STATE OF CALIFORNIA- THE RESOURCES AGENCY CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION ciNTRAL COAST DISTRICT OFFICE '725 FRONT STREET, SUITE 300 RUZ. CA 95060 F5a { ...:863 • Filed: 11129/99 RECORD PACKET COPY 49th Day: 1117/2000 Opened & Continued: 1/12/2000 Staff: RH/CKC-SC Staff Report: 5/24/2000 Hearing Date: 6/16/2000 Commission Action: APPEAL STAFF REPORT: SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE DETERMINATION APPEAL NUMBER: A-3-MC0-99-092 LOCAL GOVERNMENT: MONTEREY COUNTY DECISION: Approved with conditions, 11 /09/99 APPLICANT: Rancho Chiquita Associates, Attn: Ted Richter APPELLANTS: Big Sur Land Trust, Attn: Zad Leavy; Department of Parks and Rec., Attn Kenneth L. Gray; and Responsible Consumers of Monterey Peninsula, Attn David Dillworth PROJECT LOCATION:· Highway One and Riley Ranch Road, across from Point Lobos State Reserve; Carmel Highlands (Monterey County) APN • 243-112-015 (see Exhibit A). PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Convert an existing single family dwelling, bam and cottage to a 10-unit bed and breakfast (see Exhibit B) FILE DOCUMENTS: Monterey County Certified Local Coastal Program, consisting of Carmel Area Land Use Plan and relevant sections of Monterey County Coastal Implementation Plan; Administrative Record for County Permit PLN970284; information on Point Lobos Ranch plans for development and subsequent acquisition by Big Sur Land Trust; County permit SB94001 for Whisler subdivision. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff recommends that the Commission determine that a substantial issue exists with respect to some of the grounds on which the appeal has been filed, because the coastal permit approved by Monterey County does not fully conform to the provisions of its certified Local Coastal Program. Staff recommends that the de novo hearing on the coastal permit be held at a subsequent meeting. The proposed project is the conversion of an existing single family dwelling, bam and cottage to a 10-unit bed and breakfast facility. The project is located on the east side of Highway One, on • Riley Ranch Road in the Carmel area of Monterey County's Coastal Zone (see Exhibit A). The A-3-MC0-99-092 Rancho Chiquita Appeal Page2 project is located on a 5.42-acre parcel (APN 243-112-015-000), across from the Point Lobos State Reserve (see inset map; Exhibit B). The property is designated as "Resource Conservation" • with a Special Treatment overlay (see Exhibit E). The three appellants' contentions are all fairly similar. They contend that the project does not comply with the Monterey County Local Coastal Program (LCP) with regards to Point Lobos Ranch land use regulations, visitor-serving use precedent, archeological resource protection, water rights and· groundwater withdrawal, traffic, and scenic resource protection. The appellants contend the project is being developed without a required comprehensive plan, and urge that a comprehensive plan is needed to ensure reasonable and appropriate development of the Point Lobos Ranch. The appellants further contend that the Monterey County LCP is out of date with regard to land use in the area and existing water supplies. The full appeals are attached as Exhibit D. The context for land use planning has changed at Point Lobos Ranch since the preparation of the LCP some two decades ago. Most of the formerly private land has been purchased by the Big Sur Land Trust for on-going transfer to the State Department of Parks and Recreation (see Exhibit G). The LCP identified this area as suitable for visitor-serving use. The entire Ranch was designated for up to two hotels and up to 276 overnight rooms. The LCP contains some specific siting parameters to primarily preserve the scenic viewshed and contains density allocations for optional residential use. However, the mention of 276 rooms is only an allocation of 138 rooms to each of the two families who then owned the Ranch: the Hudsons and the Rileys. The decision of where the hotel(s) would go on the Ranch was left to a coordinated planning process. A planning process did occur that illustrated a major visitor-serving facility on the Ranch. • Subsequently, substantial portions of the Ranch were purchased by the Big Sur Land Trust (BSLT). Unfortunately, there was not agreement at the time of the Ranch's sale to BSLT as to the disposition of the visitor-serving units. BSLT claims that since the Trust bought the land on which the hotels were tentatively planned, it bought any visitor-serving credits. The applicants dispute this, saying they sold no development credits that accrue to their inholdings. A critical issue, then, is what density should be assigned to each party's current holdings. The County has previously adopted findings that allow a maximum of 20 overnight units in two bed and breakfasts and 10 homes (or 12 homes if there is only one B&B) that will occur on the private inholdings. This leaves considerable density ·credit