ever been there, Aldaron? Houses. On hillsides. LOTS of 'em.
In Arcata's General Plan, there is a standard that one cannot build on a slope of more than 15 percent. “The hillside development standards were adopted to protect the public from development occurring on steep slopes. That’s why they are in the Public Safety Element,” Laird said.
That's not in the City of Arcata’s zoning ordinances, which is at odds with the City's General Plan, as well as the County, which provides for exceptions for building on slopes of more than 15 percent, there’s just extra engineering work that is involved. In the Arcata General Plan, there is no exception.
So these two "developers," Envisioning a green future, did their research, and worked out a plan to complete their dream to build a small community on the property they bought for this purpose. Now they are paying the price for the fact that the City of Arcata has never melded their General Plan and their Zoning Ordinances?
Laird said it’s not the first time the city has run into conflicts with the outdated zoning ordinances and the general plan, and the precedent set by those conflicts has been that the general plan overrides the zoning ordinances.
Not the first time? Then why hasn't it been fixed?
Incidentally, there’s a state law that may override the Arcata General Plan, the Density Bonus Law. Winkler said. “The point of the state law is to prevent cities from using standards to keep higher densities out,” he said. “The state has decided it’s more important to make more affordable housing available.”
Ah, yes. Infill to the rescue. The irony of it all.
Michael Winkler, the chairperson of the Arcata Planning Commission, said getting a professional to look at all the regulations before starting a project will help prevent making expensive mistakes.
Maybe. And that is part of what forces costs up. Pretty cavalier attitude. Seems like getting your various policies into compliance with one another would be a very high priority.
But welcome to Arcata, where you can ignore all the laws, zoning and building codes you want if you are growing pot, but try to do something right and you are screwed.
That's my read, what's yours?
Showing posts with label Manila. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Manila. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Friday, May 23, 2008
In the YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING ME! Dept.
Photo SourceIf ever you needed a good example of what is wrong with the SHUT EVERYTHING DOWN crowd, here it is.
You know the Kinetic Sculpture Race is this weekend. But did you know the Kinetic race is going to destroy the sand dunes? Is nothing sacred?
-----Original Message-----
From: manila-bounces at coastcleaners.com On Behalf Of Dan Edrich
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 8:50 AM
To: manila at coastcleaners.com
Subject: [Manila] Fw: immenent dune damage
To Salena and Teenship.
Suggested Reading; The Giving Tree by Shel Silverstein
The Negative Declaration
----- Original Message -----
From: redacted
To: Manila CSD
Cc: jwoolley at co.humboldt.ca.us
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 8:24 AM
Subject: immenent dune damage
Board of Directors
Manager
Dear Chris,
It is now morning, the day before the Kinetic come through our dunes.
Your organizations have shown no preparedness to alleviate the potential of even more damage to already damaged dunes.
Yet, they have the gumption to set for a party- right in front of a horribly damaged dune
Please make USERS aware of your and their legal requisites.
Our once stable system has been whored and perverted to the point that our trees are dying and our dunes are caving.
We need a moratorium to assess damage before we lose more topography.
Anyone can bring a dune down.
It takes thought and discipline to keep them healthy.
Sincerely, Dan Edrich
Tell me you're kidding.
From Petch, links to some great pics of previous years' sculptures. here
Saturday, November 10, 2007
The truth about Planning and Zoning
What's the point of Planning and Zoning when someone who follows the rules has his project denied, while his chief critic - and neighbor - asked for and got variances? Then tried to get the Planning Department to alter their records to support his complaint...see the links below. The Planning Commission should be ashamed of themselves.
Vigilante law on Dunes project
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands ...
In a republic we elect representatives to craft law and rules to guide us in our daily lives. My West Bay Dunes subdivision in Manila followed all the rules. We asked for no variances at all. The well-organized neighbors raised no valid issues, not one! Their main objective was to keep others from living around them -- “I've got mine but you can't have yours” types of self-righteous dictators.
Yet they were able to sway the planning commissioners to oppose it. That's vigilante law, not constitutional. What about all the people who wanted to live in these homes? Where is the justice in keeping them out? We are in danger of losing our republic from this selfishness.
