Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLCPA 97-09; Kelly Ranch; Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) (7)URGENT WAYNE CALLAGHAN 38 REDHAWK, IRVINE, CA 92604 E-mail: calgroup@regroup.NET Tel: (949) 559-6200 Fax: (949) 559-6215 URGENT DATE: Monday, September 06,1999 9 FAX Pages, including this page ATTENTION: Mr. Bill Ponder FIRM: California Coastal Commission FAX # (619) 521-8672 COMMENTS: We reviewed ‘Draft’ Staff Suggested Modifications to the Kelly Ranch LCP Amendment, and are highly opposed to several of your suggested modifications. I am in agreement with the City of Carlsbad and Kelly Land Company’s additional concerns, however, my main concern is with your recommendations regarding Planning Area “L” of the Kelly Ranch. As you will see in my letter, I have been involved with this property for over 20 years, and am very proud the project that has been used on numerous occasions to showcase Developer and Government cooperation. My wife and myself have placed all our assets into developing this property for our retirement. I am also involved with some of my industry’s most highly regarded professionals to develop a unique and innovated project that pushes the edge of integrating homes with architecture sensitive to human environmental and social issues. This includes light and air movement; flexible int. & ext. spaces for changing life style; and above all integration of community living. I am assuming, (since I was not involved and you chose not to inform me of this CCC process) you do not have data to analyze my issues. I was, however completely taken back by the tenor of your report. It appears there was no recognition of past work that went into the Kelly Ranch, including on the part of Chuck Damm and Adam Birnbaum with Coastal Commission staff (“CCC”) and Earl Lauppe with CDF&G. They assisted for months to generate a plan before I even approached the Kelly Family to acquire the property in 1980, and until the project’s unanimous approval in 1985. To bring this back to everyone’s attention, I am attaching an L.A. Times article. I was also concerned with what appeared as being callous to the Development team and City’s years of recent work. I did not see any recognition for their having incorporated what appears to be all of the positive items in the Master Plan as well as the overwhelming number of new and far more restrictive development controls and positive contributions they have made. 0 0 Of greatest concern is your statement “The parcel lines for proposed Parcel L shall be eliminated”. For your general information: constructive transfer of PAL has taken place and Kelly Ranch property owner’s andor successors have a requirement to create a legal lot: Covenants, Conditions and Restriction (“CC&R”) recorded in the Official Public Records of San Diego County against all of Kelly Ranch in addition to verbal communications as well as this and prior correspondences, has provided CCC both direct and indirect notice regarding this issue. Kelly Ranch owners and successors in interest (including owners of open space) are subject to these documents. The requirement obligates Kelly Land Company (as present owner) to create a legal lot for Planning Area “L”, concurrent with recordation of Kelly Land Company’s final map. Kelly Land Co. has no right to make decisions regarding PAL’S development and have merely designated PAL as a legal lot. Kelly Ranch planning ’does not include PAL’S future development. Bill Ponder 9/6/99 Fax (Page 1 of 2) 9 Pages in package /- h. I may not have understood your statement or intent, however, I have had a bad experience related to third parties interfering with my business activities, and I need to sort through the following. 1) Regarding your suggested modification and Kelly Land Companies’ letter to you dated August 3 1, 1999. I assume your suggested modification did not intend to infer that Planning Area “L” could not be subdivided, but rather that you wanted the property to be designated as open space. If this is the case, I would appreciate before we step into my letter’s concerns, that this issue be clarified. If the above is not correct then given that land is subdivided (i.e. divided into parcels) which is independent from land use (e.g. residential vs. commercial vs. open space). I need to understand i) Why you made that jump? ii) Who on your staff as well as outside your organization was involved in such discussions and, which of these persons were involved in the decision regarding parcel lines? iii) Under your Mello I1 8) recommendation, “A public vista point shall be provided on the Callahan parcel” appears to reflect knowledge of ownership. I then need to also know who discussed ownership with you and did this person also discuss land use, or my parcel? Since Planning Area “L” belongs to myself (not involved in the Coastal process) of which Coastal staff has notice as well as it being on the public record regarding my interests, I am totally confused how Coastal staff even jumped to land use let alone land division and now to a taking of the property for a vista point that far exceeds Coastal policy? It should be remembered this site is one mile inland fiom the coastline and on the inland side of the first public street, and that public access policies dictate the access provision “where no