Browse wiki

Issue:McGaughey Development
DecisionType Appeal – Substantial Issue  +
IssueMonth May  +
IssueOutcome Good  +
IssueOutcomeDescription With no Commissioners requesting a hearing
With no Commissioners requesting a hearing to establish substantial issue (which requires three or more Commissioners requesting a hearing), substantial issue was found and a de novo hearing will heard at a future Commission hearing. As substantial issue was found, there was no vote required for the item.
, there was no vote required for the item.  +
IssueReason This project demonstrates the importance o
This project demonstrates the importance of adherence to adopted LCP policies and that local projects can reflect issues of statewide significance. LCPs are written to reflect the unique characteristics of a particular coastal community. The overall purpose of the LCP requirement in the Coastal Act is to guide and facilitate planning that protects coastal resources. To meet the intent and requirements of the Act, local jurisdictions must consistently follow their adopted LCPs. This project also raises statewide issues. The project bypasses both local water restrictions and statewide water conservation mandates. This would set a harmful precedent in terms of water use and how the local government interprets its LCP – which is substantial considering it is not an isolated issue. The Commission currently has four other appeals in the Montecito area involving similar water projects raising very similar issues to this one.
s raising very similar issues to this one.  +
IssueSummary This project is a request for an after-the
This project is a request for an after-the-fact approval of the installation of two 3,500-gallon water storage tanks and one 1,500-gallon water storage tank for landscaping of a residential property, and for proposed water delivery service to fill the tanks up to four times a week. The Coastal Development Permit for the project was approved by the County of Santa Barbara (County). Commissioners Kinsey and Turnbull-Sanders appealed to CDP contending that the project was not consistent with the County’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) and Coastal Act provisions regarding existing public services and new development, protection of water resources, and energy consumption and vehicle miles traveled (vmt). Staff found that the County did not sufficiently analyze the proposed development to ensure consistency with the policies of the certified LCP. The approved project not only has water demands that significantly exceed the capacity of the existing public water service, it also requires trucking in of water from outside sources. Bringing water in from external sources results in significant vmt and energy consumption. In addition to these impacts, the project was not analyzed for impacts to coastal water resources. Finally, the project also circumvents local water use restrictions, and ignores Governor Brown’s executive orders to reduce water consumption as well as mandated statewide water reductions.
ll as mandated statewide water reductions.  +
IssueYear 2,016  +
Lobbyist Graham M. Lyons, Mullen & Henzell, LLP  +
Policies 30231, 30250(a), 30253(d)  +
StaffRecommendation Determination of Substantial Issue  +
StaffReport http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2016/5/f14.5a-5-2016.pdf  +
Has query
This property is a special property in this wiki.
Issue:McGaughey Development +
Categories Issues
Modification date
This property is a special property in this wiki.
24 May 2016 16:20:38  +
hide properties that link here 
  No properties link to this page.


Enter the name of the page to start browsing from.