Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLCPA 02-10; Habitat Management Plan; Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) (13)JAMES M. HICKS LAND & INVESTMENT SWS October 2 1,2002 Ms, Keri Akcrs Coastal Program Analyst State of California CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSlON 7575 Metropolhan Drive, Suite 103 San Diego, CA 92 108-4402 Re: Levatino Property Carlsbad, CA Dear Kcri : Over the past few months I have worked closely with you in an attempt to bring you up- to-date regarding the status of the above-referenced property as it relates to the City of Carlsbad's Habitat Management Plan, the needs of the U.S Fish & Wildlife Service and the concerns of the California Department of Fish & Game. The purposc of these visits was to provide you with a summary ofthe detailed work that had been completed by these three entities as it related to the development ofthe Levatino propmy The recent emergence of the California Coastal Commission into these early discussions was not anticipated. Although, discussions on the development of this property were held with the staff at the California Coastal Commission on more than one occasion. I have carefully reviewed your notes from our last meeting and discussed them with Mr. Jack Henthorn who has been a consultant on the Levatino property for the past several years. We have the following comments tn make on selective topics as they relate to the environmental status of the property and the constraints of development. We have determined that the developable portions of the property could, in fact, be impacted by slightly less than 80% of ESHA. We continue to work on a determination of those net lands available for development. Access The intersection spacin8 tquircments mandated by the City of Carlsbad will not allow primary access fiom El Camino Real. The primary access must be taken from Dove Lane. In order not to impact the small wetland area on the site, to meet the intersection spacing requirements for Dove Lane and, to meet the LTradiny criteria, the primary access must be taken toward the central portion of the propeny. For safety purposes, a secondary access is required. The wetland limitations and the intersection spaciny requirements will not allow for a secondary access on Dove Lane. The secondary access for emergency purposes, to be located along El Camino Real, must bc located toward the central ponion of the property as well to meet the criteria set forth by the Engineering 51 SO AVENIOA ENCINAS * CARLSBAD, CA 92006 (760) 436-2017 * (760) 438.4048 FAX jhlck8Opowernet.net 675 SIERRA ROSE DR., #lo2 * RENO, NV 8851 1 (775) 770-2017 (775) 770-2018 FAX Department at the City of Carlsbad as wcll as the Carlsbad Fire Department. Both required access points must be located toward the central portion of the property. The property is long and narrow. with substantial street improvement rquirements on both El Camino Real and Dove Lane. There is a 45 foot setback requirement along El Camino Real. To avoid 25% slopes, and ESHA. as well as provide the required access and setback requirements needed to develop the property is not physically possible. There are approximately 3.69 acres of Disturbed Coastal Sage, Annual Non-Native Grassland, Developed Land and other Disturbed Habitat on the property. These habitats are scattered over the entire property. The connection of these specific habitats to provide for gn economically feasible site for development is not possible as well. There is only one small wetland area identified on the property According to the Biological Survey that was conducted on the property, this area consists of 0.03 acres of land. ,All efforts will be made to provide for a 100’ setback tiom this small wetland area. 25YO Dcve n micUse According to the Growth Management Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad and the General Plan of the City, the Levatino Property has been allowed to develop 65 residential units based upon approximately t 1 acres of “unconstrained“ lend as defined to determine allowable density. In order to develop the property to its intended use, the City of Carlsbad (and other controlling agencies) will require that specific “on-site’’ and “off- site” improvements be completed. They will also require that fees be paid. As the unit count on the property is reduced (i.e. 25% maximum site development), the individual costs per unit will increase, which will impact the economic viability of the property. While many LC lands in the City of Carlsbad contain Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas, they arc not all alike and we do not believe they should all be held to the same development constraints. As you can see with the Levatino property. provisions for access; types of ESHA. setback requirements, required roadways, abutting land uses, slopes, allowable lot coverage, sound attenuation walls, mitigation requirements, height limitations, utility easements, topography, zoning and emergency requirements, to name a few, all impact each property differently. It is my Understanding that the California Coasral Commission had been working under that premise for the past several years. And in fact, have recently approved development in Zones 20 and 21 during that time. Other Agency Comment3 The primaty goal of the meetings between the City of Carlsbad, the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish & Game and the consultants representing the Levatino property was 10 define that property’s role in the Habitat Management Plan. To that end, we arrived at a mutually acceptable building “envelope” with an emphasis on preservin8 the northern 50% of the property in Core # 6 , cvcn thought the property has no direct physical relationship to Core #6 and is not a part of any proposed Linkage Area. The general consensus of those meetings was that the Levatino property playcd no major role in the Habitat Mana~ement Plan. In Carlsbad alone, the California Coastal Commission has approved the development of thousands of acres of land. The Levatino property is completely surrounded by some of thost. approvals There has been much precedence set on the part of the Coastal Commission and, in most cases. it has not limited maximum site development to 25%. The current draft text of the Habitat Management Plan, proposed by the City of Carlsbad almost three years ago with support ftom the U.S Department of Fish & Wildlife and the California Department of Fish & Game, will have a major impact upon what pdvate landholdings throughout the a City may qualify for development. As with my efforts on the Levatino property, ir is my understanding that other property owners in the City of Carlsbad were working closely with these groups to work out a mutually beneficial arrangement. In addition, others were meeting with the Coastal Commission staff as well, Unlike those landowners located outside of the coastal zone, owners of property in the coastal zone are currently faced with a double jeopardy in the preparation and adoption of the Habitat Management Plan, They have to not only meet the HMP criteria as set forth by the City of Carlsbad, the U.S. Department of Fish & Wildlife and the California Department of Fish & Game, but also suffer further from the “overlap” of the California Coastal Commission. They have already given up on “Cores” and ”Linkayes” and, in many cases, there is very tittle left to give In an effort to complete the Habitat Management Plan I do not believe the California Coastal Commission has to compromise the LCP. But 1 would hope they would take into consideration the impact the Habitat ManaBement Plan has already made on property owners located within the coastal zone. And first and foremost, determine whether the Plan achieves its major goal, Which, 1 had always thought was a mutually defined goal. As to the Levatino property, we ask the California Coastal Commission considcr approval of the building b‘cnvclope’’ as outlined in my earlier letter to you. In our discussions with the City of Carlsbad, the U.S. Department of Fish & Wildlife and the California Department of Fish & Game, we agreed to eliminate approximately 50% of the land for development; although we felt we had a strong argument as to why we should not be 90 impacted. In exchange, we would be allowed to develop the remaining 50%. Having not been a part of the discussions, we had no idea that the California Coastal Commission was going to finher limit our developrncnt by another SO'?? In closing. I would like to thank you very much for takin8 the time to meet with me and discuss with you the concerns of the Levatino family I am in hopes that a final Plan can be developed that not only achieves the goals of the HMP, but also considers those of the impacted landowners in the coastal zone.