HomeMy WebLinkAboutLCPA 02-10; Habitat Management Plan; Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) (6)JAMES Me HICKS UNO 8 IlWESTMENl SALES
January 13,2003
,
Ms. Nancy Frost
Wildlife Biologist CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME
4949 Viewridge Avenue
San Diego, CA 92123
Re: Levatino Property NWC El Camino Real Dove Lane Carlsbad, CA
Dear Nancy:
Attached with this letter you will find a copy of the Preliminary Veptation and
Biological Resource Impact Rtport on the Lcvatino property which was prepared by Dudek and Associates on January 12,2000. This work was contracted a! the suggestion of Mt. David Lawhead of your department and Ms. Julie Vandewier of the U.S,
Department of Fish & Wildlife Services. I have also enclosed an aerial photograph identifying the property.
Following the early inception of the City of Carlsbed’s Habitat Management Plan (KMP) I held several meetings with Mr. Don Rideout at the City explaining to him the financial impact to the Lcvatino property should the HMP only allow the development of 25% of the land as was originally proposed. At the suggestion of Mr. Rideout we had several joint meetings with the City of Carlsbad, the CDF&G and the USF&WS over a period of
about nine months in an effort to come to an agrement M to what portion of the property
could be economically viable for development and still meet the guidelines and
objectives of the City of Carlsbad’s Habitat Management Plan 8s well as the concerns of both the CDF&G and the USF&WS.
As a result of these meetings, the CDF$G, the USF&WS and the City of Carlsbad had all
agreed verbally that the shaded portion of the property shown on Figure 4 of the Dudek
study would be defined in the HMP as land suitable for development and such property
would be outlined in “hard-line boundaries” and incorporated into the HMP. The overaIl
cornensus was that the Lcvatino property did not contain a high level of sensitive habitat
and, more importantly because it is surrounded by development, it would not play an
effective role in contributing to the goals and objectives for Core #6 as a viable habitat corridor. Unfortunately, prior to bringing this agreement to letter form, the California
Coastal Commission indicated a preference to bo a part of the planning process in the
formation of the HMP as it related to properties under their jurisdiction. Of particular
importance to them were the LC lands in the coastal zone.
51 50 AVENIDA ENClNAS CARLSBAD, CA 82008 (760) 438-201 7 (760) 438448 FAX 675 SIERRA ROSE DR,, $102 RENO, NV 8951 1 (775) 770-2017 6 (775) 77O-20?8 FAX JhlcbO powernet.not
For the past 10 months I have been meeting with Ms. Keri Akers at the California Coastal
Commission in an attempt to bring the Commission into alignment with the agencies and the City of Carlsbad regarding the approved “hard-line boundaries” of the Levatino
Propmy 1
In the final draft of the Habitat Management Plan, as a result of numerous meetings between the Coastal Commission and the City of Carlsbad, there are provisions that allow for the development of more than 25% of the Levatino property. For example, it is stated in the Plan that “If the City, with the concurrences of the wildlife agencies and the
Coastal Commission through an LCP amendment, approves a Hardline preserve
boundary for any of these properties a8 part ofthe W, then the amount of onsite preservation as identified in the Hardline boundary shall apply.”
The Plan further goes on to say that “The parcel specific standards listed above are
adopted because hardline preserve boundary lines were not established at the time of
preparation of the W. The purpose of the standards is to ensure that &me development is sited to preserve the maximum amount of ESHA within the coastal zone
and to establish a viable habitat corridor and preserve area in Zones 20 and 21, If the City, with the concurrence of the wildlife agencie~ and the Coastal Commission through an LCP amendment, subsequently approves a Hardline preserve boundary for my of the
above-described properties as part of the HMP, then the onsite preservation included in
the Hardline preserve boundary shall apply.”
And finally, under the Major Coastal Commit~rion Requested Revisions to HMP, tho negotiated position is that “Hardline boundariee can be negotiated in lieu of gtandards. Boundaries differing fiom standards require a Local Coastal Plan Amendment (LCPA).”
The purpose of this letter is ask if the California Department of Fish & Game would re- afirm their earlier position regarding the approval of the “hard-line boundaric~’’ for the
Levatino propeny as shown on Figure 4 in the Dudck Rcpofi.
I have already spoken with Don Rideout on this matter and he has stated that the City of
Carlebad would agree to support the approximately 8 acre “hard-line boundary” as shown in the Dudek Report.
I am in hopes of meeting with Mr. John Martin of the USFBtWS next wock on this mame
subject, With the re-affirmation of the City of Carlsbad, the CDF&G and the USF&WS
it is my goal to ask that the Coastal Commission follow the recommendations of the City
and the agencies regarding this matter and adopt the “hard-line boundary” in the Dudek Report.
I will be meeting with Keri Akers and the State Biologist from tp California Cordd
Commission on the Levatino property next Tuesday, January 14 , to tour the site and
develop an opinion from her regarding the approval of the Dudek boundariw,
Your assistance and cooperation in this matter would be greatly appreciated.
ssuuamm Cc: Mrs. Joseph Levatino Mr. Andrew Potter, Esq. Mr. Don Rideout