Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-09-02; City Council; 6356; Amicus Brief-. CITY OF CARLSBAD I_ AGE??D:i BILL NO. ($ 3 5-6 PATE L September 2, 1980 DEPARTME" City Attorney Initiai: Dept . Hd G. Xgrr c!. Atty-B a Sub j ec t : PMICUS PARTICIPATION IN CHULA VISTA LCP LITIGATION . Statement of the Matter The City of Chula Vista, in a letter to the Mayor dated August 19, 1980, has asked that we help them in their litigation against the Coastal Commission. That letter and another of the same date, addressed to me, discuss the background of the litigation and the reasons why Chula Vista feels litigation is necessary. Our office has secured copies of Chula Vista's pleadings. The city challenges the State Coastal Commission's imposition of conditions on their LCP which substantially change the plan as approved by the City and the F-egional Commission. The conditions require elimination of a major hotel site and new public beach and with the other changes, in the City's view, make the plan completely infeasible. The City makes a number of factual and legal arguments that relate to Chula Vista's particular situation. However, the City also raises three main points which also directly affect Tarlsbad's LCP processing: 1. They assert the Commission has an obligation to balance 2. 3. all of the policies of the Act in arriving at a decision. That the implementation of an approved LCP by a City ' must be feasible. That the Act provides that the precise content of a LCP was a matter for the City's discretion; that the Comission may not, under the guise of conditions, significantly alter the plan as approved by the City. If the City Council considers these issues of interest ,to Carlsbad, you may wish to authorize our participation as an amicus on behalf of Chula Vista at no cost to the City. EXHIBITS Letter to Mayor Ronald C. P.ackard from Mayor Kill T. Hyde, dated August 19, 1980. Letter to Vincent F. Biondo, Jr. from George D. Lindberg, dated August 19, 1980. ' That the City Council-determine whether or not they wish to participate in Chula Vista's LCF litigation. I AGENDA BILL NO. 6356 Page 2 Council Action: 9-2-80 Council authorized the City's participation as amicus curiae in Chula Vista's LCP litigation. - DO Rpr-Ra -5~ otj~ City of Chula Vista, California OFFICE OF THE MAYOR I Will 1,Hyde August 19, 1980 Mayor Ronald C. Packard City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA. 92008 Dear Mayor Packard: As you may know, the City of Chula Vista is currently requesting a Writ of Mandate and Declaratory Relief in a lawsuit filed last November against the California Coastal Commission. The liti- gation seeks to require the Commission to approve Chula Vista's Local Coastal Program (LCP) as submitted. We ask judicial determination of the limits of the powers of the Commission in imposing conditions and developing an LCP totally contrary to the interests and desires of local communities. Chula Vista entered upon this litigation, with the assistance of Pacific Legal Foundation, fully willing to bear the total financial burden of the litigation and confident of sustaining our position without support from other communities, who might have a vital interest in the outcome of the lawsuit. However, as a result of an action filed by the Coastal Council in the Monterey Superior Court on July 28, we have concluded that it is essential to solicit support from all of the communities which may ultimately be affected by the decision. The court has denied the Petition for a Writ in that case. We are now especially concerned that our factual situation be given a hearing prior to that in the Monterey lawsuit on the appellate level since we believe that we do have a very sound position. Very briefly, the City of Chula Vista's Local Coastal Program as submitted to the Coastal Commission provides for the development of our presently unused and inaccessible Bayfront area composed of a resort hotel as the focal point surrounded by moderate and CIVIC CENTER 276 FOURTH AVENUE CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010 TELEPHOE(714) 575-5044 a August 19, 1980 Page Two medium priced hous,ng, substantial open space, recreational and commercial visitor facilities including a motel/restaurant complex, which would not only enhance the window or entrance to our City by eliminating the blighted conditions which exist, but would, for the first time, provide access to the Bayfront for our own residents and visitors while protecting the very sensitive and valuable marsh and wetlands complex that exists in the area. The City of Chula Vista has been acutely aware of environmental and ecological demands that must be served in this area. We have consistently worked with our own consultants, representatives of the Fish and Wildlife Service, other governmental (179 govern- mental agencies) and nongovernmental biologists and the Coastal Commission itself to insure that the LCP would reflect an economically and aesthetically viable plan. It will maximize the preservation of ecologically sensitive areas which are presently, in our opinion, endangered by continued inaction. This work carried out by the City of Chula Vista for over a decade has resulted in very heavy financial costs to the City in addition to two inverse condemnation actions for claims exceeding $10 million from property owners in the area who seek to pursue industrial development of the Bayfront. We are now convinced that the Coastal Commission through the imposition of conditions upon our LCP jeopardizes not only the economic viability of the plan, but eliminates any reasonable prospect of saving the marsh and wetlands complex. The Coastal Commission's conditions, in fact, gut our LCP by eliminating the development of the site carefully chosen for the location of the hotel, forbidding construction of an essential roadway over a degraded and largely developed part of the marsh, and eliminating development in other areas of the Bayfront that have been determined to be particularly well suited for the prescribed uses. Chula Vista has been left with no other recourse but to challenge the Coastal Commission's action in the courts. 