A single-family development proposed for a parcel located near the outlet of the Carpinteria Salt Marsh Reserve can move forward, after a Santa Barbara Superior Court judge on Wednesday rejected an appeal of the project’s approval.

The Friends of the Carpinteria Salt Marsh had sued over the California Coastal Commission’s approval of a single-family development at 501 Sand Point Road, a 9-acre parcel located in an unincorporated area of the Carpinteria Valley.

The advocacy group had argued the development would harm the nearby environmentally sensitive salt marsh.

Most of the parcel — which had been vacant since the 1950s — extends into the ocean. Of the parcel’s 9 acres, 1.34 is on land.

The proposed development includes a 4,843-square-foot single-family residence with 3,550 square feet of raised single-story space and a 771-square-foot screened-in carport, among other features.

The project also includes an “ambitious” dune restoration, Mark Massara, an attorney for the development team, Sanddew LLC, said.

Massara said the team is “gratified” that the judge “found and agreed with the conclusions of the California Coastal Commission that these allegations coming from the neighbor have no merit whatsoever.”

He added that photos of project story poles previously circulated by the Friends of the Carpinteria Salt Marsh depict an earlier stage of the project, and not what was approved by the Coastal Commission.

The commission worked for “several years to carefully scrutinize, decrease the size of the structure, increase the size of the restoration,” he said.

Marc Chytilo, attorney for Friends of the Carpinteria Salt Marsh, said the group was “disappointed” by the ruling and believed there were “substantial flaws” in the judge’s analysis.

“And those resulted in shortchanging the resources that are protected by the Carpinteria Salt Marsh, and that are jeopardized by the project,” he added.

Chytilo and co-counsel Doug Carstens alleged in court on Wednesday that there was insufficient consultation with tribal leaders and the Department of Fish and Wildlife during project review.

Chytilo argued the public also did not have sufficient opportunity to review the project since the commission took over the permit application process from Santa Barbara County.

The county’s process typically includes numerous environmental documents released to the public and Santa Barbara County Planning Commission hearings.

Chytilo alleged to Noozhawk the commission’s procedures are “considerably less inclusive of the public.”

He also argued that the commission “missed the mark” when it came to ensuring tribal consultation, and said requests from Chumash leaders that contractors working on the project be trained in how to deal with cultural resources were not adhered to.

Judge Thomas Anderle ruled that the public was provided a fair hearing on the project and that evidence supports that there was adequate consultation with the Coastal Band of Chumash Nation.

Chytilo said the group will consider other legal avenues to challenge the approval.