The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLCPA 02-10; Habitat Management Plan; Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) (44)AUG-06-2003 01 :49PM FRW -. -_ x I WITH l"E I%' PARTE COMMUNICATION REQUIREM€NTS OF PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SEGllONS 30319-30324. THIS MATERIAL IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD AND HAS BEEN SUBMITIED TO ALL COASTAL COMM19910NERS, THEIR ALTERNATES. AND THE COASTAL COMMISSION STAFF. PETERSON & PRICE A PROPESSIONAL COPPOlATION LA- Union Bank of Calif6 Bug* 530 "B" Street, Suite 1700 San biego, California 9210144S4 Tclcphonc (619) 2340361 Fax (619) 2344786 T-304 P. 002/009 F-034 August 6,2003 Chairperson Mike Reilly and Members of The California Coastal Commission 45 Fremont St., Suite 2000 San Franctsco, CA 94105-2219 Re: Friday, August 8,2003 Agenda Item #lla Carlsbad LCP Amendment No. 1-03b (Habitat Management Plan) Cerblication Revlew Agenda Item #13a - Appeal No. A-6-00-87 (Carlsbad Golf Come) Dear Chalrperson Reilly and Members of The California Coastal Commission: We represent Dianne & Larry Krasnow and thefr family and Cheryl b Bob Kevane and their family ("our clients") with regard to the above referenced matter. As you may recall from our testlmony to you on June 12, 2003 our clients and their families have separately owned 4 legal lots that comprise approximately 20 acres In the City of Carlsbad ("City"). They have owned these 4 lots for 30 years and have been atkmptlng t0 process a Tentative Map application w'wl the City to subdlvide the property for many years now. AUG-06-2003 01 :49PM FROM- - T-304 P. 003/009 F-034 Chairperson Mike Reilly and Members of The California Coastal Commission August 6,2003 Page 2 As we indicated to you on June 12, 2003, implementation of the Habltat Management Plan/Local Coastal Program Amendment ('"MP/LCPA") will effectively take 2 of our clients' 4 legal lots and preclude any development on 75% of the property. StafT's justlflcaffon for this taking was that the property should be classified as ESHA because it contains Southern Maritime Chaparral, We presented testimony and a large amount of evidence indicating that the property does not contain Southern Maritime Chaparral (see attached copy of letter submitted into the record dated June 3, 2003). Your own blologlst agreed with this concluslon. Again, we would urge the California Coastal Commission ("Coastal Commission") to reconsider Its action and allow our clients reasonable use of their land through the adoption of a hardline as set farth in bur letter to Mr. Peter Douglas dated June 4, 2003, The Coastal Commissian cannot concur with the Executive Directot's determination of the action by the City In accepting certfflcation of the LCPA No. 1-036 with modifications as legally adequate, First and foremost, the Coastal Commission did not comply with NEPA when It took action related to Its Federal Consistency Review. To the best of our knowledge, the Coastal Commission has not conducted any Federaf Environmental Review for its Consistency Certification (CC-7-03). AUC-06-2003 01 :58PM Chairperson - FROM- like Reilly and Members ( The California Coastal Cornmlssloii August 6,2003 Page 3 T-307 P.004/009 F-034 As the Coastal Commission is aware, It cannot utllize either the LCP process or the City's Environmental Impact Report to substitute for Federal Environmental Review for its Federal Consistency determination, As such, the Coastal Commission's action concerning the Federal Consistency Revlew and the Coastal Commission's action concerning the City's HMP (because they were "linked" on the Agenda for the hearing on June 12, 2003) are not of any force or etTect. We also note that the Coastal Commission took action on the City's HMP/LCPA on June 12, 2003. The City Council then immediately held a hearing on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 to accept the Coastal Commission's suggested modifications. Since the hearing by the City Council took place only three (3) working days after the Coastal Commission's action concerning the HMP, the Clty did not comply with the ten (10) working days notice requirement in advance of the aty Council's action concerning the Coastal Commission's suggested modifications. Therefore, we do not believe that the Coastal Commission can make a concurrence finding since procedurally the City did not provide the mandatory 10 worklng days notice. Finally, It would appear that the Coastal Commlsslon's acdon on Appeal No. A-6-Cll-00- 087 is also subject to challenge based upon the procedural and environmental issues raised above. - AUC-06-2003 01 :59PM FROM- Chairperson Mike Reilly and Members of The California Coastal Cdmmissiori August 6,2003 Page 4 T-307 P.005/009 F-034 We would also urge the Coastal Commission to reconsider its determination concemlng our clients' property and accept the negotiated hardline. Thank you for your consideration of this request, Sincerely, PETERSON 8~ PRICE A Professional Corporation Matthew A. Peterson Endosure cc: Peter M. Douglas, Exec:utlve Director Ralph Faust, Chid Legal Counsel Dr, John Dixon Caitlin Bean Sherllyn Sarb, Dlstrlct Manager Chuck Damm, Senior Deputy Director Keri Akers, NCCP Program Liaison Michael Holzmlller, Planning Director, aty of Carlsbad Jane Mobaldl, Deputy City Attorney Dianne & Larry Krasnow Cheryl & Bob Kevane STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO AREA 7575 METROPOLITAN DRIVE, SUITE 103 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-4402 (619) 767-2370 August 13,2003 The Hon. Claude A. Lewis Mayor, City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: Certification of the City of ’ Carlsbad Local Coastal Program A m #I -03B (Habitat Management Plan) Dear Mayor Lewis: The California Coastal Commission has reviewed the City’s Resolution Nos. 2003-154 and 2003-155, together with the Commission’s action of June 12,2003 certifying City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program Amendment #1-03B pertaining to the City’s Habitat Management Plan (HMP). In accordance with Section 13544 of the Commission’s Code of Regulations, I have made the determination that the City’s actions are legally adequate, and the Commission has concurred at its meeting of August 8,2003. By its action on June 17,2003, the City has formally acknowledged and accepted the Commission’s certification of the Local Coastal Program Amendment, including all suggested modifications. The modifications addressed revised development limitations on specific properties, included additional requirements for development of the preserve management plan and an amendment to the Implementation Plan (P) of the certified LCP, revised wildlife undercrossing requirements for Poinsettia Lane, and added policy language prohibiting the use of invasive plants in landscaping. The City is already issuing coastal development permits in conformance with the certified local coastal program for this area. Ir, coficlusion, I would like to congrahlate you md all other elected or appointed officials, staff and concerned citizens for continuing to work towards full implementation of the Coastal Act. We remain available to assist you and your staff in any way possible as you continue to develop and implement the City’s local coastal program. Executive Director (E:Reports\LCP’s\Carlsbad\CAR LCPA 1-038 ED checkoff mayorletter.doc)