... One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Write the planning commission at 3015 H St., Eureka, CA 95501 and let them know what you think!
Robert Riley
Manila
A witch hunt
More on the Witch Hunt..."This is not a NIMBY issue" WITH KHUM UPDATES
The Witch Hunt LETTERS collection & Dunes Forum notes
Which rules do you play by?
For those following the Manila/Riley project w/addition(s)
"Don't let others know I have contacted you."
Planning Commission tables controversial Manila subdivision decision
TS - Manila development withdrawn for revision
Vigilante law on Dunes project
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands ...
In a republic we elect representatives to craft law and rules to guide us in our daily lives. My West Bay Dunes subdivision in Manila followed all the rules. We asked for no variances at all. The well-organized neighbors raised no valid issues, not one! Their main objective was to keep others from living around them -- “I've got mine but you can't have yours” types of self-righteous dictators.
Yet they were able to sway the planning commissioners to oppose it. That's vigilante law, not constitutional. What about all the people who wanted to live in these homes? Where is the justice in keeping them out? We are in danger of losing our republic from this selfishness.
... One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Write the planning commission at 3015 H St., Eureka, CA 95501 and let them know what you think!
Robert Riley
Manila
A witch hunt
More on the Witch Hunt..."This is not a NIMBY issue" WITH KHUM UPDATES
The Witch Hunt LETTERS collection & Dunes Forum notes
Which rules do you play by?
For those following the Manila/Riley project w/addition(s)
"Don't let others know I have contacted you."
Planning Commission tables controversial Manila subdivision decision
TS - Manila development withdrawn for revision
Friday, September 07, 2007
Planning Commission tables controversial Manila subdivision decision
Amazing.
Thursday night’s Humboldt County Planning Commission meeting was dominated by testimony regarding the proposed subdivision in Manila.
The project has attracted considerable opposition from nearby residents.
Developer Robert Riley touted his 17-unit subdivision project on the 3.8-acre site as the first sustainable green subdivision in the county.
But numerous Manila residents weren’t impressed and testified to the Planning Commission that the subdivision’s densely packed homes would ruin the character of the sparsely populated dune neighborhood.
The meeting was punctuated by several emotionally charged outbursts from residents who claimed Riley had previously illegally removed native dune trees from the property.
As Riley testified that four agencies investigated the tree removal and found no violations, several residents stormed out in protest of the hearing, calling it a “lie.”
Although public comments were wrapping up, commissioners ran out of time to make a decision and the hearing was continued until Oct. 4. Full story
Thursday night’s Humboldt County Planning Commission meeting was dominated by testimony regarding the proposed subdivision in Manila.
The project has attracted considerable opposition from nearby residents.
Developer Robert Riley touted his 17-unit subdivision project on the 3.8-acre site as the first sustainable green subdivision in the county.
But numerous Manila residents weren’t impressed and testified to the Planning Commission that the subdivision’s densely packed homes would ruin the character of the sparsely populated dune neighborhood.
The meeting was punctuated by several emotionally charged outbursts from residents who claimed Riley had previously illegally removed native dune trees from the property.
As Riley testified that four agencies investigated the tree removal and found no violations, several residents stormed out in protest of the hearing, calling it a “lie.”
Although public comments were wrapping up, commissioners ran out of time to make a decision and the hearing was continued until Oct. 4. Full story
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
"Don't let others know I have contacted you."
"There was no violation." There WAS no violation," "There was NO violation." "We went out there, and there was no violation." "We have no case file on this because there was no violation."
Talking about Michael Fennell's assertion that Scott Riley is guilty of cutting down trees over a certain diameter, that's the gist of a string of emails regarding Scott Riley's proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) in Manila - emails that reveal what looks like an increasingly exasperated staff responding to relentless pressure from Michael Fennell through County Supervisor John Woolley, asking that history be rewritten and a case file opened now.
Then, someone from Fennell's camp apparently brings in "new" photos, purporting to show concretely that Riley cut down a tree (or 8 as the case may be), and not just any tree, but one that was "oversize."
