Thursday, June 07, 2007

For those following the Manila/Riley project w/addition(s)

By request, the emails mentioned in previous post Which rules do you play by? transcribed (correspondence initiated May 14, AFTER the Planning Commission meeting) between John Woolley, Michael Fennell, and county staff): Question is how did it go from the harping on trees cut 2 years ago, for which no violation was found at the time) to the categorical statement that the Planning Commission will not approve a project, when the only thing the Planning Commission has said is that the project was continued to be heard at the next meeting (tonight).

As with all email trails read from bottom to top. Transcribed here as they appear.
pg 1 of 1
From: "Wheeler, Michael"
To: "Jesse Buffington"
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 8:46 AM
Subject: Riley

Per Kirk Girard: We need to meet with the applicant and, if he agrees, his agent, Jesse and design consultant, John Ash. The Planning Commission will not approve the project and neither will the Coastal commission. We need some alternative designs with fewer units and more attention to the wetlands and natural landforms. If he is willing to make the changes, a new notice could reflect the modified project.

Michael E. Wheeler
Senior Planner - County of Humboldt
Department of Community Development Services
(phone numbers)
(Note: this communication...)

Separate email - pg 1 of 4
From: "Wheeler, Michael"
To: "Jesse Buffington"
Sent: Thursday may 24, 2007 7:44 AM
Subject: FW: cut trees in Manila

---Original Message---
From: "Werner, Steve"
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 16:22
To: "Wheeler, Michael; Hunter, Alyson"
Cc: Ruth, Carolyn; Girard, Kirk
Subject: RE: cut trees in Manila

Michael:

Per my discussion today with Carolyn if this did not describe the trees removed without a permit the notice is not adequate and renoticing with the revised descriptions will be needed.

Please alert the applicant and work with Yvette on the new noticing. We should contact the neighborhood parties who can let others know that this item will not be considered at the June 7 meeting.

Also Carolyn wants us to double check that the W&K wetland determination used the CCC standards for wetland identification (1 of three parameter test) not the COE standard.

Steve W.

---Original Message---
From: Wheeler, Michael
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 2:18 PM
To: "Hunter, Alyson; Werner, Steve"
Subject: RE: cut trees in Manila

The project description as previously written and noticed includes a special permit for major vegetation removal.

---Original Message---
From: Hunter, Alyson
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 12:12
To: Wheeler, Michael; Woolley, John; Werner, Steve; Conner, Jeff
Subject: RE: cut trees in Manila

Hi Guys -
I just talked to SW about this issue. Another neighbor just moments ago submitted photos for the subdivision hearing that fairly clearly show a violation. SW suggests that Michael pull the project from
pg 2 of 4
the next hearing, include the tree removal into the revised description and renotice accordingly.

I've been given permission to not be involved in this topic, as exciting as it is, and to have Michael take over all this tree stuff.

Thanks all -

Alyson Hunter, Senior Planner
Humboldt County Community Development Services
(phone and fax)

---Original Message---
From: Wheeler, Michael
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 8:56 AM
To: Hunter, Alyson; Woolley, John
Subject: RE: cut trees in Manila

There is no active violation file on Mr. Riley's property at Planning. There is an historic one related to no trespassing signs which was resolved with removal of the signs. The file was closed for voluntary compliance. There is some mention of the tree removal in this file but there was no finding that it was a violation that constituted major vegetation removal. The issue was dropped when the violation file was closed.

---Original Message---
From: Hunter, Alyson
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 08:20
To: Woolley, John
Cc: Wheeler, Michael
Subject: RE: cut trees in Manila

Hi John -
Jeff Conner's explanation below is accurate in my estimation. martha and I accompanied him onto the site quite some time ago and saw several stumps. We concluded at the time that the tree removal did not constitute Major Veg Removal per -313-64.1 of the Coastal zoning regs. If a violation is found to have occurred, the assigned planner for Riley's subdivision (Michael Wheeler (phone0 could fairly easily add supplemental to the existing staff report to address this situation.

Let me know if I can provide you with any more information.

Alyson (phone)

---Original Message---
From: Woolley, John
pg 3 of 4
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 4:21 PM
To: Young, Claude; Hunter, Alyson; Conner, Jeff
Subject: RE: cut trees in Manila

Michael Fennell has asked me to get an answer about this issue. Let me know what you have determined, or not. Thanks for the help, and all the other good work.

John

---Original Message---
From: Conner, Jeff
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:41 AM
To: fennell (email)
Cc: Woolley, John; Hendry, Richard
Subject: RE: cut trees in Manila

Good Morning Michael Fennell:

The Code Enforcement Unit does not normally open cases without a referral from another County division, such as Planning or the Board of Supervisors. We have not received such a referral and I do not know whether anyone is preparing one at this time or not. I am sorry that i could not be of more assistance.

