HomeMy WebLinkAboutLCPA 97-09; Kelly Ranch; Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) (20)STATE OF CAUMRNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAWS, Gowmor -
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SAN DIEGO AREA
3111 CAMlNO DEL RK) NORTH, SUITE 200
SAN DIEGO, CA 921061725
(619) 521-8036
August 4,1999
City of Carlsbad
Christer Westman
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Re: Local Coastal Program Amendment W2-99D (Kelly Ranch); Appeal #A-6-CII-99-84
Dear Mr. Westman:
This letter is in regards to the status of the above local coastal program amendment that
was submitted on May 25, 1999. The amendment is not filed,’ pending submittal of full-
scale copies of the following exhibits (CT 97-16 as amended, HDP 97-17, CDP 97-43,
PUD 99-02, and Exhibits A-M [April 7, 19991). Also, please submit the following
information for use in our analysis of the proposed LCP amendment:
An accurate Open Spacdabitat Management Plan map exhibit at 200 scale to be
used as an LCP exhibit
Please provide a description of how the local coastal program amendment has been
modified to delete the proposed “day care” designations on Area “F’, as well as a
revised land use plan exhibit
The amendment indicates the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone will ensure
that resource protection will occur on the site even though Section 21.38.160
(Additional Standards - Upper Agua Hedionda Watershed) is proposed to be
rescinded. Provision 7(f) of Section 21.38.160 provides:
Due to severe site constraints, innovative siting and design criteria (including
shared use of driveways, clustering, tandem parking, pole construction) shall be
incorporated into the Master Plan to minimize paved surface area. Dwelling units
shall be clustered in the relatively flat portions of the site.
No similar land use provision is contained in the certified Coastal Resource Protection
Overlay Zone. Please indicate how the proposal is consistent with this provision and how
the implementation plan amendment can be found consistent with the applicable policies
of the certified Mello II LUP without the requirement being made part of the Coastal
Resource Protection Overlay Zone.
In addition to the above regarding our review of the LCP amendment, with respect to the
Cornmission’s appeal of CDP W7-43, please provide a copy of the complete City permit
Christer Westman
August 4,1999
Page 2
file. This was previously requested on June 11, 1999 (see attached). File materials
should include a steep slope analysis and vegetation survey on a topographic map,
quantifying the location and amount of steep slopes (greater than 25% grade) and non-
steep slopes, the proposed encroachment onto steep and none-steep slopes, including the
proposed encroachment onto “dual criteria” (naturally vegetated slopes in excess of 25%)
and how that compares with the dual criteria areas that were previously approved as open
space areas in the previously approved Kelly Ranch Master Plan. Please graphically
show the proposed changes regarding steep slope encroachment onto dual criteria slopes
from those approved in the Kelly Ranch Master Plan.
Table I of the “Biological Assessment Kelly Ranch Core Area” dated May 10, 1999
(recently provided by the applicant) identifies that 19.85 acres of 59.3 1 acres of Coastal
Sage Scrub and 4.90 acres of the 12.34 acres of southern maritime chaparral within the
core area would be impacted by the proposal. It appears that the bulk of the
encroachment is proposed on dual criteria slopes, which would be inconsistent with the
Carlsbad L€P (Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone) which requires than no more
than 10% of dual criteria slopes be impacted by new development. Please identify how
the project is consistent with the overlay zone. Table I also identifies that 1.29 acres of
riparian habitat in existing detention basins would be impacted but no mitigation would
be provided. Policy 3-7 of the Mello II LUP provides that wetland and riparian resources
outside the lagoon ecosystems shall be protected and preserved and that direct impacts
can only be accepted upon a finding that no less environmentally damaging alternative is
available and that mitigation ratios are determined in consultation with the California
Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This policy
applies to “managed drainages” such as desiltation basins. Nothing in the submittal
indicates the resource agencies have accepted these impacts as unavoidable and have
accepted that no mitigation is required for such impacts. Please address this concern.
Similarly, with respect to buffer zones from riparian resources, Policy 3-8 of the Mello 11
LCP provides that buffer setbacks of at least 50-feet be maintained from such resources
unless reduced by the resource agencies for good cause. Please submit evidence the
resource agencies have reviewed the buffer issue. Also in regard to the above upland
habitat and riparian habitat concerns, please provide an analysis of how impacts to
sensitive resources are mitigated by the proposed mitigation measures consistent with the
certified LCP.
The above information must be provided as soon as possible, but no later than August 13,
1999 for this matter to be scheduled on the Commission’s September, 1999 hearing in
Eureka. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
Bill Ponder
Coastal Planner
Cc: D.L. Clemens