Source: https://crescentcitytimes.com/to-burn-or-not-to-burn/
Timestamp: 2020-08-12 21:41:07
Document Index: 338615991

Matched Legal Cases: ['§13166', '§13055', '§13055', '§13055', '§13055', '§13055', '§13055']

To Burn or Not to Burn | Crescent City Times.com <!-- Add this code to the section. --> <!-- Add this code to the section. -->
By Donna Westfall – August 23, 2016 –
UPDATE: New information has been received from the owner of the old clinic at A and 2nd Streets, as well as from the Crescent City, new City Manager, Mr. David M. Van Dermark, referencing correspondence from the California Coastal Commission (CCC).
“The City has not stood in the way of this (burn) process, in fact, the City has offered to burn the building if Mr. Baugh gets the required permit.”
Here’s why burning the building was a problem for the CCC signed by
James R. Baskin, AICP Supervising Coastal Planner
. (Notice the fee…we added italics and bold)
“The approved permit included attached construction responsibilities, debris removal, and runoff and erosion control conditions that were based upon the proposed building and site improvements being razed and cleared by convention demolition practices. The development did not propose, and the Commission did not consider or otherwise authorize the release of polluted runoff from fire-fighting water, chemical suppressants, and associated entrained debris into adjoining coastal waters, nor the release of significant quantities of smoke and other air quality impacting emissions.
It is dubious whether the Executive Director would even accept an application for a permit amendment to allow for such a training burn exercise given the potential for significant water and air quality impacts to environmentally sensitive marine resources at this shoreline proximate location. [14 CCR §13166]
If Mr. Baugh wishes to pursue such an amendment he should contact this office. The applicable fee has been calculated as $57,591 (Fifty percent of the sum of $55,400 for 41 attached residential units [14 CCR §13055(a)(3)(B)], $54,242 for a 41-unit condominium land division [14 CCR §13055(e)], and $5,540 for grading involving up to 1000 cubic yards of materials [14 CCR §13055(a)(4)], amalgamated per 14 CCR §13055(f), and annually compounded by a 2% CPI commencing August 4, 2015 per 14 CCR §13055(c)). 14 CCR §13055(a)(6).
Notwithstanding the permit constraints, as a former USN/USCG/USFS-certified firefighter, I fully understand the need for and importance of in-structure field exercises; this is not an appropriate location for such public safety personnel training.”
The owner, Randy Baugh, writes:
“…we have decided to work with a conventional demolition.” They had pulled a demo permit in March of this year and are checking to see if it is still active.”