner Dave Potter
6
Ms. Sara Wan
October 1,1999
Page 7
Commissioner Christine Kehoe
Alternate Lois Busey
Alternate John Hisserich
Alternate Trent Orr
Alternate Annette Rose
Alternate Fran Pavley
Alternate David Allgood
Alternate Constance Rice
Alternate Troy S. Fletcher
Alternate Patrick Kruer
Ex-Officio Member Kari Doh
Ex-Officio Member Mary Nichols
Ex-Officio Member Paul Thayer
Ex-Officio Member Maria Contreras-Sweet
Executive Director Peter M. Douglas
Regional Director Chuck Damm
Regional Manager Deborah Lee
San Diego LCP Manager Sherilyn Sarb
San Diego Coastal Planner Bill Ponder
Mayor Claude Lewis
City Manager Ray Patchett
City Attorney Ron Ball
Planning Director Michael Holzmiller
Assistant Planning Director Gary Wayne
Associate Planner Christer Westman
7
EXHIBIT A
LCP AMENDMEN T RECO MMENDED R EVISE D WORDING;
Proposed revision to:
e Mello I1 Land Use Plan; Policy 3-5 (c)(l)
e Planned Community Zone Chapter 21.38.160 (c)(2)(a)(l)
e Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone Chapter 21.203.040
(a) (1) (a)
(1) Slopes possessing endangered species and/or coastal sage scrub and
chaparral plant communities: For those slopes mapped as possessing
endangered plant/animal species and/or coastal sage scrub and
chaparral plant communities, the following policy language would
apply:
a) Slopes of 25% grade and over shall be preserved in their natural
state, unless the application of this policy would preclude any
reasonable use of the property, in which case an encroachment
not to exceed 10% of the steep slope area over 25% grade may be
permitted. Up to 15% encroachmen t of th e steeD sloD e area over
25% made rn av be allowed won a findine that adeauate non-
habitat is pres erved within a defined habitat corr idor within the
proDertv . In such cases at least two acr es of non-steeD slope for
everv one acre in excess of 10% steeD sloDe encroachmen t must
be movided. For existing legal parcels, with all or nearly all of
their area in slope area over 25% grade, encroachment may be
permitted; however, any such encroachment shall be limited so
that at no time is more than 25% of the entire parcel (including
areas under 25% slope) permitted to be disturbed from its natural
state. This policy shall not apply to the construction of roads or
the City’s Circulation Element or the development of utility
systems. Use of slopes over 25% may be made in order to
provide access to flatter areas if there is no less environmentally
damaging alternative available.
1
Note: (_Underline = added wording)