Jeff Conner
CEU Investigator

---Original Message---
From: fennell (email)
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 2:57:PM
To: Conner, Jeff
Cc: Woolley, John; Hendry, Richard
Subject: RE: cut trees in Manila

Jeff,
We are wondering if the code enforcement division is going to move forward on this tree cutting violation? Michael Fennell
---"Conner wrote:
> Good Morning Supervisor Woolley:
>
> I inspected the property in question (I believe the owner's last name
> is
> Riley) about 18-24 months ago with members of the Planning staff.
> There were numerous shore pine stumps on the parcel as well as piles
> of limbs and debris to be burned. If I remember correctly, some of
> the stumps were almost two feet in diameter, indicating that some if
>not all of the trees that had been cut were large enough to require
> the owner to obtain a Coastal Development Permit. I contacted the
> owner by phone and he claimed that the trees were all smaller than the
pg 4 of 4
> minimum size and that he cut the trunks up into firewood. I asked
> where the firewood was located, but the address he gave me was an abandoned house in Manila>
> I passed on the information I had obtained from the phone call
> to the Planning staff that was handling the matter. I have not heard anymore
> about it since then, except for what I have read in the newspaper.
> The Code Enforcement Unit has never had a case on this matter. I have
> a meeting with Brian Cox and Claude Young later this morning. I will
> bring this subject up at this meeting. If you have any questions, I
> will try to answer them, but there are people in the Planning Division
> who know much more about this development than I do.
>
> Jeff Conner
> CEU Investigator
> ---Original Message---
> From: Woolley, John
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 9:44 AM
> To: Conner, Jeff
> Cc: Mike and Sharon Fennell
> Subject: cut trees in Manila
>
>
> Jeff, as you may know there is a proposed subdivision in Manila being
> developed. One part of the controversy srrounding the issue is the
> cutting of trees on the property. In discussing this with Michael
> Fennell, he would like some clarification re: the county's stance on
> this matter. I am copying him on this so the two of you could discuss
> the matter. Please let me know what you have determined from their
> concerns. Thanks.
>
> John
***
Related:
Mike Dronker's latest Coastal Currents podcast on the Manila project, Michael Fennell and Gordy Anderson respond to Scott Riley's statements about the development's footprint on the Samoa dunes.
Sort of related:
Wonder what David Cobb thinks about a real life example of building "green" right in his own backyard.
***
I'm told that:
Manila has 365 lots. Of those 356 are zoned 5,000 sq. ft. (or 0.114784 acre).
Only 9 are zoned 20,000 sq. ft. (or 0.459136 acre, almost half an acre).
Of those 9, three have been put into 5,000 sq. ft. lots (by variance?).
Fennell's property is supposedly one of those 'compromised' lots. (He requested and got a variance.)
See other posts under this label for the discussion relating to half acre zoning and variances - and if anyone has information to the contrary, or if these facts are wrong, fill me in.

6/11 TS - My Word by Ken Terpening - Why I oppose Manila development w/comments

I still don't get how these guys can sing the praises of bulldozing acres and acres of Clam Beach Dunes to eradicate European Beach Grass (politically correct), and scream that Riley's Dune Reconstruction is too horrific to allow. (politically incorrect? Or just obstructionist tactics.) Anyway, apparently the opposition to the project now has a lawyer.

10 comments:

  1. I asked you before to post this info if you had it,you did,so thanks a lot.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You're welcome. I'd post the pdf's if Blogger had a feature that enabled it. This'll have to do. And I welcome any other information anyone has that goes along with this.

    The word I have today is that the project has been pulled off the agenda for tonight.

    ReplyDelete
  3. so Wooley gets off his lazy ass for this stuff but nothing else.

    go figure.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Fennell and Woolley are old dope smoking buddies,go figure.

    ReplyDelete
  5. We've always known that Woolley was a radical on the QT with not that much on the ball but wow,it's amazing how slimmy he really is. Riley is his neighbor too. I'm sure that the good community servant hasn't lifted a finger to try to help Riley make a go out of his vision. Woolley just doen't get it ,that he is to rep all of his district not just his restrictionist friends. Can you spell dEMOCRAT mob rule party?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Rose, I linked your website to the latest propaganda emanating from the ts opinion piece today relating to this project.

    These people really echo Himmler's philosophy that a lie told over and over and over and over again (with regards to the trees mr riley felled, at least) becomes the truth...

    ReplyDelete
  7. It's crazy. The tree thing happened how many YEARS ago? Three agencies found NO VIOLATION, three agencies which were sic'ed on Riley by these guys.

    He said in the KHUM interview that he planted 150 trees - and he owns or operates a tree farm.

    He also said, and it makes sense, that trees growing in sand fall down in windstorms, and he cut them up for firewood. That all adds up to and ecofriendly and sustainable lifestyle.

    The trees are 'snail-darters,' tools to shut the project down and harass Riley. That's what I see.

    Thanks for the link, and the mention, by the way.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Don't know if the truth will ever come out but witch hunt is mild in the Riley case. This is slime that goes all the way to the top. Many of us know but can't say a word. Keep digging.

    ReplyDelete
  9. If memory serves me.I think this same anti-group also opposed the Manila Community Center. The same line of horors were going to happen. Enviro destruction,the ruination of the community and their threat of moving away. They're still there,still causing trouble,and still nuts.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You're so right. What happened was an improvement in the community. When Rileys nice development is completed it will also be a plus for the community.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are open. Play nice.