available to State Parks should the Department wish to develop some type of overnight facilities on its holdings. However, this allocation is not consistent with a proportional division of the Ranch's visitor-serving density credits under the LCP among the current owners: private and public. For the Riley portion of the ranch, the current owners of the bed and breakfast site, purchased all of the visitor credits. They then sold 95.5% of the Ranch to the Big Sur Land Trust. From a legal and equity perspective, this would appear to leave them with 4.5% of the visitor-serving credits; or a six bedroom bed and breakfast. However, they have disputed this analysis. Staff recommends that there is a substantial issue with regard to the visitor-serving density. Also embodied in the comprehensive planning requirement is the necessity to have a • Page 3 Rancho Chiquita Appeal A-3-MC0-99-092 • management component. On this point, the County approval is also deficient. State Parks has identified a number of concerns relative to the operation of a bed and breakfast in a park inholding. The LCP requires that a management plan be prepared to address such potential conflicts. Since the County approval has no such requirement, staff recommends that a substantial issue be found regarding this particular point. A related issue involves the "Resource Conservation' zoning of the site. This zoning would allow for the bam to be converted to a bed and breakfast only if it were found to be a use of a similar or more restricted nature than the bam use. Since, the County did not make such a finding, a substantial issue is raised. With regard to the other issues raised by the appeal, the evidence in the record indicates that they are not be substantial issues. There is no archaeological site in the area to be disturbed for parking; there is an existing water system whose use will not be increased as a result of this project; there is minimal if any traffic increase associated with the project; and the bed and breakfast will help preserve the visual character of the area by its adaptive reuse of scenic, historic ranch buildings. As to resolving the appeal, there are two apparent courses of action. One is for the Commission to determine the appropriate visitor-serving density allocation among the now multiple owners of Point Lobos Ranch. The other approach is for the parties to agree to an appropriate formula consistent with the LCP and put forward for Commission consideration. Staff has met with and discussed this matter with the parties who will be making an attempt to resolve this issue. • Therefore, the recommendation is for the Commission to find substantial issue only at this time and continue the de novo hearing to first give the arfected parties an opportunity to come to some agreement. STAFF REPORT CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 STAFF REPORT CONTENTS 3 I. SUMMARY OF APPELLANTS' CONTENTIONS 5 II. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACTION 5 Ill. APPEAL PROCEDURES 5 IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE 6 A. MOTION: 6 B. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 6 C. RESOLUTION TO FIND SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE: 6 V. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS 6 A. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 6 1. Setting· ............................................................................................................................. 6 2. Project Description .......................................................................................................... 7 • B. POINT LOBOS RANCH COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 8 A-3-MC0-99-092 Rancho Chiquita Appeal Page4 1. Relevant Local Coastal Program Provisions .................................................................. 8 2. Substantial Issue Determination .................................................................................. 10 • C. BED AND BREAKFAST LAND USE 16 1. Relevant Local Coastal Program Provisions ................................................................ 16 2. Substantial Issue Determination .................................................................................. 19 D. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE PROTECTION 20 1. Relevant Local Coastal Program Provisions ................................................................ 20 2. Substantial Issue Determination .................................................................................. 21 E. CONVERSION AND MODIFICATION OF EXISTING WATER SYSTEM 21 1. Relevant Local CoastalProgramProvisions ........................ - ....... - ........................... 21 2. Substantial Issue Determination .................................................................................. 22 E. TRAFFIC AND PUBLIC ACCESS 24 1. Relevant Local Coastal Program Provisions ...............................................................