Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLCPA 97-09; Kelly Ranch; Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) (4)WAYNE CALLAGHAN - 38 REDHAWK, IRVINE, CA 92604 Tel: (949) 559-6200 Fax: (949) 559-6215 E-mail: calgroup 0 regroup. NET I am not agreeable to, nor willing to participate in any actions that will erode my rights, existing vesting, nor where California Coastal Commission, City of Carlsbad, or an owner of the Kelly Ranch individually or together gain at the expense of Planning Area “L”. Honorable Commissioners California Coastal Commission 3 1 1 1 Camino del Rio North, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92108-1725 fCopv provided to Staff) July 10,2000 Dear Commissioners: My family invested most of its assets to enhance the public interest in reliance on Coastal Commission’s clearly stated 1985 findings, permit, and again in writing afer the project delivered its part of the bargain. In 1985: Based on a six-year collaborative process of environmental planning and agreements that analyzed and balanced a variety of priorities, Coastal Commission unanimously approved my project with positive support from all agencies and its staff. Coastal Commission permit / findings memorialize the fact that this environmental balance was achieved. And I quote: “This balance / development agreement for enhancement and preservation of the sensitive resources, above and beyond what the LCP requires, combined with the offer to dedicate in fee title, Coastal Commission agreed to modifications to maximum residential development, and prohibitions of grading on steep slopes to allow a reasonable use of the property to generate sufficient revenues.” Coastal Commission and Dept. of Fish and Game in recognition of property owner provisions of the deal being fully accomplished; recognized the vesting in writing. As a result; Coastal has achieved benefit from the bargain. Since that time, the property has been positively modified far in excess of the permit, even though applicable coastal policies remain unchanged. It would be ironic - if Coastal Commission after achieving full benefit from numerous millions in public benefit from a bargain (and also vesting these rights) - then attempts to withdraw its side of the bargain. My Constitutional Rights and financial survival are being attacked by the very government that is suppose to secure my rights Further the same government parties that agreed in writing to see that I specifically was to be protected. Even more so since it is consciously doing so in a manner to avoid returning my retirement 1 Equity. Very truly yours, Wayne Callaghan PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO STAFF’S RECOMMENDATImS: Page 1 of 4 *.k Item 16: Planning Area “L” should be deleted from the last sentence. “Private gated communities shall not be permitted within those planning areas.” The Open Space Boundary being proposed by Coastal Staff will conform to the Boundary as shown on Exhibit 4 page 14 of Coastal Staffs Addendum mapped by the Biologist. The proposed project is P~Posing 0 0 Only fire section 3 may be within the open space to the east. Approximatelyb as much or more area (not mapped as Coastal Sage Habitat) is proposed to be added to the north and west that will be contiguous with the proposed open space. The area even if not graded is to be vegetated with native materials as directed by DFG and City. Fire Sections 2 and 3 may be included within this area. With approval of an appropriate mitigation plan acceptable to California Department of Fish and Game: 0 0 A maximum of 0.2 acres may be encroached upon to facilitate grading. A maximum of 0.07 acres may be incorporated within the development area as shown on the attached exhibits. that will be added to habitat. Also includes Modified Fire Vista Point ur\ CCS line to be graded. PROPOSED MODIFICATIGdS TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDAT-NS: Page 2 of 4 t WEST FACING SLOPE ,PROPOSED MODIFICATIwW TO STAFF’S RECOMMENDAl dNS: Page 3 of 4 r I I interface of proposed grades with PROPOSED MODIFICATIMS TO STAFF’S RECOMMENDATheNS: Page 4 of 4 tr . Last Friday Resource Agency asked that I remind Coastal that prior hard position on PAL was not only related to perception that the Developer of the Kelly ranch controlled PAL, but that since Planning area D is now open space- the original concerns with PAL have completely changed how issues need to be addressed. For example - The Vista Point would have the least impact at the knuckle and raising PAL to create a natural barrier compliments the revised planting in the Fire zone 3 as well as creating less impact to the biology. the wall initially now the circumstances have dramatically reduced the need to focus The following will clearly show Coastal Commission 3 stated 1985findings / intent to balance priorities and to assure ability to fully develop PAL to provide an opportunity for me to recover the heavy investment and overwhelming mitigation. Also that Coastal Commission memorializes this again when it vested the project as having delivered the property owners part of the bargain Staflis doing a taking in a manner to avoid prior commitments and equity to my family and myseg Its report includes misleading statements contrary to fact, the EIR ’s, recent studies, Information provided bv other public agencies. and Coastal Policy. OVERVIEW OF PROCESS: The first time I became aware of Coastal Commission Staff‘s effort to take the property was late last year 3 (three) workdays prior to the Coastal Commission hearing. I stayed up for four days and three nights over a holiday to deliver my response on the first workday. At your San Diego Office I was told I could not meet with staff to discuss the issue since I did not have an appointment. My response to that specific hearing and staff report is attached to earlier correspondence that was submitted as part of the public record. The project was delayed until July of this year. During this time, Planning Area “L” (“PAL”) was forced to address the issues by Coastal’s insistence to include it with this LCPA. I spent in excess of $200,000 to prepare appropriate studies on the property that allowed me to meet with the City and Resource Agencies to explore how to best address the sites constraints and the perceived needs of all agencies. The City, Resource Agencies and adjacent D,evelopment Team were the main contacts and each has assured me they were discussing the issues and my exhibits with Coastal Staff. Until last Wendesday, Coastal Staff has not started to explore the details related to the site. In General this has resulted in a report with misleading and incorrect statements and inappropriate recommendations A few of numerous examples include: Introduces recommendations in a total vacuum versus superior alternatives / solutions Arbitrary constraints may now trigger CEQA and as importantly violate appropriate planning. Coastal staff has then made recommendations violating the extensive research without meeting need for appropriate CEQA process Ignore new requirements and physical issues not controlled by the property owner Adjust the development where new issues result in a negative impact yet ignore providing ability to adjust where new requirements also create new solutions and opportunities Makes general statements related to the larger project and then attempts to apply such statements to justify its actions on Planning Area “L”. For example the report states that the city’s proposed LCP amendment it is inconsistent with the draft HMP and/or prior master plan as it relates to designating open space. The HMP is discussed above and the master plan and coastal commission‘s prior findings clearly state that the area to be dedicated as upland open space is outside of Planhlng Area "L" and that additional open sp;e areas might be added from within the Planning Area. NOTE: I have never been opposed to exploring such dedication however, I do not believe a Contrary to the work by the resource agencies and the developer regarding expansion and interface of the proposed habitat quarters to enhance function and