Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 97-59; Levy Residence; Coastal Development Permit (CDP) (45)August25, 1998 c RE: Coastal Development Permit (CDP 97-59) CCC Appeal #A-6-98-98 Enclosures: 1) A letter of protest to Mr. Peter Douglas dated August 25, 1998. 2) My response to coastal staffs substantial issues appeal. 3) Applicant Response to StaEReport. 4) A chronology of CCC Correspondence and Meetings 5) Assorted site maps. 6) Letters of Support for the project and the withdrawal of Appeal #A-6- 98-98. Dear Commissioners, I have worked diligently for over three years with the respective resource agencies in an attempt to build a home for my family adjacent to the Buena Vista Lagoon. The attached chronology will attest to the facts that this process began on 10/26/95. After fifteen months of site meetings, biology studies, correspondence, memos, and telephone conversations the resource agencies and I met on 1/22/97 for our find meeting. On that day Mr. Bill Ponder, coastal analyst for the CCC was a participant as he had been for all of the meetings. in that meeting we finally agreed to d of the ‘‘conditions of development for approval.” These conditions were spelled out in a letter (Exhibit I) and site plan (Exhibit J) from USF&W dated 2/13/97. c Albeit the conditions were stringent we felt that they were a fair compromise in response to the agencies’ concerns to biological, environmental, public access and view sheds questions. They included: 1) 100’ setbacks on two of our three property boundaries. 2) An irrevocable offer to dedicate to CDF&G a 100’ habitat setback area. This would include the removal of non native plant materials, applying a native grass seed, and instal@ a 6’ chain link fence to prevent human or pet intrusion into this sensitive habitat area. 1 3) Dedicate a 25’ wide public coastal access trail along the southern shore of the Buena Vista Lagoon. This would include a 6’ fence along the southern property boundary to minimize the impact of pets into the marsh and lagoon environments. 4) Install low level lighting on the residence as to minimize it’s impact on wildlife. 5) Due to the breeding season of the light footed clapper rail I would be allowed to construct fiom 8-1 through 3-1 only. Because of the setback requirements imposed upon us by the resource agencies it was required for us to perform a boundary adjustment. Ifwe had not done this it would have been considered a “talcing”. On 2/6/97 the CCC was sent (Exhibit L) a memo which included the adjustment plat for the two lots of the subject property. (Exhibit M). CCC did not comment. On 11/4/97 a certificate of compliance (COC) was recorded (Exhibits NM) for the two lots. CCC did not comment. On 12/20/97 CDP 97-59 for the property was submitted to the City of Carlsbad. Site plan (Exhibit P) In April of 1998 CDP 97-59 with an associated mitigated negative declaration was sent to all of the resource agencies for comment. No agency commented including ccc. On 5/12/97 the City of Carlsbad recorded a Notice of Exemption for the boundary adjustment. CCC did not comment. On 7/1/98 CDP 97-59 was heard and approved unanimously by the Carlsbad Planning Commission. Not a single person fiom the community attended the meeting nor were there any protests received fiom noticing. CCC did not comment. On July 27, 1998 at 5:00, the last day of the appeal period we received a notice of appeal fkom CCC. We were astonished! Coastal staff had been “part and parcel” to each and every decision along the way! Coastal s&fs appeal: 1) LegaI site access 2) The requirement for an additional CDP for a boundary adjustment. 3) Public view fiom the coast highway. 4) Public access to the lagoon. 2 On July 31, Bob Sukup and I met with Bill Ponder and Lee McEachern from coastal staff, and Craig Adams from Commissioners Kehoe’s office to address the reasons for the appeal. It became extremely obvious that staff had misplaced or lost the entire file to this very sensitive site. We supplied them again with all of the pertinent documents, site maps, and photographs, in an attempt to resolve this issue at the stafflevel. On August 1 1, 1998 Commissioner Kehoe asked local staff to withdraw the appeal. In a ConverSation with Mayor Lewis of Carlsbad Ms. Kehoe stated that “local stu3 had misrepresented the facts of the appeal to her and she wished to withdraw her appeal”. On August 14&, 1998 Mayor Lewis states in a letter to Ms. Kehoe (Exhibit