otherwise adequate coastal access exists ”. There are more than adequate access and viewpoints proposed, 0 0 Within a few hundred feet [on the lagoon side of a public street] is a full public nature center. There is adequate public access to view the lagoon wetlands in various locations. City has required (in addition to the original CCC Permit) public pedestrian trails and sidewalks in two significant locations crossing the site and public views from these locations are plentiful. State has significant Open Space areas within the Kelly Ranch to create such viewpoints if it wishes to exceed its own policy. Not sure why this entire site was selected over several others that are at a higher elevations, part of the proposed project or preferably within dedicate open space that is non-native grasses? For example there is an Open Space area of non-native grass at the end of PAL’S access knuckle. 0 Also the City states it has informed CCC the site is in a “Standards Area” not a “hardline Preserve Area” on the Habitat Management Plan. PAL has been graded, is heavily vested, has been part of numerous millions of dollars in habitat and infra-structure under my prior ownership of Kelly Ranch when California Coastal Commission achieved their benefit from the bargain and acknowledged such and vested rights, as well as millions more spent recently and that are proposed. See letter for details. Again I assume some of this confkion is due to your not having been provided adequate information. I did not know of this issue until last Friday afiernoon, nor is it reasonable to have expected such issues regarding the Coastal application and Area “L”. I assume since my notice was late last Friday (less than two weeks from the hearing) we could discuss early Tuesday. In any case, I am not agreeable to any actions on Planning Area “L” that will erode my rights. Nor, am I willing to participate in any action that might jeopardize my existing vesting. Bill Ponder 9/6/99 Fax (page 2 of 2) 9 Pages in package HISTORY EXHIBIT 1) Earlv Historv: With taxes and farming costs rising, development began in 1960. The following reflects this early planning. 2) 1980: Cal Communities, Inc. developed an initial / new concept reflected below with input hm: a) Initial Environmental Studies b) Mello 11 Local Coastal Plan (LCP) and Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan. c) California Coastal Commission and California Department of Fish and Game d) United States Corps of Engineers, and United States Department of Fish and Wildlife e) County of San Diego, City of Carlsbad and numerous other Public and Quasi Public Groups UI *- 3) 1983: City approved an application to bring its plans into conformance with the Coastal Plan related to the Agua Hedionda and Mello I1 Plans. The General Plan and zoning was revised. 4) 1984-85: Kelly Ranch was approved for 1600 units. a) City of Carlsbad approved the Master Tentative Map (CT 83-30) and Master Plan (MP-174) on September 18,1984 b) Coastal Commission unanimously approved the Coastal Permit (#6-84-617) on April 15, 1985. This Dermit is now “vested” as acknowledged by the Coastal Commission on 1/6/87. c) Mello I1 Land Use Plan amended on October 24, 1985. Policy 3-5 of the LCP established developn nt provisions “due to overriding and extensive wetland preservation and protection. 5) 1999: In 1998 the property was sold to Kelly Land Company, which submitted applications to revise the plan. The new Plan included all the restrictions of the initial approval and Master Plan, but also reduced density and included significant additional constraints on development. Figure 12 Kelly Hillman Property Los Angeles Times April 12, 1985 (ORIGI\AI \PYRC)\ 4LSI Carlsbad Development CARESBAD: Development on Lagoon Wins Approval r CARLSBAD Project OKd Ear1 Lauppe, a wildlife Biologist with the California Department of Fish and Game, said ... "Getting that property into public ownership and under lock and key was very critical," Lauppe said "I think we got a good package, although it took a lot of work 1 ... commissioners, noting th& it is rare that they unanimously endprse a Droiect of such magnitude xu - Commissioner George Shipp m.. . called the vote the beginning of "a new era" in relations "I'm absolutely delighted to see that the City of CarIsbad and our staff and the %4N I ... after months of negotiations between Cal Communities and commission staff members in San Diego, who recommended approval developer have worked together on this *.., I 1 and actually agreed on something." Shipp SANTA BARBARA - With little comment and no hesitation, the State Coastal Commission unanimously approved . . . Kelly Ranch 0 ~.~~~~~~~~~~~.~~~~~~~******o***********************~*********oo******o*o***ooo******* . , . to obtain the commission's nod, Cal Communities had to agree to a rather hefty list of conditions. Among them are: 0 Turn over 200 acres 0 Construct a large siltation basin . . . to trap sedimentation that is currently swept downstream by Agua Hedionda Creek 0 Numerous lagoon restoration efforts must be undertaken and financed by Developer. Includes removal of.. . silt and landf5ll fiom wetland, extension of tidal channel . , . and creation of nesting habitat for California Least tern and other endangered.. . 0 Construct an interpretive center, ... 0 Create wildlife habitat.. .