long term continuance of the resource value. Attempt to take property by introducing a viewpoint that not only negatively impacts resource agency's findings but also specifically takes property for a use that it is specifically excluded by the coastal act and policies. this specific item also violates several other state and federal laws including constitutional rights. Attempt to use Planning Area "L" owned by a separate property owner to resolve impacts of the larger property to facilitate a larger property owner as well as violating coastal and state law regarding assigning impacts in a manner Coastal Staff using exhibits out of context in an effort to support its position as well as discounting or ignoring the extensive research and work of the numerous agencies, professionals and other development team members. After preparing appropriate research the actual habitat is ignored including the extensive work between the Resource Agencies, City, and Developer regarding corridors and long term continuance of the resource value. Coastal Staff continues to ignore the significant work done to date by the Resource Agencies, City and the Developer of Planning Area "L" related to defining the biology, Mitigation Plan, and Hardline for the HMP. false statement can be used to justify an action The City and Resource Agencies have consistently and on several occasions - informed Coastal Staff that the recommendations related to Planning Area "L" in the HMP were both based on bad information and a clerical type error. That subsequently the proper research was completed and confirmed by the DFG regarding the delineation of habitat area. When this information has been provided to staff by several agencies and entities that does not support Coastal Staffs direction it has chosen to not recognize this information. For example: Coastal staff has stated as fact that the Draft Habitat Management Plan makes a statement without including The fact that the City and the Resource Agencies have consistently and on several occasions - informed Coastal Staff that the recommendations related to Planning Area "L" in the Hh4P were both based on bad information and a clerical type error. That subsequently the proper research was completed and confirmed by the DFG regarding the delineation of habitat area Working with the Resourse agencies and City Fire Department, unique and better solutions have been found to solve issues, however Coastal Staff wishes to ignore the work and provide recommendations that would not make these solutions practical.. Ignores the significant work done to date by the Resource Agencies, City and the Developer of Planning Area "L" related to developing a Mitigation Plan as well as defining the Hardline for the HMP. 0 Staff states it is attempting to meet coastal goals. Yet the goals it states are not applicable to the specific situation, and violate Coastal written Policy, but the Coastal staff recommendation it claims to be addressing a problem if not creating the very problem is only making the situation worse. Set an open space line to include slopes based solely on a need to avoid erosion, yet Coastal Staff has been informed that the opposite has been found on Planning Area "L" by qualified geologist. - . Ignore extensive data wvided by other agencies stating the supplied information is not yet in Staff has stated it is only establishing the guidelines to guide future development when in reality the are establishing hard defined restrictions that reduce flexibility to meet numerous demands by other agencies and ignores the property’s constraints. It also violates the ability to achieve a reasonable use of the property which was to facilitate the developers ability to provide solutions to meet the requirements / needs of other agencies. These impacts have also not been appropriately examined under CEQA. i official final form. Then takes totally subjective and incomplete information as fact Report take items out of context. For example: Exhibit Number 20 on page 13 of Coastal Staffs Addendum mapped reflects the master Plan with internal open space yet excludes showing same on current proposal Does not provide appropriate information related to change in size of property nor new access requirements required due to external restrictions not at the discretion of Planning Area “L”. The new requirements require the internal road to increase more than four fold. Coastal Staff during this period had extensive meetings with the Development team of the larger Kelly Ranch, which I was not a part. Using PAL to mitigate issues related to the larger project. When staff was questioned it raised what requirements it had placed on the larger project yet refused to recognize that the impacts will most likely create almost the same total cost to a project only a few percent of the size. Does not recognize that the project has already not only undergone a significant reduction in units to assist other agencies in creating a better balance, but that it had also been designed in a manner where most flexibility had been removed. So Coastal now taking more not only creates a disproportionate reduction in units by taking away flexibility specifically provided by other agencies to avoid further losses by arbitrary acts. States Planning Area “L” recommendations permit reasonable use of the property yet ignores the cost issues and prior Amendix I Overview of Pro~ertv Interests Page 1 of 5 As previously transmitted: Planning Area “L” (“PAL”) is a small property under ownership, separate from the large project named the Kelly Ranch, which surrounds PAL. Wayne Callaghan (“WC”) sold his legal interests in the Kelly Ranch (except for PAL), which is kept to recover a portion of his investment (retirement) in it, wetland restoration, etc. since I needed to recover these monies for my. Since this was prior to recording a Final Map, CC&Rs (recorded as File No. 90-263680 of Official Records in San Diego County) to inform the public of WC’s legal interest in the bundle of ownership rights and includes the following sections. (See CCMs fur additional critical wording and issues). There is a date certain for transfer, or at recordation of first Final Map, whichever occurs first. This obligation may have been triggered. {transfer of Development rights tu WC} Section 4.9D; . . . WC shall have the sole and exclusive right and power to make all decisions and take all actions concerning the development of PAL . . . {ability to exclude} Sec. 4.8; . . . no owner of the Kelly Ranch can do or allow anything, or create or allow the creation of any encumbrances on PAL which would jeopardize or have a negative affect on the future development or value of PAL . . . To assure the Coastal Commission would be aware of my interests, information was provided, including how I was to be the ultimate developer with fee title of the property, references to Government Codes (including Resource Code) that clearly and extensively discussed bundle of rights, estates, eminent domain, compensation, etc. For example: Throughout the Government Code, Civil Code, and Code of Civil Procedures bundle of rights, estates etc. are both clearly and extensively discussed regarding real estate, eminent domain, compensation, etc. Although CCC may not be a party to a contract, does not mean that the bundle of property rights does not apply. Other than for notices, it does not appear compensation or other rights are tied to the owner on the tax role or tied to a separate legal parcel. I have quickly pulled a few items from California codes: e a e e e a e 0 e a Code does not otherwise limit or affect the right to compensation for any other interest in property In common and/or qualified present or future interest(s) denominate estates “Property“ includes real property and any interest therein. “Interest” when used with reference to property includes any right, title, or estate in property. A lesser estate than fee simple or an absolute fee title when defeasible or conditional presumptively entitled to the next eventual interest A freehold estate may be created to commence at a future day; also a remainder