How many years ago was this now? And what do you go on - the official record, set at the time, that there was no violation - or this newly revisited "case." And, irregardless, what bearing does this really have on the proposed project?
These emails come as a result of Riley's public records act request for Woolley's correspondence relating to his project.
There's more, though - in one email to a Lumberjack reporter Woolley explains why he might have to recuse himself from voting on the project if he answers her questions...
Looks like, at the very least, he will have to recuse himself anyway, since another one has Woolley thanking Fennell for keeping him in the loop but admonishing him "...Please don't let others know I have contacted you. I have some ideas for getting some review of this...."
Talking about Michael Fennell's assertion that Scott Riley is guilty of cutting down trees over a certain diameter, that's the gist of a string of emails regarding Scott Riley's proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) in Manila - emails that reveal what looks like an increasingly exasperated staff responding to relentless pressure from Michael Fennell through County Supervisor John Woolley, asking that history be rewritten and a case file opened now.
Then, someone from Fennell's camp apparently brings in "new" photos, purporting to show concretely that Riley cut down a tree (or 8 as the case may be), and not just any tree, but one that was "oversize."
How many years ago was this now? And what do you go on - the official record, set at the time, that there was no violation - or this newly revisited "case." And, irregardless, what bearing does this really have on the proposed project?
These emails come as a result of Riley's public records act request for Woolley's correspondence relating to his project.
There's more, though - in one email to a Lumberjack reporter Woolley explains why he might have to recuse himself from voting on the project if he answers her questions...
Looks like, at the very least, he will have to recuse himself anyway, since another one has Woolley thanking Fennell for keeping him in the loop but admonishing him "...Please don't let others know I have contacted you. I have some ideas for getting some review of this...."
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Which rules do you play by?
When it comes to his proposed subdivision in Manila, it looks like Scott Riley has done everything right, played by the rules, and should have expected smooth sailing. He worked with an architect, worked with County staff to work out a PUD, a Planned Unit Development that designates wetlands, provides open space, stays within the density allowed by zoning ordinances, and he went beyond that to include building "green," with photovoltaic shingles, low-e glazing, thermal mass, recycled materials, and more. And. as you can see by the model above, the homes are designed to fit into the beach environment.
He's gone through the process, jumped through the hurdles, and his project is now - or was - before the Planning Commission. County staff had a favorable recommendation. But Reggae on the River took up the bulk of the May 3rd meeting, and so his project was ordered continued until June 7th.
So what happened between that meeting and now?
Riley has now been told that his project will not be heard on June 7th, and that: "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 as designed and neither will The Coastal Commission."
Really?
Who decided that? And when?
Wouldn't there be Brown Act violations if there was some sort of back-door meeting or negotiation, held out of the view of the public on a project that is already part of a public process?
The email trails show not a meeting, and not the Planning Commissioners, but correspondence (initiated May 14, AFTER the Planning Commission meeting) between John Woolley, Michael Fennel, and county staff.
Monday, May 07, 2007
The Witch Hunt LETTERS collection & Dunes Forum notes
First there was a Letter to the Editor in the North Coast Journal:
On build-nothings
Editor
Whine, whine, whine!
In response to "Cutten run" ("Mailbox," Mar 15), those uptight respondents are what I call "I've got mine, but you can't have yours" hypocrites. No doubt they live in what was an undeveloped area at one time.
Every time a housing development is proposed, this self-righteous indignation raises its ugly head. I remember when a large dairy ranch - now Sunny Brae - was developed. Then Westwood Village, Sunset, Greenview, etc. They all had this same kind of public response. Get real!
More people want to come here, with them will come many positive things. Having big new development is the best way to build community. We had the 13th house built in Sunny Brae. I loved watching all the new people move in. And I still do like people.
The Humboldt County development process is very comprehensive, believe me. I am building 17 houses as a planned unit development in Manila, and nothing is left out of the planning. Mine is sustainable, green, efficient, healthy, beautiful, disaster-enhanced, low maintenance and recreational. Still there is much opposition as usual.