Q) that we have met all of the conditions of the LCP, and he asks her to withdraw her appeal. On August 17, 1998 Bill Ponder states in a telephone conversation with me. ‘7 feel really badabout this whole thing, and it is my feeling that you are in fill compliance with the LCP”. I had been led to believe that we had addressed all of the issues for the appeal. August 21, 1998, I received a telephone call from Mr. Ponder stating that staff will be continuing the appeal with substantial issues, and a de novo hearing. When I asked what the “substantial issues’’ were, he informed me as to the following: 1) Incompatibility of building materials including the copper roof 2) Reduce the height of the residence fiom 31’ to 25’. This would result in an 3) Eliminate the USF&W conditioned 6’ fence along the northern lagoon setback. 4) Create a pedestrian path in the USFgtW conditioned wildtife setback area. 5) Place a pedestrian gate at Mountain View on a piece of land that is owned by entire redesign and engineering of the residence. an adjacent neighbor. AU of these “substantial issues” had never been discussed prior to 8/21/98 as a condition for development. More importantly two of the them are completely contrary to the conditions placed upon us by USF&W and our consulting biologist recommendations. Finally they were conditioning us to construct a public access pedestrian gate on a neighbor’s property! The irony of this process is this. 1) Coastal staff was involved in each decision, and every meeting and kept apprised of every development. 3 c c 2) They were active participants in the 1/22/97 conditions for development 3) They were sent a memo and site plan on 2/6/97 as to the boundary adjustment 4) They were kept apprised of the certificate of compliance recorded 11/4/97, 5) They never commented on the mitigated negative declaration in April, 1998 6) They did not comment of the Notice of Exemption for the lot line adjustment 7) They did not comment during the eight month processing and issuance of CDP 8) They elect to appeal CDP 97-59, although they have lost virtually every piece 9) When Commissioner Kehoe asked staff to withdraw the appeal because “the 10) On 8/21 I am idormed of what the “new substantial issues” are to be, meeting with all of the resource agencies. per the conditions of the resource agencies. during the resource agency review period. recorded by the City of Carlsbad on 5/21/97. 97-59. of documentation to the site! facts of the appeal were misrepresented to her”, they declined to do so! although they have never been raised before this date. Commissioner, today is Tuesday August 25,1998, and I still do not have the StaflFreport. As you know it is essential that I respond to the ‘substantial issues” in writing no later than 8/28/98 for your review. Unless three commissioners elect to verbally hear my arguments at the meeting, the entire appeal will be based upon staffs ‘substantial issues stafT report” and my written response to them. Fairness in the process would dictate that I would have the opportuNty to prepare my response to a Ween page report in less than one day! St& has had 30 days to prepare their argument. I ask the following: 1) That this appeal be withdrawn. 2) If my written response is not compelling enough for withdrawal than the 3) If “substantial issues” are found then the “de novo” hearing be commenced Commissioners vote to allow an open discussion. immediately. Commissioner, I am faced with the following hardships: 1) I have sold my current home in anticipation of breaking ground 8/15. 2) I have finished engineered plans ready to pull a permit. 3) I have a loan commitment for construction. 4) I have hired a building supervisor. 4 5) I have retained a general building contractor 6) I have commitments to various subcontractors. 7) I have met all of the conditions of the LCP. 8) I was issued CDP 97-59 per the City of Carlsbad. 9) I am limited to a building window of 8/1 through 3/1 due to the light footed clapper rail. In closing I ask for you to withdraw the appeal and substantial issues. I have complied with all of the resource agencies conditions to development. Even if there are “substantial issues” found they are of a technical nature. The bottom line is what conditions would be changed in the process? My family should not be held hostage, and delayed by an agency that was an active participant in the placing of those conditions. Thank you for your consideration. d 5