of a freehold either contingent or vested, may be created, expectant on the determination of a term of years Remainderman” means the person ultimately entitled to the principal, whether named or designated by the terms of the transaction by which the principal was established or determined by operation of law. A person having an estate in fee, in remainder or reversion, may maintain an action for any injury done to the inheritance Any person who claims a legal or equitable interest in property may have the opportunity to be heard on matters referred to in a taking Where the acquisition of property for public use violates a use restriction coupled with a contingent future interest granting a right to possession of the property upon violation of the use restriction: which is reasonably imminent, the owner of the contingent future interest is entitled to compensation for its value. . Anwndix I Vesting Personal) Page 2 of 5 In addition to other grounds provided by law I object to the right to take, whether the CCC has or h& not adopted a resolution of necessity. Some of the reasons that contradict CCC staffs findings related to purpose for a taking have been addressed in prior correspondence. My wife and myself have placed almost all our assets into developing PAL and the public interest. In 1980 my firm Cal Communities, Inc. was General Partner of the partnership, which owned Kelly Ranch, processed entitlements, graded, installed millions in infrastructure and millions more in wetland and Habitat enhancements as well as over 200 acre dedication of wetland and slope areas. Many costs were paid by me, In addition: o Since 1980 PAL has been assigned as a personal asset in all agreements to compensate me for my initial costs and in addition the public has had public notice. o Amount for keeping (“PAL”) versus selling it with other portions of the Kelly Ranch o Incurred extensive costs to acquire, process and develop the Kelly Ranch and PAL Federal and State income taxes have been paid for my constructive receipt of the property. The permits are “vested” as acknowledged by the California Coastal Commission. on January 6, 1987 incorporate herein (and California Dept. of Fish and Game on December 19, 1997) which memorialized the required property owner provisions of the deal having been fully accomplished. As a result, the California Coastal Commission has alreadv achieved their full benefit from the bargain. Development activities undertaken pursuant to the Master Plan and CCC permit included. i) Fifty-three percent (181 acres) of the site encompassing Agua Hedionda Lagoon was offered for dedication as open space through an Irrevocable O#er to Dedicate Fee Title and an Irrevocable Ofber to Dedicate Open Space Easement and Declaration of Restriction (Instrument No. 85-301299 and 85-301298).-Dedications allowed State to drop money offered (in excess of % of a million dollars) in exchange for development rights ii) An open space easement was recorded in 1985 and 1986, for slopes over 25 percent. Dedicated by Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate Open-Space Easement and Declaration of Restricts (Instrument 85-301301) and Amendment No. I (Instrument 86-004362). iii) Some of the construction activities done to vest approvals (1) Major restoration and enhancement of the wetland (2) Protection of the lagoon as well as habitat, including major desiltation basin. (3) Public access enhancement (nature center, Cannon Road, interpretive area, etc.) (4) Installation of drainage and run-off control facilities and sedimentation basins. (5) Rough grading, site preparation and erosion control within the Kelly Ranch incl. PAL. (6) Construction of Park Drive, El Camino Real. Cannon Road, and other internal roads (7) Subdivision of a 45-acres (Area “E’) was approved in 1998, and construction commenced. PAL has incurred extensive costs to acquire and protect title as well as major concessions in negotiating buyouts in reliance on Coastal’s commitments. This included extensive litigation that asserted I had provided more than reasonable concessions to the California Coastal Commission. o PAL’S specific, land planning, civil engineering and architecture have been prepared on three occasions for processing with the city. Also includes initial City’s review several years ago. o PAL has undergone expense of grading, erosion control, planting, irrigation, and weed abatement under Coastal and City permits. Your agency has acknowledged this as well as PAL’S vesting. o PAL as a separate Assessor Parcel has paid property taxes, including payment towards Mello Roos /Assessment Districts, Public Facility, and Community Facility District for the purposes of providing public facilities prior to development to assure such facilities would be available for PAL development. 0 I - o Planning Area L L., paid over $250,000 in cash for consL,ction costs related to Cannon Road and other off-site improvements to serve the development of PAL. o Over $200,000 in additional costs have been incurred to prepare the required data on this property between the Coastal hearing in late 1999 and July 2000 Coastal hearing. Amount as it relates to PAL may signijkantly exceed $2,000,000. In compliance with legal requirements; notice is hereby provided that other parties have also made decisions and expended large amounts of money related to the Kelly Ranch and PAL in reliance on prior governmental agencies including the City and Coastal Commission’s findings, commitments and vesting. Over $ 8,000,000 had been spent by I990 - millions more by 2000 WC (who kept an interest) incurred extensive costs based on CCC’s commitments. Cost may be compensated. PAL may warrant a fair share of all improvements associated with development of the larger project for several reasons including agreements and prior payments. Interest may apply. Court shall award the defendant his litigation expenses whenever the proceeding (escheat) is wholly or partly dismissed for any reason. ADDendix I - A Taking - Page 4 of 5 CCC is adding conditions that will result in a greater taking than has already occurred, since these conditions preclude flexibility as PAL goes through the City’s development review process. It has been brought to my attention by other agencies, coastal representative, planners and others, that although Coastal Staff softened its initial extreme language, it was now relying on numerous conditions to preclude andor make unfeasible the reasonable development of PAL. These restrictions are unique in several ways to PAL, compared to similar parcels and those that have benefited from the deal. In addition many of the findings are based on incorrect as well as misleading statements It also added extraordinary future hurdles that may limit or preclude development. From documentation and verbal communications we understand the City and adjacent landowner informed Coastal staff that its actions were not appropriate and that they would not participate. The recommendations and findings, appear to be based on a report and/or done in a manner: Attempting to reduce the property’s existing rights, entitlements and value with no concurrent offer to provide equity with a taking. This to a land owner who has spent almost all of his families assets in the public interest, relying on prior commitments by Coastal Staff, the City of Carlsbad, and several other State and Federal government agencies. Not recognizing PAL’S history related to the Coastal Commission, nor acknowledging Kelly Ranch being positively modified far in excess of the permit, even though applicable coastal policies remains unchanged. Making strict interpretation of policy, contrary to Coastal Commission’s earlier findings that specifically assured that such interpretations had already been balanced. Containing positions and incorrect statements that can mislead a reader and that are contrary to Coastal policy, EIR’s, other studies, my rights and a deal that ripened years ago to permit the full development of PAL. Since then my initial planning has proposed to add 25% of the site as open space. This is beyond what was required and