3 August 19, 1980 Page Three In 1976 when the Coastal Act was adopted, a major controversy existed over the authority for coastal land use planning vis-a-vis the Coastal Commission and local government agencies. It was clearly determined that local governments had the responsibility for such land use planning and the preparation of LCPs. The Legislature agreed and so enacted that local governments should have the dominant role in planning after 1976. We believe that the Coastal Commission has subtly ignored that legislative mandate and seeks, from a position of indifference to economic needs and realities of our community, to dictate what is best for the development of our coastal zone. The composition of the Coastal Commission and its staff are totally unrepresentative of the Chula Vista community. The Local Coastal Program approved by the Commission subject to the conditions imposed by the Commission is not Chula Vista's LCP, but the Commission's. This is contrary to the provisions of the Coastal Act. It results in the complete negation of areas of cooperation and compromise between the City of Chula Vista and the Commission. We have from the beginning been willing to listen, to change and to modify any response to any reasonable requests in our dealings with the San Diego Coastal Regional Commission, of which I am a member, up to the State Commission. Those of us on the City Council and the large number of citizens in our community who have participated in the development of a plan for our Bayfront since 1969 are both disappointed and disillusioned. The Commission's action, which could be repeated in its dealings with other communities preparing an LCP, ours being the first in the state, will effectively end the planning function of local government. I believe that it is essential, especially with the advent of the Monterey County lawsuit, that local governments affected by the Coastal Commission's decisions seriously consider participation in our lawsuit. A united front and widespread support of Chula Vista's position by your city and a host of other cities along the California coast will carry substantial weight. Therefore, I earnestly solicit your city's entering the case as a serving local authority over coastal planning. I would emphasize that C hul an ----_ not seek any financial assistance, but only the court brief. nd-aLthe cou rt jasserting our vital common interest in pre- >i r drip the mm of your City Attorney in the preparation of a friend of I. _- August 19, 1980 Page Four I would be delighted to discuss this matter with you personally. You may also wish to discuss the details of the case and your city’s potential participation with your City Attorney who has been contacted by Mr. Don Lindberg, Chula Vista’s City Attorney. Our Litigation Counsel is Mr. Howard E. Susman of Pacific Legal Foundation. Very truly yours, Will T. Hyde Mayor WTH : lgk OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Azlgtibt 19, 1980 Mr. Vincent F. Biondo, Jr. City Attorney City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Biondo: As you may know, the City of Chula Vista is currently requesting a Writ of Mandate and Declaratory Relief in a lawsuit filed last November against the California Coastal Commission. The liti- gation seeks to require the Commission to approve Chula Vista's Local Coastal Program (LCP) as submitted. We ask judicial determination of the limits of the powers of the Comnission in imposing conditions and developing an LCP totally contrary to the interests and desires of local communities. Chula Vista entered upon this litigation, with the assistance of Pacific Legal Foundation, fully willing to bear the total financial burden of the litigation and confident of sustaining our position without support from other communities who might have a vital interest in the outcome of the lawsuit. However, as a result of an action filed by the Coastal Council in the Monterey Superior Court on July 28, we have concluded that it is essential to solicit support from all of the communities which may ultimately be affected by the decision. The court has denied the Petition for a Writ in that case. We are especially concerned that our factual situation be given a hearing prior to that in the Monterey lawsuit on the appellate level since we believe that we do have a very sound position. Very briefly, the City of Chula Vista's Local Coastal Program, as submitted to the Coastal Commission, provides for the development of our presently unused and inaccessible Bayfront area composed of a resort hotel as the focal point surrounded by moderate and 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010 (714)xWm 575-5037 August 19, 1980 Page Two medium priced housing, substantial open space, recreational and commercial visitor facilities including a motel/restaurant