Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 97-25; Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course; Coastal Development Permit (CDP) (4)+ - '. L. City of Carlsbad June 14,2000 Bill Ponder California Coastal Commission 31 11 Caminito Del Rio North, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 921 08-1 725 SUBJECT: Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Dear Mr. Ponder: On June 6, 2000 we received a letter from you stating that Commission staff would seek a Commission appeal of the project if approved by the Planning Commission as it is currently proposed. Your letter was distributed to the Planning Commission prior to its decision to approve the project. For your information the project has been revised to eliminate all impacts to the isolated fresh water marsh. Additionally we are redesigning hole #12 to eliminate any impact to the mixed riparian habitat in Macario Canyon. The redesign of hole #12 is a substantial conformance matter that will not require an amendment to the City's coastal permit. Instead it is being processed as an addendum to the construction bid package. On June 12, 2000 the City filed a Notice of Final Action for the golf course project. It is my understanding that the appeal period will end on June 26, 2000 if a valid appeal is not filed. As you know, that notice indicated that the project is within the Commission's appeal jurisdiction. Please note however, that the Post LCP Certification Map that was submitted as part of the City's "Effective Certification" package did not identify any area covered by the golf course project as being within the Commission's appeal jurisdiction. The Macario Canyon riparian area has developed over the last several years through mitigation efforts by the City combined with a more predictable source of water from urban runoff and irrigation related to the adjacent agricultural operations. Without this source of water, the mixed riparian habitat would be reduced in size and it would migrate to the Cannon Road bridge area. In other words, it's not really a natural riparian habitat. This is probably why it was not included within the Commission appeal jurisdiction on the Post LCP Certification Map. Your letter also identifies the issue of encroachment into "dual criteria" steep slopes covered be Policy 4-3 of the City's LCP. The golf course project encroaches into 8.5 acres of dual criteria steep slopes out of 24.9 acres contained on the Huntington Beach property and Macario Canyon. This calculates to approximately a 34% encroachment. I'd like to remind you that, the permit issued by the Coastal Commission for the industrial subdivision of the Huntington Beach property also used the Policy 4-3 as a standard of review and allowed for more than 50% encroachment without any mitigation. 1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-2710 - FAX (760) 602-8560 - ,. . Carlsbad Municipal df Course June 14,2000 Page 2 The golf course project will preserve 13.1 acres of unprotected dual criteria slopes on- site but located outside of the coastal zone. Additionally, the project will preserve 42.3 acres of coastal zone non-protected non-steep slopes that contain higher quality habitat than the dual criteria slopes. Finally, the project includes a re-vegetation program that will restore 1.04 acres of steep coastal slopes. The golf course project follows the example of slope and habitat preservation established by the Pacific Rim (Aviara) project approved by the Coastal Commission. We believe that the golf course project is superior in so many ways to the approved and final industrial subdivisions that it replaces. We also believe that the project was designed to protect and enhance coastal resources to the greatest extent feasible. While we recognize that an amendment to the LCP might be a means to reconcile the apparent inconsistencies between the objectives of the City’s HMP and some of the outdated habitat protection policies contained in the LCP, we believe that the Commission, based on past actions, has the authority to approve the golf course project without a LCP amendment. If the Commission has that authority, then the City must have that same authority. Based on the above, we believe that a fair argument can be made that the Commission does not have appeal jurisdiction in this matter. Therefore, we request that you reconsider your intent to appeal the CDP for the project. We would like to provide any additional information to assist you in your decision. Also, we will make time to meet with you at your convenience. If we meet, we would request that the same people be involved as our previous meeting with you on June gth. Thank you for your attention to this very important matter. Sincerely, *e Community Develo ent Director C: City Manager City Attorney Planning Director Assistant Planning Director Municipal Projects Manager Chuck Damm Deborah Lee Sherilyn Sarb