ifnow required would be a taking. Report appears to ignore facts that do not support Coastal staffs position related to a taking. Does not allow PAL to deal with planning within the proper context or time when the property is proposed and reviewed for development. Also adds additional significant and costly hurdles. Discriminating against a single small landowner including adding additional hurdles. Using PAL under separate ownership to base findings related to a larger adjacent property andor to use PAL related to mitigation for a property under separate ownership. I am not aware of the City, Coastal, or adjacent land owner staffs having any motivation to protect my rights, except related to avoiding financially participating in a taking. Coastal Staff is aware of City’s need to benefit from construction related to Kelly Ranch approval. From recent Coastal Commission Staff Recommendations The City had hoped the residential project could proceed prior to the on-coming rainy season, so that Cannon Road could also be completed. The project proponent has indicated the grading for the Core Area and completion of Cannon Road are inextricably integrated and that a delay to the issuance of the Core Area permit means an unacceptable delay to completion of Cannon Road. For these reasons, it is anticipated the suggested modifications are not acceptable to the City Coastal Staff is also awart-i the adjacent landowner’s need and iL-,egal requirement and right to subdivide PAL,. This includes extensive investment and losses if a delay is incurred. Also, that it might avoid financial obligations if PAL, is not developed. From conversations with several of the parties it has become evident that Coastal Commission Staff has used this knowledge to pressure the above parties to accomplish what these others have already stated is not appropriate. A few of many examples of these activities include. I was told staff did not realize the separate ownership yet Coastal staffs ‘draft’ recommendations identified the property as belonging to me by name. From Coastal Commission ‘draft’ Staff Suggested Modifications Mello 118) A public vista point shall be provided on the Callahan Darcel and at another tocution or the ridgeline within Planning Areas I or J 5 - Page 1 of 5 - Appendix 11 Existing Permits / Vesting Initial planning was based on extensive compromises with Coastal Commission and Fish and Game staffs, before I even acquired the Property. Evidence of this fact is the certified EIR; a six-year collaborative process of environmental planning and agreements that analyzed and balanced a variety of priorities, Coastal Commission unanimously approved the project with positive support from all agencies and its staff. - 1979 CCC, Calif. Dept of Fish & Game, and Wayne Callaghan (“WC”) verbally agreed on a balance of each parties needs. Given this balance, WC acquired Kelly Ranch as General Partner and invested monies for a six +. year process. After a year or two a limited partner was added as a percentage of WC’s ownership rights. Agreements associated with acquisitions included WC keeping PAL to recover investment. t - 1985 CCC issued permit, Mello I1 LCP Amend. and findings that memorialize a balance was set, and call it a Development agreement: Stating: This balance / r&ydqggg~_agreement for enhancement and preservation of the sensitive resources, above and beyond what the LCP requires combined with the offer to dedicate in fee title Coastal Commission agreed to modifications to maximum residential development, and prohibitions of grading on steep slopes to allow a reasonable use of the property to generate sufficient revenues. CCC relaxed its requirements (incl. LCP) to allow reasonable use of “specific development Parcels” to recover investment. WC was to “and did” enhance public interest, including: o Restoration, preservation and dedication of property o Reflecting CCC intent: CCC exchanged two additional Parcels and transferred related units to “specific development Parcels”. Also changed the character of said two parcels to become ESHA in exchanged for density transfer. 1985-87 CCC and CDF&G recognized in writing that property owner part of the deal has been fully delivered. As a result; Coastal has already achieved benefit from the bargain. It would be ironic - if Coastal Commission after achieving full benefit from numerous millions in public benefit from a bargain (after vesting these rights) - then attempts to withdraw its side of the bargain. Even more so iftried without equity. WC incurred a majority of his costs over the few years following the permit in reliance on CCC commitment to allow recovery of WC’s investment). WC then sold his legal interest except for PAL, which is kept to recover investment. Since this was prior to recording a Final Map, CC&Rs (recorded as File No. 90-263680 of Official Records in San Diego County) inform the public of WC’s legal interest in the bundle of ownership rights and includes following sections. (See CC&Rs for additional critical wording and issues). There is a date certain for transfer, or at recordation of first Final Map, whichever occurs first. This obligation may have been triggered. {transfer of Development rights to WC] Section 4.9D; WC shall have the sole and exclusive right and power to make all decisions and take all actions concerning the development of PAL . . . . {ability to exclude] Sec. 4.8; ... no owner of the Kelly Ranch can do or allow awthing, or create or allow the creation of any encumbrances on PAL which would jeopardize or have a neeative affect on the future development or value of PAL . . . ... -and- Over $8,000,000 had been spent by 1990 - millions more by 2000 Appendix I1 - L.A.Times Article - Page 2 of 5 1 April 12, 1985 (OK1GINAL APPROVALS) Carlsbad Developme Along Lagoon Wins Qf Coastal Commission CAIRLSBAD: Development on Lagoon Wins ApproMf California Dept of Fish and Game, said ... commissioners, notfqg that it is rare that they unanimousb. endorse a project of such magnitude the vote beginning of “a new em” in relations “I’m absolutely delighted to see that the City of Carlsbad and our staff and the developer have worked together on this and actually agreed on something.” . . . after months of negotiations between.. Cal Communities and commission staff members in San Diego, who recommended SANTA BARBARA - With little comment and no hesitation, the State Coastal Commission unanimously approved . . . 0 e e~~~a~ee~~~e~eoe~~ee~~~emooooeeeoeeeeome~~e~mem~eo~~oemeeo~oee~~aoeeooe~e~~O~O~~~~~~ . . . to obtain the commission’s nod, Cal Communities had to anee to a rather heftv list of conditions. Among them are: Turn over 200 acres Construct a large siltation basin . . . to trap sedimentation that is currently swept downstream by Agua Hedionda Creek Numerous lagoon restoration efforts must be undertaken and financed by Developer. Includes removal of.. . silt and landfill from wetland, extension of tidal channel . . . and creation of nesting habitat for California Least tern and other endangered.. . Construct an interpretive center, ... 0 Appendix I1 Existing Permits / Vesting Page 3 of 5 Coastal staff's / Commission's permit findings memorialize the fact that a balance of priorities must be set in complex projects such as Kelly Ranch. Clearly, the current Kelly Ranch Plan has achieved this environmental balance in the regulatory opinions of the City of Carlsbad, California Department of Fish and Game, and the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service. Evidence of this fact is the certified EIR it was a collaborative decision made through the planning and Environmental Impact Report process. As the following clearly states Development of PAL was to be physicallv, politicallv and practicallv viable - Intent was to assure the ability to produce an adequate number of units A few of Coastal Commission's stated findings - to balance issues and to assure ability to $ Coastal Staff Report: 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"~.~~~~~/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"~~~~~~~~~~~~~/~~"~,~~~~~.