R.S. Riley, Manila
Then there was a letter from Fennel, apparently. I don't have that one yet, but will add it when I do.
And, Richard Salzman started exhorting the Orks to get involved.
Then, there was Hank Sims' commentary on the two letters, where he laid out the facts as opposed to the rhetoric. Discussed previously here and here
These letters are the result:
Letters to the editor, North Coast Journal
5/3/07
Battle of Manila
Editor
Why Hank Sims wants to adjudicate a serious development issue is beyond me ("Town Dandy" April 19) Since when does a column writer get between two letter writers and take sides? Mr. Sims went out of his way to make me look wrong, so let me respond to his findings.
Beach Pine trees: Is the NCJ advising coastal residents that it is legal to cut the coastal pine trees on areas of sensitive habitat? Mr. Riley cut 18 trees prior to filing his development plan. If it is ok to remove those, why does he need a special permit to remove the last two?
Sand dunes: I quoted Mr. Riley's own document to show that he is going to bulldoze 6,500 cubic yards of dunes. Mr. Sims defended him by saying they were restoring historic dunes on the property. This is pure fiction. the dunes are "natural now." Mr. Riley plans to disturb 100 percent of the vegetation, including the native dune plants that inhabit the property.
Density: Mr. Sims went to great length but didn't quite have the courage of his convictions to call me a hypocrite. Mr. Sims claimed that i built three homes on 3.7 acres and that is analogous to Riley's 17 homes on 3.4 acres. My parcels were each over 1 acre until the county asked me to separate the wetland area from two of the lots. Had I asked for 7 houses on my 3.7 acres, that would be analogous, although there are no dunes on my parcel either. And just for the record, I have built just one home, not three. Whose error of fact was that?
Michael Fennel, Manila
Editor
Sorry, NCJ, it was your call to jump into the middle of Manila's concerns regarding the Riley project, and now you complain that you are in the "tedious position of having to adjudicate their dispute." The Coastal Commission makes the ultimate decisions on any legal issues or requirements regarding the projects subject to the Coastal Act, not the Town Dandy, nor the planning department.
The California Coastal Commission was established by voter initiative in 1972 and was designed to give all Californians a voice in coastal development. It's mission was to protect, conserve, restore and enhance environmental and human based resources of the California coast and ocean for environmentally sustainable and prudent use by current and future generations.
The Coastal Act is most sensitive to adverse impacts if a project lies seaward of the first paved road. This is where the Riley project is located. The NCJ, I assume, has reviewed the Coastal Act and can render a fair judgement on the dispute which they are burdened with - specifically, Public Resources Code sections 30231 (Protection of Water Quality), 30235 (Geologic Stability), 30250 (New Development) and 30251 (Visual Resource Protection). IN addition, new tsunami standards are required that did not exist until recently.
All of us who are overwhelmed with coastal law will be relieved now that the NCJ has assumed the role as adjudicator between the community, developer and California State Coastal Commission. I am looking forward to the NCJ contributing its expertise and participating in the public process at the planning commission meeting on the Riley project.
John Rotter, Trinidad
Editor
Regarding Hank Sims column and the West Bay Dunes development proposal in Manila. Your facts are surprisingly incorrect.
First, regarding the pine trees. No, the property owner was not found guilty of cutting down mature beach pines, but whether or not the act of environmental destruction happened is unresolved. Witnesses and neighbors continue to disagree with the official findings.
Second, the sand. Perhaps plans call for the sand to be "moved" instead of "removed" but the essence of the argument remains the same. The building of 17 new homes on the property demands destruction of already existing dunes - an act impossible to environmentally justify.
Third - and this is where you were really off - Michael Fennel, my landlord, has not built three homes on his property as you stated. That lot began with a very nice trailer home already on it, and Michael's only built one new house so far. One, not three. He plans to build another next year which still adds up to fewer than you wrote. In any case, building one house on a slightly less than average sized lot adjacent to other standard sized lots is not equivalent to building 17 houses on 17 far less than average sized lots.
