Loading...
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)