~~~~~~~~~~ 4 I The Commission finds that with the large areas of steep slopes to be preserved in their natural 8 state, the proposed grading plan is consistent with the intent and purpose of the steep slope I $ preservation policies of the AHLUP and the Carlsbad Mello I1 segment LCP as amended. The 1 $ Commission further finds the proposed rough grading as conditioned, to be in conformance with d $ Sections 3025 1 and 30240 of the Coastal Act and with the grading, erosion and sedimentation policies c B I 6.B Residential Densities/Agricultural Uses. The applicant proposes rough grading in areas E and G f f through P in order to prepare these areas for residential development. Much of the land proposed for $ grading and development is currently used for agricultural production and designated for such use in # 4 the Carlsbad LOP Mello 11 Segment. The applicant has applied for an amendment to the LCP, which j I would affect the agricultural and residential designations of this portion of the property. This $ amendment i~~~~e~-ir-~~y~lQp~~~~ agrsgmgfit_ involving open space requirements for portions of I I The Commission's findings for Major Amendment 1-85 of the Carlsbad LCP Mello II Segment I f contain a full discussion of those modifications and are hereby incorporated into this staff report by g I reference. Special condition #12 reflects the Commission's concerns regarding 1 I I i" I;./././.~/./"/"/~./~.,~,.~/~",.,.,~.,"~,-,.,././"/"/..,.,.,./",~,",~.,~.,~~~/~,.,~,r~ ~.,~~,~~~,~~/~/~,~~~/"/././~,"~,.,.~,.,~ develop PAL and recover mj investment. I ././././././././ /././././././.,./././*/././././././.,./ ././././././././././././././.,./././",././././././././././././.,./*/./././.'~/~/./././~/./././././././././././~/./~ I I t I 1 I of the Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan and the Carlsbad Mello 11 segment LCP. March 29,1985 I f $ # $ the property and modifications of residential designations for areas E and G through P. t B I f the maximum density of residential development of the site. Appendix 111 .- Existing Permits / Vesting - Page 4 of 5 8 I The Legislature further finds and recognizes that conflicts may occur between one or more fi policies of the division. The Legislature therefore declares that in carrying out the provisions of 1 this division such conflicts be resolved in a manner which on balance is the most protective of fi significant coastal resources. In this context, the Legislature declares that broader policies I which, for example, serve to concentrate development in close proximity to urban and fi employment centers may be more protective, overall, than specific wildlife habitat and other 1 I Section 30007.5 I 8 1 I I I I I 1 I similar resource policies. ij P B f By far the most valuable of the resources of the site are the wetlands at the eastern end of Agua f f Hedionda Lagoon. The State Department of Fish and Game has identified Agua Hedionda Lagoon as 1 # one of California’s 19 highest priority wetlands recommended for acquisition, as referenced in Section fi f 30233(c) of the Coastal Act I f The State Department of Fish and Game has in the past expressed interest in acquiring the wetland I f portions of the subject property. Past efforts, however, have failed, in part due to the inability of the I property owner and the Department’ s acquisition branch to arrive at a mutually acceptable I $ c f I I f Experience has shown that acquisition of sensitive habitat by a resource management agency provides, $ 8 I over the long run, the most effective method of providing protection of such resources. It serves to I $ eliminate development pressures, which might otherwise have a detrimental effect on environmentally f sensitive areas. Retention of the upland areas surrounding the wetlands, either through fee dedication f or open space easement, would afford a larger buffer area between urban uses and wetlands and would 1 provide additional open space available as both a wildlife habitat and a visual resource. At present, 1 I f portions of the upland areas are potentially developable under the policies of the A.H.L.U.P. The intent 1 $ would be to establish a large area of open space defined almost entirely by existing road patterns 4 I I $ Within proposed open space areas B, A-1, A-3, C-1 and D, the applicant also proposes to f I implement a number of wetland enhancement and restoration programs. These programs, fi I indicated on Exhibits #5, 6 and 7, of the staff report for coastal permit application 6-84-617 include: fi f These restorative programs are endorsed by the State Department of Fish and Game as measures which 1 $ f The master plan thus encompasses significant enhancement and preservation of the sensitive f f resources of the site above and beyond what the applicable LCP documents currentlv 1 f rewired. When combined with the offer to dedicate in fee title, to a resource agency, the 1 I majority of these sensitive areas, and to restrict the uses allowed on others, these measures $ I f provide a mechanism for the long-range preservation of one of the state’s highest priority f I f fi B f acquisition price. I L f f will increase and protect the biological productivity of the sensitive habitats of the site. fj f I I wetland resources. I 1 L Appendix I11 _- Existing Permits / Vesting - Page 5 of 5 ~./././././././././././././.,./././././././././././././././././././~/./././././././././././././././././././././././././././././././././.,.,.,././././././~/././././././././././~ 1 (Con't) Coastal Staff Recommendation on Major Amendment 1-85 To the City of Carlsbad Mello fi [ II Segment Certified Local Coastal Program (For Public Hearing and Commission Action at the 1 I #The Commission finds that in order to accomplish this ob-iective and allow for a f I $ reasonable use of the property, modifications to the Planned Community Zone f I 4 regarding agriculture, maximum residential and coinmercial development, and I I prohibitions of grading on steep slopes are appropriate. The Commission thus finds f I the proposed amendments, as part of an overall development package, to be in conformance with 1 B # The primary iustification for the amendment requests is that the proposed in-fee dedication and open 1 1 space restrictions would provide long-term protection of the biological and visual resources of the I I $ site while allowing: the applicant a reasonable use of the property and generating a I sufficient revenues to enhance the wetlands. Through a varietv of programs. the existing $policy requirements would limit the use of the site to continued agricultural uses and f I residential development in the range of 280 units, thus -- limiting the amount of revenue I from the pro-iect to a level wherein the enhancement and preservation programs,# f 6 6 f I The applicant's master plan has been revised since its approval by the City of Carlsbad in September I I of 1984. A number of these revisions correspond to staffs concern with the master plan originally I submitted in the coastal permit application 6-84-67 The applicant's master plan now includes vast I I areas of open space. All of the wetland areas and portions of the surrounding uplands would be f I retained in their natural state with such areas (approximately 190 acres) to be offered in fee title to The j I Wildlife Conservation Board or other appropriate resource management agency. Additional upland 1 I habitat areas adjacent to the lagoon as well as the significant steep sloping hillsides of the site would be 1 restricted to uses compatible with open space, by offer of an open space easement over such areas f I (approximately 85 acres). Thus, 275 acres of the site would be retained in its natural state with 1 additional open space areas to be provided in the manufactured slopes and associated open space f I areas proposed in the master plan. This would assure the continued biological productivity of not only f the wetlands but surrounding areas as well that might otherwise be converted to urban uses or becomes fi $ subject to urban use conflicts as a result of being surrounded by development. The large contiguous fi I open space would also serve as a visual resource, especially