Property Transferred to State of California

The property was transferred to the State of California on January 5, 2012. Grantor: Laser to Grantee: State of California.

View Larger Map

Project Location Map

You can use this map to navigate around the area where this project was proposed. The California Coastal Commission still has this project under review. Last year they found substantial issue with the project on more than four areas.


View Larger Map

Coastal Commission Hearing Not Yet Scheduled

This item was planned to be on the February CCC meeting in Oceanside this week, however it has not yet been scheduled.

Substantial Issue Found

Yesterday, July 9, 2009 at 5:40pm pacific time, the California Coastal Commission found that a "Substantial Issue" exists on this project. No Commissioner's objected, therefore, no public testimony was allowed. This has moved to a de novo (start all over again) hearing to be scheduled, perhaps in February 2010 in San Diego.

The staff report recommended that substantial issue exists on the items we raised previously with the City. Their staff report and the Commissioner's appeals can be found HERE. It is worth reading the first 14 pages.

The following is the conclusion from the staff report:
Conclusion:
Based on the information that has been provided by the appellants,
it appears the City approval of the boundary adjustment and construction of a home on
each lot is inconsistent with RM Policies 10.1, 10.6, 10.10, PS Policy 1.2 of the City’s
certified LUP and Section 30.34.030B of the certified IP. Therefore, the Commission
finds that a substantial issue exists with respect to the consistency of the local
government action with the City's certified Local Coastal Program.

Substantial Issue Factors
As discussed above, there is inadequate factual and legal support for the City’s determination that the proposed development is consistent with the certified LCP. The other factors that the Commission normally considers when evaluating whether a local government’s action raises a substantial issue also support a finding of substantial issue. The objections to the project suggested by the appellants raise substantial issues of regional or statewide significance, the coastal resources affected by the decision are significant, and this decision may create a poor precedent with respect to the local government's future interpretations of its LCP.

California Coastal Commission Appeals

Two commissioners appealed this project. The appeal hearing is on July 9, 2009 in San Luis Obispo. Their appeal raised similar issues described here and expanded on a few. Very good work on their part. The staff report states that the findings for "substantial issue" exist. The staff report recommends the commission find substantial issue and move to a de novo hearing (start all over again).

Appeal to the Coastal Commission

We gave the City Council five very good reasons to reduce slope encroachment and impact to wetlands. However, they voted 4 to 1 to approve the project. We are appealing to the Coastal Commission and hope for better results.

The City violated the Hillside Inland Bluff Overlay Zoning Ordinance. This has serious consequences to steep slope areas. We will work to stop this from happening again.

Anytime a project is proposed on steep slope areas the driveways and access roads are being excluded from slope encroachment. This is happening when they do not lead to areas where the slope is less than 25%. In other words, the bigger a developer makes their driveway, the less impact they have. This was not the intent of the Hillside Inland Bluff Overlay Zone.

This must stop or we will lose more and more of our hillsides to development. What is the penality for violating zoning law? Let us know.