Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 97-59; Levy Residence; Coastal Development Permit (CDP) (38)September 3, 1998 Mr. Rusty Areias, Chairman California Coastal Commission 3 1 1 1 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92 108-1 725 RE: California Coastal Commission Appeal # A-6-CII-98-98 Dear Mr. Areias: This letter is a response from the City of Carlsbad to the issues raised in the California Coastal Commission staff report regarding the above-noted Coastal Commission appeal of the Levy Residence Coastal Development Permit (CDP 97-59). To begin with, the subject Coastal Commission staff report addresses different “substantial issues” than were previously identified within the original Coastal Commission Appeal Summary regarding this project. The original project Appeal Summary focused on Coastal Commission staffs contention that: 1) the subject parcels were not legal under the Coastal Act and, 2) private access to the subject property was never authorized by the Coastal Commission. On August 27, 1998, the City of Carlsbad responded to these “substantial issues” in a letter to you and requested that based upon the facts presented by the City, that the Coastal Commission find that there are no “substantial project issues” and that the Commission deny the appeal. The two major project “substantial issues” formerly identified by your staff and subsequently responded to by the City are not discussed as issues in the Coastal Commission Appeal # A-6-CII- 98-98 staff report. While it is commendable of the Coastal Commission staff to acknowledge that their original assessment of substantial project issues was incorrect, it is also quite disconcerting to find that the Coastal Commission Appeal staff report for this project is now based primarily upon two different (yet incorrect) “substantial issues” which are discussed below. Consistency of Project with Visual Resource Policy 8-1 of the City’s LCP The Coastal Commission staff finds that the project is inconsistent with Visual Resource Policy 8-1 of the Mello I1 LCP segment because it was not reviewed pursuant to the standards and provisions of the City’s Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.40 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code). Mello I1 Policy 8-1 specifies that, “the City’s Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone should be applied where necessary throughout the Carlsbad coastal zone to assure the maintenance of existing views and panoramas.” 2075 La Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 (760) 438-1 161 FAX (760) 438-0894 @ CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION APPEAL #A-6-C11-~0-98 SEPTEMBER 3,1998 The City’s Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.40) currently only applies to properties located along the El Camino Real Scenic Corridor within the City of Carlsbad. No other properties within the City have been formally designated for location within the City’s Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone. Therefore, although the subject property may qualifjr as a scenic area, the City has no “legal authority” to apply this zone to this property or other properties within the City without first rezoning the subject property to be specifically located within the boundaries of the Overlay Zone. The California Coastal Commission acknowledged this with their effective certification of the City’s LCP and implementing ordinances. In view of this, the City reviewed this project relative to it’s compliance with the applicable Mello 11 LCP policies, standards and regulations and the underlying R-1 zone. As proposed, this project has been designed to be consistent with all applicable coastal policies and provisions including the view-shed provisions of Section 2 1.204.100 of the City’s Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay Zone. Specifically, the Levy residence and garage structures (which range from 30 to 33 feet in height) are below the maximum permitted 35 foot height limit; the development has been clustered (less than 5% total lot coverage) upon the unconstrained portion of the property (outside of the 100 foot wetland buffers) to preserve the existing, though limited, public Ocean view from Pacific Coast Highway and the structures proposed building materials (sandstone colored concrete block with compatible natural copper roof) is compatible with this lagoon setting. It is also important for the Coastal Commission to consider that there is no precedent for applying the City’s Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone to other development within the City’s coastal zone. Numerous Carlsbad coastal development permits for development in highly scenic areas (i.e.; along the bluff edges of Batiquitos Lagoon, Agua Hedionda Lagoon, Buena Vista Lagoon and the Pacific Ocean) have been processed through the Coastal Commission without the application of (or Coastal Commission staff request for application of) the City’s Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone. Adequacy of Lagoon Public Access The Coastal Commission staff finds that the project is inconsistent with the public access policies and provisions of the Mello I1 LCP . With respect to this contention, it is important for the Coastal Commission to understand that the project applicant has worked with the California Coastal Commission staff as well as the California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for in excess of three (3) years for the purpose of reaching agreement on a project design for this site which adequately addresses the following agency objectives: 1) maintaidprovide adequate Lagoon public access, 2) protect sensitive biological resources (i.e.; the Buena Vista Lagoon wetlands and its habitats, and the California light-footed clapper rail) and (3) provide adequate public safety upon this remote property. The plan as proposed incorporates all design CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION APPEAL #A-6-C11-50-98 SEPTEMBER 3,1998 PAGE 3 recommendations and suggestions made by participating agencies, including Coastal Commission staff, during this project design process. In consideration of the identified project objectives, and in compliance with LCP coastal access provisions, the plan as proposed provides enhanced and formalized Lagoon public access opportunities through the construction of a south shore public trail and the maintenance of the other informal public access-way which is located to the east of the adjacent tennis courts. In summary, the project fully complies with all applicable policies and provisions of the Mello I1 LCP segment. Accordingly, the City of Carlsbad requests that the California Coastal Commission find that there are no substantial issues associated with the City’s approval of CDP 97-59 and therefore deny the appeal. Sincerely, MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director c: Carlsbad Mayor and Council Members City Manager Planning Director Assistant Planning Director Principal Planner, Chris DeCerbo John Levy Deborah Lee, Deputy Director for South Coast