in light of the fact that nearly all of the 200 acres of wetland and adjacent uplands proposed for open space would be defined by existing or 5 I I 4 I proposed roadways and would thus be visible from such roadways. Section 30007.5 of the Coastal Act. 1 I L L including dedication of the wetlands, would be infeasible. t 6 B I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~~~~~~~~~~~~"~~~~~~. I L - Page 1 of 7 Environmental Setting - Appendix IV 1 1) Site Characteristics: As part of development, PAL underwent grading and extensive erosion control, planting, and irrigation of its original Eurasian grasses over an extended period. Broad tracts of non-native grassland occupy most of PAL, which are not classified as a “sensitive” habitat by the draft HMP. Present Use: Per CC&R procedures, Kaufman and Broad (CC&R’s Declarant) agreed in writing to commencing independent farm activities in 1985+. Initially a contract farmer planted and irrigated rye, oats, etc with intent to stabilize soils as well as provide income as grazing and or baling. We found the crop with ongoing replanting etc. was sufficient to reduce erosion. This farming avoided the need to place as bales and has resulted in significant financial benefits. ~ PAL aerial photo taken shortly after Kelly Ranch underwent grading per 1986* Grading Permit The recent EIR identified a small area on the East side of PAL to be considered for preservation, and which PAL’s planning conforms. PAL’s planning proposes to integrate 25% of the site with adjacent Open Space, which is 25% more than agreed to. Approximately 82% of site is Non-Native grass and as is true anywhere some degraded / ruderal native plants were noted, but other than the east side were recognized as not individually or cumulatively significant and the species were still locally common. 2) ‘Draft’ Carlsbad Habitat Draft Management Plan: PAL is within a “Standards Area” since development information was not yet available. Because it may be adiacent to a “hardline preserve” (as are all of the KelZy Ranch projects) does not justify Coastal’s taking: of PAL in whole or in part. I personally signed -for PAL and the Kelly Ranch - the original documents establishing a preserve within Core Area 4 by contributing over 240 acres of open space. 3) The EIR clearly addressed both the HMP and Coastal Policy issues, contrary to Staff‘s inference. We found no comments from Coastal in the recent EIR nor negative comments in the prior EIR. We do not agree Coastal can ignore or reopen this process nor add incorrect or subjective statements. 4) Past and recent Environmental Impact Reports (“EIR”) show PAL to consist mainly of non-native grasses. PALS dominant plants are Eurasian grasses that have substantially displaced the native flora. The recent EIR identified a small area on the East side of PAL that should be preserved, and which PAL’s planning conforms. The plants that were noted were recognized as not individually or cumulatively significant and in most cases the species were still locally common in the area. Mello II LCP also pemtits grading in slope areas over 25% for several reasons. ’ Appendix IV -dnvironmental Setting (Continued,- Page 2 of 7 7 From Kellv RanchEIR Non-native Grassland Mitigation & Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ... The Kelly Ranch project granted an irrevocable offer of dedication over 181 acres of land encompassing the Agua Hedionda Lagoon as a condition of the original approval. This protects substantial and critical raptor foraging habitat, albeit with different habitat values. Given that the current development project replaces the unbuilt development, this dedication could be factored into the requirement for additional mitigation lands for raptor foraging habitat The previous dedication of 181 acres provides adequate compensating raptor foraging habitat, and no future mitigation is considered necessary. 1 1 Broad tracts of non-native grassland occupy most of the western portion of the property The dominant plants here are Eurasian grasses which have substantially displaced the native flora due to their ability to sprout early in the spring in profusion and out compete the slower natives In a few Dlaces within this vegetation some limited native herb cover occurs with species such as Arroyo Lupine Coastal Staff continues to ignore the significant work done to date by the Resource Agencies, City and the Developer of Planning Area “L” related to defining the biology, Mitigation Plan, and Hardline for the HMP. The City and Resource Agencies have consistently and on several occasions - informed Coastal Staff that the recommendations related to Planning Area “L,” in the HMP were both based on bad information and a clerical type error. That subsequently the proper research was completed and confirmed by the DFG regarding the delineation of habitat area. Coastal staff has then made recommendations violating the extensive work and studies as well as the need for CEQA compliance if it is to violate the evidence &ADwendix IV Publt,-Asta Doint -and- No private Streets-; gates Page 3 of 7 We strongly oppose the following suggested modfiations that: 0 PAL be used for public vista point. 0 Private drives within the project must be public streets. Privacy/security gates are prohibited. 1) PAL is over one mile inland from the coastline, and on the inland side of the first public roadway. It should be remembered that public access uolicies dictate the access provision “where no otherwise adeauate coastal access exists ”. 2) There is no reason for redundant public access within the residential area of PAL. Within a few hundred feet [on the lagoon side of public street] there is a full public nature center. Other large areas within ownership of the larger proposed development: abut this Open Space, are closer to the larger adjacent corridor, are at higher elevations and have superior views. Other more viable sites exist that are offered for dedication or are owned by the adjacent land owner proposing this LCP amendment and who is receiving benefit City has required in addition to original Coastal Permit public pedestrian trails and sidewalks in two significant locations crossing the site and public views from these locations are plentiful. There is adequate public access to view the lagoon wetlands in various locations. In addition to several documents this is also stated in the existing Coastal Permit (6-85-617) findings. The State has significant Open Space areas within the Kelly Ranch to create such viewpoints if it wishes to exceed its own policies. I am not sure why PAL’s entire site was selected over several others at a higher elevation, part of the proposed project, or within the dedicated open space that is non-native grasses? For example there is an Open Space area of non-native grasses at the end of PAL’s access knuckle at Hemmingway Drive. 3) Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation stated in its July 19, 1999 letter to the California Coastal Commission “The proposed development includes trails that provide public access consistent with the goals of I the foundation. ’’ 4) Imposing public street requirements will render the project difficult to design. Especially this site that already proposes a single loaded street, as well as homes designed to step with topography. City public street requirements [street widths, turning radii, etc.], is inconsistent with proposed Planned Development standards, which allow site to deviate for clustering within developable areas versus more rigid detached project with long, wider streets. 5) Access into PAL’s residential common area will defeat our extreme effort to open units into shared common area to enhance feeling of a community or village instead of focus on private exterior spaces. . . . The PUD ordinance permits cluster development that is generally more environmentally sensitive (promotes more open space through cluster development and less asphalt). Community gates should be allowed as long as the public access to coastal resources is not prevented and there is adequate public access provided. The Kelly Ranch has voluntarily contributed over $1 million of improvements to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation in the provision of a 3800 sq. ft. Nature Center on over one acre of land (Village “F’). Additionally, the Kelly Ranch Plan provides nature trails in both the upland areas as well as the north and south shorelines of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. 