complex, which would not only enhance the window or entrance to our City by eliminating the blighted conditions which exist, but would, for the first time, provide access to the Bayfront for our own residents and visitors while protecting the very sensitive and valuable marsh and wetlands complex that exists in the area. The City of Chula Vista has been acutely aware of environmental and ecological demands that must be served in this area. We have consistently worked with our own consultants, representatives of the Fish and Wildlife Service, other governmental (179 govern- mental agencies) and nongovernmental biologists and the Coastal Commission itself to insure that the LCP would reflect an economically and aesthetically viable plan. It will maximize the preservation of ecologically sensitive areas which are presently, in our opinion, endangered by continued inaction. This work carried out by the City of Chula Vista for over a decade has resulted in very heavy financial costs to the City in addition to two inverse condemnation actions for claims exceeding $10 million from property owners in the area who seek to pursue industrial development of the Bayfront. We are now convinced that the Coastal Commission through the imposition of conditions upon our LCP jeopardizes not only the economic viability of the plan, but eliminates any reasonable prospect of saving the marsh and wetlands complex. The Coastal Commission's conditions, in fact, gut our LCP eliminating the development of the site carefully chosen for the location of the hotel, forbidding construction of an essential roadway over a degraded and largely developed part of the marsh, and eliminating development in other areas of the Bayfront that have been determined to be particularly well suited for the prescribed uses. Chula Vista has been left with no other recourse but to challenge the Coastal Commission's action in the courts. August 19, 1980 Page Three In 1976 when the Coastal Act was adopted, a major controversy existed over the authority for coastal land use planning vis-a-vis the Coastal Commission and local government agencies. It was clearly determined that local governments had the responsibility for such land use planning and the preparation of LCPs. The Legislature agreed and so enacted that local governments should have the dominant role in planning after 1976. We believe that the Coastal Commission has subtly ignored that legislative mandate and seeks, from a position of indifference to economic needs and realities of our community, to dictate what is best for the development of our coastal zone. The composition of the Coastal Commission and its staff are totally unrepresentative of the Chula Vista community. The Local Coastal Program approved by the Commission subject to the conditions imposed by the Commission is not Chula Vista's LCP, but the Commission's. This is contrary to the provisions of the Coastal Act. It results in the complete negation of areas of cooperation and compromise between the City of Chula Vista and the Commission. We have from the beginning been willing to listen, to change and to modify any response to any reasonable requests in our dealings with the San Diego Coastal Regional Commission, up to the State Commission. The Commission's action which could be repeated in its dealings with other communities preparing an LCP, of which ours was the first in the state, will effectively end the planning function of local government. In our challenge to the Commission, we have contended that the procedure for certification of LCPs does not include authority for the Commission to "conditionally certify". The specific: procedures set forth in Section 30512 of the Act does not allow for such authority to be implied as it ordinarily is for agency approval. Modification of an LCP through conditions further deprive interested parties of their right to participate guaranteed by Section 30503. Moreover, it violates Section 30500(c) . While our pleadings raise numerous issues relating to the interpretions of the resource policies of the Coastal Act, in particular Section 30233 (wetlands) and Section 30240 (environ- mentally sensitive areas) the thrust of our suit is that the Commission has usurped the City's authority for planning in our 8 August 19, 1980 Page Four part of the coastal zone. We further claim that the Comission has failed to balance environmental and economic considerations as required by Section 30007.5 (See Billings v. California Coastal Commission 103 C.A.3d 729, 739, 745 1980), and that the plan as conditioned by the Commission is infeasible of implementation for reasons of private marketing and public finances. Our Mayor Will Hyde has written to your Mayor soliciting the participation of your City in Chula Vista v. California Coastal Commission as amicus curiae. I am hopeful that you concur with my concern and will urge your city to participate. I would also ask that you use whatever influence you might have to encourage Monterey County to also join us as amicus and defer action on their case until we secure a hearing on what we believe to be substantially sounder facts. The City of Chula Vista requests only your judgment and reasoning in an amicus brief and no costs of litigation. -- - Please call me or Mr. Howard E. Susman of the Pacific Legal Foundation, who is our Litigation Counsel, if you would like to discuss this matter further. Mr. Susman may be reached at (916) 444-0154. Very truly yours, v City Attorney GDL : lgk ?