UPDATE: NO SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE FOUND
ABSTRACT: On Wednesday, March 11, 2015, Chula Vista Council Chambers, Chula Vista, CA., the California Coastal Commission is scheduled to consider Appeal No. A-3-CML-15-0004 (Jarve, Carmel-by-the-Sea) Appeal by Stephen Beutler of Carmel-by-the Sea decision granting permit with conditions to John and Jacque Jarve to demolish 3,182 sq.ft. single-family home and construct new 2,631 sq.ft., 2-level single-family home on Scenic Road, Carmel-by-the-Sea, Monterey County. (AK-SC).Staff Recommendation: No Substantial Issue
ABSTRACT: On Wednesday, March 11, 2015, Chula Vista Council Chambers, Chula Vista, CA., the California Coastal Commission is scheduled to consider Appeal No. A-3-CML-15-0004 (Jarve, Carmel-by-the-Sea) Appeal by Stephen Beutler of Carmel-by-the Sea decision granting permit with conditions to John and Jacque Jarve to demolish 3,182 sq.ft. single-family home and construct new 2,631 sq.ft., 2-level single-family home on Scenic Road, Carmel-by-the-Sea, Monterey County. (AK-SC).Staff Recommendation: No Substantial Issue
SUMMARY
OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea approved a CDP authorizing the demolition of an existing 3,182 square foot single-family residence and the construction of a new 2,631 square foot, two-level single-family residence. The project site is located in a highly developed residential area on Scenic Road, one block southeast of Ninth Avenue and three blocks south of Carmel’s primary commercial corridor of Ocean Avenue. The Appellant contends that the approved project is located within 300 feet of an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) and that the noise and vibrations from construction activities will impact the ESHA. Secondly, the Appellant contends that the demolition of the existing house and construction of a new house will potentially result in debris and contamination flowing into the nearby storm drains and ultimately into the ocean. Lastly, the Appellant contends that the approved project is inconsistent with the Noise Element policies of the City’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan with respect to construction noise impacts in general.
The LCP requires that any application for proposed development within designated ESHA or within ESHA buffer areas (located within 30 feet of designated ESHA) must provide a biological resources report that, among other things, includes a survey of the site to identify the type and location of sensitive resources; an evaluation of the impact of the proposed development on the ESHA, and; the identification of feasible alternatives to avoid disrupting habitat values. In this case, however, the nearest mapped ESHA (dune scrub habitat) is located well over 300 feet from the project site, and thus the ESHA provisions of the LCP requiring a biological resources report do not apply to the approved project. Furthermore, the project will include standard construction activities typical to that required for the demolition and construction of a moderately-sized single-family residence, so no significant noise impacts to the ESHA are expected. Therefore, the approved project does not raise a substantial issue with respect to ESHA.
The LCP contains a series of water quality protection requirements, including for storm water associated with residential construction. As such, the City conditioned its approval to require submission of a drainage plan that includes appropriate best management practices (BMPs) to be used during demolition and construction activities to protect water quality, including protecting storm drain inlets with fiber rolls or other appropriate methods. With these BMPs, the approved project will adequately protect water quality during demolition and construction. Thus, the approved project does not raise a substantial issue of LCP conformance with respect to water quality.
With respect to general noise impacts from construction of the approved project, the Appellant references specific “Noise Element” policies. However, the “Noise Element” is part of the General Plan but has not been certified as part of the Coastal Land Use Plan. As such, this contention does not raise an LCP-consistency issue and therefore no substantial issue exists with respect to this contention.
As a result, staff recommends that the Commission determine that the appeal contentions do not raise a substantial LCP conformance issue, and that the Commission decline to take jurisdiction over the CDP for this project. The single motion necessary to implement this recommendation is found on page 4 below.
The LCP requires that any application for proposed development within designated ESHA or within ESHA buffer areas (located within 30 feet of designated ESHA) must provide a biological resources report that, among other things, includes a survey of the site to identify the type and location of sensitive resources; an evaluation of the impact of the proposed development on the ESHA, and; the identification of feasible alternatives to avoid disrupting habitat values. In this case, however, the nearest mapped ESHA (dune scrub habitat) is located well over 300 feet from the project site, and thus the ESHA provisions of the LCP requiring a biological resources report do not apply to the approved project. Furthermore, the project will include standard construction activities typical to that required for the demolition and construction of a moderately-sized single-family residence, so no significant noise impacts to the ESHA are expected. Therefore, the approved project does not raise a substantial issue with respect to ESHA.
The LCP contains a series of water quality protection requirements, including for storm water associated with residential construction. As such, the City conditioned its approval to require submission of a drainage plan that includes appropriate best management practices (BMPs) to be used during demolition and construction activities to protect water quality, including protecting storm drain inlets with fiber rolls or other appropriate methods. With these BMPs, the approved project will adequately protect water quality during demolition and construction. Thus, the approved project does not raise a substantial issue of LCP conformance with respect to water quality.
With respect to general noise impacts from construction of the approved project, the Appellant references specific “Noise Element” policies. However, the “Noise Element” is part of the General Plan but has not been certified as part of the Coastal Land Use Plan. As such, this contention does not raise an LCP-consistency issue and therefore no substantial issue exists with respect to this contention.
As a result, staff recommends that the Commission determine that the appeal contentions do not raise a substantial LCP conformance issue, and that the Commission decline to take jurisdiction over the CDP for this project. The single motion necessary to implement this recommendation is found on page 4 below.
I. MOTION AND
RESOLUTION
Staff recommends a YES vote on the following motion. Passage of this motion would result in a finding of No Substantial Issue and adoption of the following resolution and findings. If the Commission finds No Substantial Issue, the Commission would not hear the application de novo and the local action would become final and effective. The motion passes only by an affirmative vote by a majority of the Commissioners present.
Motion: I move that the Commission determine that Appeal Number A-3-CML-15-0004 raises no substantial issue with respect to the grounds on which the appeal has been filed under Section 30603. I recommend a yes vote.
Resolution: The Commission finds that Appeal Number A-3-CML-15-0004 does not present a substantial issue with respect to the grounds on which the appeal has been filed under Section 30603 of the Coastal Act regarding consistency with the Certified Local Coastal Program and/or the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act.
Important
Hearing Procedure Note: This is a substantial issue only hearing. Public testimony will be taken only on the question of whether the appeal raises a substantial issue. Generally and at the discretion of the Chair, testimony is limited to 3 minutes total per side. Please plan your testimony accordingly. A-3-CML-15-0004 (Jarve SFD)
The APPEAL STAFF REPORT SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE DETERMINATION document is embedded.
REFERENCES:
CALIFORNIA
COASTAL COMMISSION
CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT
20. NEW APPEAL.
See Agenda Categories
.
a.
Appeal No. A-3-CML-15-0004 (Jarve, Carmel-by-the-Sea)
Appeal by Stephen Beutler of Carmel-by-the Sea decision granting permit with conditions to John and Jacque Jarve to demolish 3,182 sq.ft. single-family home and construct new 2,631 sq.ft., 2-level single-family home on Scenic Road, Carmel-by-the-Sea, Monterey County. (AK-SC)
Appeal by Stephen Beutler of Carmel-by-the Sea decision granting permit with conditions to John and Jacque Jarve to demolish 3,182 sq.ft. single-family home and construct new 2,631 sq.ft., 2-level single-family home on Scenic Road, Carmel-by-the-Sea, Monterey County. (AK-SC)
SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE DETERMINATION
No comments:
Post a Comment