6) City Correspondence states 7) The proposed project (CCC proposed Vista) is not planned or located in the manner that will be - most compatible with the greatest public good -and- the least private injury. . Amendix IV Publi, ., ista Doint -and- No Drivate Streets gates Page 4 of 7 8) Other sites are superior for all proposed uses. Other sites will create lesser private injury. CCC policy dictates, “where no other access is available”. 9) There is no reasonable probability or intent (under CCC recommendations) that the CCC will devote PAL to use as a vista and parking or that open space will be functional habitat or a productive corridor - within seven years 10) PAL is not necessary for the proposed project. Reasons include that better locations have already been identified including in CCC findings. 11) Public interest and necessity do not require the use of PAL as open space, a corridor, vista, nor public parking (proposed project). 12)CCC is not authorized by its own policy, or statute to exercise the power of eminent domain for PAL’S use as a vista and parking. 13) Findings are contrary to environmental reports and studies related to both quality and intended use. CCC did not comment during CEQA process. 14) PAL appears to being taken through an abuse of discretion by the governing body. 15) CCC has not adopted a resolution of necessity. 16) Coastal Staff/Commission original findings clearly addressed views and access . . The applicant's master plan ~rdws an additional public access featun;, an interpretive center to be constructed in area A-3. The terms and requirements regarding that center are contained in special condition #9 of the permit. I With the special conditions the Commission finds the pro-iect is conformity with the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act, with the provisions of the Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan and Mello I1 LCP segment. Visual Impacts Coastal Staff Report: March 29,1985 6.C Visual Impact. Section 30251 of the Coastal Act is applicable to the proposed development and states: The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural landforms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas such as those designated in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting. In recognition of the unique scenic and natural resource values of Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and in response to the above quoted section of the Coastal Act, the City of Carlsbad adopted detailed provisions in the Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan aimed at preserving and protecting the visual quality of the lagoon. The project site is highly visible from traffic on I-S and El Camino Real. The Agua Hedionda LUP recognizes that the lagoon and surroundings present a scenic open space break from the intense urban development characteristic of the Southern California coastal zone. A multitude of excellent views and vistas are afforded the public from such vantage points as found along Carlsbad Blvd., Interstate-5, Adams Avenue, the subject property, and Park Drive. As a result, the City of Carlsbad included the following policies in the LUP (reference page 48 of the LUP) which are relevant to the subject development: As mentioned, the proposed master plan, incorporates vast areas of open space including the wetlands and associated upland habitat areas of the site. The majority of the steep sloping hillsides will also be retained in their natural state. Earlier proposals for development along the El Camino Real corridor have been deleted and the area restricted to open space. This will afford continued views of the lagoon from El Camino Real, a designated scenic corridor. Development proposals along Park Drive have also been revised thus allowing for continued views along this corridor as well. The interpretive center proposed for area A-3 will serve as public vista point and viewing area which was not required in the public access component of the Aqua Hedionda LUP. The proposed master plan thus includes a number of features which serve to minimize the visual impact of the development. The Commission finds that with the large amount of area to be retained in open space. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with Section 30251 of the Coastal Act and the visual resource policies of the Qppendix IV -. Open Space / Ability to Grade - Page 6 of 7 i Development in slope areas greater than 25% Coastal staff has suggested since some uortions of PAL exceed 25% slopes or contains natural vegetation, then PAL is not buildable. I The Coastal staff / Commission findings based on balancing priorities unanimously approved PAL’S I 8 development and agreed to modifications to maximum residential development, and prohibitions of I I ~,./..,.,././~/./.,.,”,.,./././U/././~/.,.,./././././././.,.,././././././~/././.,.././.,./~,.,.,./.,.,~,.,~,~,~,~,=,~,=,./././.,././.,./.,~/“/.,.,.,./.,~,./U/.,./~/././”,~,./~ 1 grading on steep slopes to allow a reasonable use of the property. ,/./~,~,./././~/././././././.,~/U/././~/././././././././U/././././././././~/./././.,~/././~/./././././.,.,.,./././.,.,.,~,.,./.,././U/./.,././~/~/./././././././U/././.,.,.,././~ Mello 11 LCP also permits grading in slope areas over 25% for several reasons. A few follow: ~-----~-~-~-----------~-----~~~-----~~--~-~-~-~------~,-~~~~~~./--.~------~----.~~-~~--~--~ Existing Mello I1 LCP and Coastal Staff Findings 8 1 (2) All Other Slope Areas: For all other steep slope areas, the City Council may allow exceptions to f f the above grading provisions provided the following mandatory findings to allow exceptions are made: f e I a) Soils investigation conducted by a licensed soils engineer has determined the subject slope are ... e 1 c) Slope disturbance will not result in substantial damage or alteration to major wildlife habitat or . . . . 8 d e Thus, 275 acres of the site would be retained in its natural state with additional open space areas to be I 6 b) Grading of the slope is essential to the development intent and design. f I f d) If the area proposed to be disturbed is predominated by steep slopes and is less than 10 acres, . . . I 6 providedjn the manufactured slop es... I p,~,~,./././~/~/U,.,.,.,.,.,~,.,~,~,”,*/U,././”/./././U/./././~,.,./././.,~/./”/*,”/~,./~/./././~/~/./~/~/*/*/*/./~/~/~/~,~/./././~/~/./.,~/~/././~/~/~/~/././././U/~,~/~/~/~/.~. ‘4 I e 6 6 Under the P-C requirements and the development intensities established in A, the development shall s e f Subsection C does contain provisions wherein the prohibition of grading of slopes in excess of 20% I f grade could be modified. Such modification, however, would be allowed only under very limited circumstances and would have to be justified according to a specific set of criteria. That criteria is 8 6 8 Modification of these standards and criteria may be granted to portions of properties where strict 1 application of the standards and criteria would, even after application of clustering and other 5 g innovative development techniques, result in less than one-half of the development potential that c 6 4 d e would be attainable under the slope density formula. I b f The intent of this policy is to allow reasonable use of properties composed almost f I f entirely of slopes in excess of 25% grade. d 1~~-----------.~~/~-~.~/--.~~--~~)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~---~~-~-------~---.~/-~-.~~~~~~~---~1 Coastal Staff Report: March 29 1985 I I C. Drainage, Erosion Control 1 conform to the following additional development standards: 1 found in subsection C-S which states: I I 6 B I 8 1. $ 4 $ 8 f I %~~-------~----.~.~,~-.~./-~-~-------~-~-----~~~----~--~--~~~~-~~-~---~~,.~~~,-~~-~-./.