HomeMy WebLinkAboutLCPA 02-10; Habitat Management Plan; Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) (7)JAMES M, HKKS UND 8 INVEVMENT SALES
January 13,2003
Mr, John Martin
Biologist U.S. DEPARTMENT OF FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICES
6010 Hidden Valley Road
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Re: Levatino Property NWC El Camino Real Dove Lana Carlsbad, CA
Dear Mr. Manin:
Attached with this letter you will find a copy of the Preliminary Vegetation and
Biological Resource Impact Repon on the Levatino property which was prepared by Dudek and Associates on January 12,2000. This work was contracted at the ruggastion of Mr. David Lawhead of the California Department of Fish & Game and Ms. JuSie Vandewier of your department, I have also enclosed an asrial photograph identiFying the
Property.
Following the early inception of the City of Carlsbad's Habitat Management Plan (€IMP)
I held several meetings with Mr. Don Rideout at the City explsining to him the financial
impact to the Levatino 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 Carlobad, the CDF&G and the USF&WS over a period of
about nine months in an ef€on to come to an agreement as to what ponion 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 as 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 Hh4P as land suitable for development and such property would be outlined in "hard-line boundaries" and incorporated into the HMP. The overall
consensus was that the Levatino 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 yoals and objective3 for Core #6 as a viablo habitat corridor. However, the northern 50% of the property waa required for preservation because of its "proximity" to the SDG&E easement located on the east side of El Camino Real. Unfortunately, prior to bringing this agrsement to letter form, the California Coastal Commission indicated a preference to be a pan of the planning process in the formation of the "P as it related to propenies under their jurisdiction. Of particular importance to
them were the LC lands in the coastal zone.
5150 AVENIDA ENClNAS 675 SIERRA ROSE OR., #lo2 RENO, NV BO51 1 (776) 770-2017 9 (775) 770-2018 FAX CARLSBAD, CA 82008 (760) 438-2017 9 (760) 438-4048 FAX
jhicks @ powor~t.na1
For the past 10 months I have been meeting with Ms. Kcri 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
property.
In the final draft of the Habitat Management Plan, as a result of numerous meetings between the Coastal Commission and the City of Carisbad, 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 prestrva
boundary for any of these properties 8s part of the IMP, then the amount of onrite
preservation as identified in the Hardline boundary shall apply.”
The Plan further goes on to say that “The parcel specific standuds listed above arc
adopted because hardline preserve boundary ‘lines were not established at the time of preparation of the HMP, The purpose of the itandards is to ensure that future 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. Ifthe
City, with the concurrence of the wildlife agencies and the Coastal Cornmission through
an LCP amendment, subsequently approves a Hardline preserve boundary for any of the
above-described propenies as part of the HMP, then the onsitc preservation included in
the Hardline preserve boundary shall apply.”
And finally, under the Malor Coastal Commission Rquutcd Revirionr to HMP, the negotiated position is that “Hardline boundaries cun be negotiated in lieu of standards. Boundaries differing from standards require a Local Coastal Plan Amendment (LCPA).”
The purpose of this letter is ask if the U.S. Department of Fish & Wildlife Services would reaffirm their earlier position regarding the approval of the “hard-line boundaries” for
the Levatino property as shown on Figure 4 in the Dudek Report,
I have already spoken with Don Ridcout on this matter and he has stated that the City of Carlsbad would agree to support the approximately 8 acre “hard-line boundary” as shown in the Dudek Report,
I have drafted and delivered a similar letter to Ms. Nancy Froa of the CDF&O on thir
same subject. With the re-affirmation of the City of Catlsbad, 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 Dudck Rcpon.
I will be meeting with Keri Akers and the State Biologist from the California Coastal
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 boundsritx
Your assistance and cooperation in this matter would be greatly appreciated,
cc: Mra. Joseph Levatino Mr. Andrew Potter, Esq. Mr, Don Rideout