No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLCPA 99-07; Basement Definition Revision; Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) (7)STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOWICES AGENCY QRAY DAMS, oolnmor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO AREA 3111 CAMIN0 DEL RK) NORTH, SUITE 200 SAN DIEGO, CA 92100-1725 (619) 521-8036 Eric Munoz City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-73 14 Re: City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program Amendment 1-2000 Dear Mr. Munoz: This letter is regarding the March 16,2000 submittal of the City of Carlsbad’s first LCP amendment package for the 2000 calendar year. The package includes five separate actions taken by the City to amend the City’s Zoning Ordinance and LCP Implementation Plan. Section 13553 of the California Code of Regulations states “[aln amendment to a certified LCP or LRDP together with all necessary attachments and exhibits shall be deemed “submitted” after having been received and found by the executive director of the Commission to be in proper order and legally adequate to comply with Public Resources Code Section 305 1O(b). Said review shall be completed within a reasonable time, but unless there are unusual circumstances, no later than ten (10) working days after the date it is received in the Commission offices during normal working hours [. . .I”. As you are aware, staff completed the initial review of the LCP amendment package within the initial 10 day time period and through a letter dated 3/30/00 from Bill Ponder, this office identified several items which the Executive Director determines are necessary to complete the submittal and deem it suitable for filing. With your response letter dated 4/13/00, you included several of the requested items, but asked that we identify the legal authority for requiring the biological surveys, fire suppression plans and resource agency approvals associated with the Manzanita, Roesch and Steiner submittals. Section 13552 of the Commission’s administrative regulations titled Contents of LCP or LRDP Amendment Submittal states in applicable part: The LCP or LRDP amendment submittal shall include: (a). . . . (b) All policies, plans, standards, objectives, diagrams, drawings, maps, photographs, and supplementary data, related to the amendment in sufficient detail to allow review for conformity with the requirements of the Coastal Act.. ... (C) ... (d). . . (e) Any environmental review documents, pursuant to CEQA, required for all or any portion of the amendment to the LCP or LRDP.. . .. (f).... Mr. Eric Munoz May 8,2000 Page 2 Staff has determined the requested information is necessary in order to determine the adequacy of the proposed LCP Implementation Plan amendments to carry out the policies of the certified Mello 11 LCP land use plan. We believe the above stated regulation gives staff the authority to request this information and that this information is necessary in order to find the LCP package is “in proper order and legally adequate to comply with Public Resources Code Section 30510(b)” . That section of the statute states: Consistent with this chapter, a proposed local coastal program may be submitted to the commission, if both of the following are met: (a) It is submitted pursuant to a resolution adopted by the local government, after public hearing that certifies the local coastal program is intended to be carried out in a manner fully in conformity with this division. (b) It contains, in accordance with the guidelines established by the commission, materials sufficient for thorough and complete review. The submittal involves an amendment to the LCP Implementation Plan and has been classified a major amendment. As a major amendment, the Coastal Commission has 60 days to review an implementation plan modification. Therefore, upon receipt of the requested information and completion of the submittal, we will schedule the LCP amendment for the appropriate Commission agenda. Due to workload constraints and the fact that Commission staff is currently working on Carlsbad LCPA #2-99D Kelly Ranch, we anticipate it will be difficult to process the entire submittal within the required time period; therefore, a time extension may be necessary. Please let us know if there is any order of priority for which portions of the submittal should be processed first, and/or if the City is interested in segmenting the submittal in any way. At this time the entire submittal is considered incomplete and not yet filed for purposes of the 60-day time limit. If you have any questions about the processing or scheduling of this amendment, please do not hesitate to call me or Bill Ponder at this office. Sinceply, // District Manager cc: GaryWayne Bill Ponder