~~--“~a . ,\ppendix IV A- PAL as Open Space to adjacent cor dor 8 The Coastal staff / Commission findings based on balancing priorities unanimously approved PAL’S 5 d development and agreed to modifications to muximum residential development, and prohibitions of 1 Page 7 of 7 Coastal Staff‘s report recommends adding PAL as Open Space to ad-iacent corridor . ~/././.,.,.,.,./.,~,./~/“,.,././././././././././././././././.,././././././././././././././././././././././././././././././././././././././././././././~/~,./././.,.,./.,.,.,./=,~ l 1 grading on steep slopes to allow a reasonable use of the property. 8 */./././.,.,././.,././.,././././././././././././././././././././././.~/./././././././././“/./././././././.,././././././././././././././~.,././././././././~,.,.,~,./.,.,./.,.,~ Adding PAL to adjacent corridor at best is subjective thinking: not founded on scientific fact; and contrary to EIRs, other studies, Coastal policy, Government commitments, and my rights. The subject corridor is not only connected to an already permanently degraded corridor, but clearly will not meet any overriding need. Approximately 82% of site is Non-Native grass. Under present planning PAL proposes to added 25% of the site to adjacent Open Space. This is in addition to the amount agreed to. Cannon Road acts as a natural barrier to the wetland PAL = 5.5+ acres Early planning proposes to set aside 0 Majority of area on East to be preserved = 0.75+ acres 0 Non native grass area after remedial grading and stopping erosion to be planted with coastal sage = 0.752 acres This 1.5 acres is in excess of 25% of the Site, and in addition to Coastal agreement and LCP policy are at higher elevations and 2.1 Biological Resources / 2.1 .lExisting Conditions / Wildlife Movement Corridors The heavy agricultural uses of the Kelly Ranch and Macario Canyon mesas and bottomlands have substantially reduced the utility of wildlife corridors through these properties. A tenuous northhouth wildlife corridor remains along the eastern boundary of the “Kelly Ranch “Core Area,” but development along Faraday Avenue has severely degraded this route. Recent development in the surrounding areas (along Faraday Avenue Palomar Airport Road, Legoland, the proposed golf course in Macario Canyon, Evans Point subdivision. etc.) has limited the potential for corridor connectivity with the Kelly Ranch “Core Area”. The primary east-west wildlife corridor is the wetlands. Biologicul Constraints Analysis; Appendix Wildlife Movement Corridors On-site Corridors The flurry of recent development in the surrounding off-site lands has limited the potential for corridor connectivity with the site. ... A tenuous, bifurcated north / south wildlife corridor remains along. the eastern boundarv of the site, but the relatively recent construction along. - Faraday Avenue for commercial and residential uses has severely demaded this route. The local corridor from the Kirgis property on the south onto Kelly Ranch bifurcates with a narrow strand occupying the east-facing hillside above Faraday Avenue Travel routes here for mammals are already tenuous given the topography and low-growing vegetation This link does connect with dense sage scrub and chaparral on a steep north-facing slope overlooking Shea Homes residential development abutting El Camino Real. The importance of this relatively narrow route as a viable wildlife corridor for anything but local movement is questionable. ... and travel Amendix V Additiolial Material provided as part of Offica Record Page 1 of 2 ~~ Examples of some of the items (Referenced herein andor supplied to staff) and all of which are incorporated herein in its entirety (including exhibits and attachments) and to be included as part of this letter and the public record and to be forwarded to California Coastal Commission Commissioners. Since I was not permitted to participate in the process except in a cursory manner and after government agencies had taken strong positions, it is reasonable that I reserve the right to discovery and introduction of additional evidence not included. Wayne Callaghan fax memo dated October 15, 1999 to California Coastal Commission regarding request to be co-applicant on permit. (1 page) Wayne Callaghan letter and fax dated November 23, 1999 to California Coastal Commission regarding summary and legal status. (3 pages) California Coastal Commission letter dated August 4, 1999 to Hillman Properties. Natural Vegetation Impact Analysis and Mitigation Program Dated May 15, 2000 Outline of previous items that were to be made a part of the Public Record on October 5, 1999 Wayne Callaghan fax dated October 5, 1999 to California Coastal Commission regarding updating fax dated October 1, 1999 to California Coastal Commission reference LCPA hearing. Wayne Callaghan fax dated October 1, 1999 to California Coastal Commission regarding LCPA hearing. (29 pages) LCP A 2-99; Kelly Ranch 'Draft' Staff Suggested Modifications from approximately 8/3 1/99. City of Carlsbad fax withdrawing HMP recommendation Miscellaneous portions of City ordinances and local facility Management plan Letter from Kaufman and Broad to (dated Dec 10, 1986), and acknowledged by (dated Jan 6, 1987 California Department of Fish and Game Memorandum Bill Ponder, California Coastal Commission dated December 19,1997 from California Coastal Commission. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Permit No. 85-137-AA with transmittal dated August 12, 1985 (consisting of approximately 14 pages) California Coastal Commission Application no: 6-84-617 Staff Report dated March 29, 1985(consisting of approximately 40 pages) Coastal Development Permit No. 6-84-617 on April 15,1985 (consisting of approximately 16 California Coastal Commission Application no: 6-84-6 17 Corrections to Staff Report (Dated April 9, 1985) (consisting of approximately 7 pages) California Coastal Commission "Notice of Intent to Issue Permit" for Application no: 6-84-617 dated June 25,1985 (consisting of approximately 12 pages) Coastal Development Permit No. 6-84-617 on April 15,1985 (consisting of approximately 16 California Coastal Commission Staff Recommendation on Major Amendment 1-85 To the City of Carlsbad Mello I1 Segment Certified Local Coastal Program (For Public Hearing and Commission Action at the Meeting of April 9-12, 1985) (consisting of approximately 20 pages) (2 pages) (6 pages) pages) pages) .- Appendix V AdditLlal Material provided as part of Officml Record Page 2 of 2 I Additional items previously delivered to be part of the Public Record 0 The Tentative Map, Master Plan, General Plan amendment and other actions by the City of Carlsbad related to the Kelly Ranch and its approvals, which are part of the California Coastal Commission approval process in its above actions. a) LCP A 2-99; Kelly Ranch ‘Draft’ Staff Suggested Modifications b) California Coastal Commission Report Titled TH 17a date August 31, 1999 (consisting of approximately 100 pages) c) California Coastal Commission Report Titled Wed 17a date September 23, 1999 (consisting of approximately 100 pages) California Department of Fish and Game Notification No. V-85-401 California State Lands Commission letter dated 7/19/85 File Ref W20725.5 City of Carlsbad grading permit (1985) 0 Previous staff reports: 0 0 o Application for grading permit o Grading Permit 0 California Coastal Commission letter dated April 10, 1985 to Sherman Stacey, Esq. Initial irrevocable offers to dedicate open space are incorporated herein by reference. i) Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate Fee Title and an Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate Open Space Easement and Declaration of Restriction (Instrument No. 85-301299 and 85-301298). 181 acres encompassing Agua Hedionda Lagoon offered for dedication as open space. ii) Dedicated by Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate Open-Space Easement and Declaration of Restricts (Instrument 85-301301) and Amendment No. 1 (Instrument 86-004362). An open space easement was recorded in 1985 and 1986, for slopes over 25 percent. It is important to note that most items are addressed to me or signed by me.