Finally, Michael Fennel is a thoughtful, kind man who has a vested interest in making Manila an ever better place to love. Unlike the West Bay Dunes development folks, he actually lives in the neighborhood - and walks his talk. Seeing him vilified in the Journal surprised and disappointed me. Your column was not only inaccurate, but unfair and insulting to Michael and all the other good people advocating for sensible development and land use in our neighborhood,
Jennifer Savage, Manila.
Ed reply: Though I have not met him, I have no doubt that Michael Fennel is a "thoughtful kind man" I also have no doubts that opponents of the proposed "West Bay Dunes" project being proposed by R. S. Riley care deeply for their neighborhood, and for the dune ecosystem surrounding it. The Journal has no position whatsoever on the Riley project. We have not studied the issue at all, save for what is required by our legal and moral responsibilities to correct potentially libelous or defamatory false statements of fact that have appeared in our letters to the editor section.
Unfortunately, the false statements (or strong implications) in Fennel's original letter ("Mailbox" April 5) are still false. Riley did cut 18 trees on his property prior to filing his development plan, but county code enforcement officers determined that it was legal for him to do so. The county prohibits "major vegetation removal" inside the Coastal Zone without a permit. Code enforcement visited the site, measured the trees cut by Riley and found that they did not meet the county's definition of "major vegetation." It's perfectly acceptable to deplore the cutting of the trees, it is not acceptable to imply that Riley broke the law when he did not.
John Rotter's informed legal analysis would be more persuasive if he actually cited relevant sections of law. Like much of Humboldt County's coastline, the area in question is covered by a local coastal program - a Coastal Commission approved plan that gives a local jurisdiction control over coastal development decisions. (See Public resources Code section 30519(a). The fact that the proposed development does indeed lie seaward of the first paved road gives opponents of the Riley project the right to appeal to the Coastal Commission (if the county ends up approving it), however, the Coastal Commission will evaluate the project based on its compliance with the local coastal program, not the Coastal Act.
It was my mistake to say that Michael Fennel "built three houses" in his own subdivision. I ran a correction last week, but I'll reprint it here: One house already existed, another house was built, another is planned. The point, of course, is that in his original letter, Fennel set out the half acre minimum parcel size as an absolute baseline standard for new development in the area; he did not mention that his own subdivision, undertaken just last year, contains two (not one) parcels of less than that size. It is true that the parcels proposed by the Riley subdivision are much smaller still, and that seems like perfectly justifiable grounds for opposition to the project. We would be remiss, however if we did not point out that the half acre minimum standard is somewhat negotiable, at least in the minds of some Manila residents.
###
Then, you have letters like this one to the Planning Commission:
Letter to the Humboldt County Planning Commission
April 23, 2007
From: Jerry Martien
Re: Coastal Development Permit, Planned Unit Development & Special Permit Application, ROBERT RILEY, applicant, File No. APN 400-131-05, 1521 Peninsula Drive, Manila
Dear Commissioners:
The proposed Riley subdivision in inappropriate to the site and the neighborhood, threatens the rural character of manila, and abuses the County's planning process. I urge you to deny the application.
Unlike some, I do not advocate shooting the applicant, but over the years I've noticed his talent for provoking this kind of negative response. Ever since he made the move from Section 8 landlord to developer, and purchased the old Shires house at 1521 Peninsula, he has been at odds with the neighborhood. He tried to close a traditional beach trail in order to make the parcel more saleable and since that failed he has come up with one subdivision plan after another, each worse than the last and less appropriate to the site and to south Peninsula Drive.
Not long ago, this dune-top stretch of Peninsula was characterized by a rented trailer, with all the features of rural slum living, and the applicant's large For Sale sign. The past few years have seen a number of building projects and renovations that are creating a thriving neighborhood. Each of these has been required to protect natural features and wetlands, and a project at the end of the road was even turned down because it failed to meet these requirements. All have had community input, both in public forums and private discussion. Not all of these meetings have been peaceful, but issues have been resolved and the quality of life -- including the protection of wild space, privacy, and quiet -- has been preserved.
The applicant, on the other hand, has chosen instead to talk to lawyers and to work against the community. His proposal to build seventeen residences of up to 4000 square feet where Mr. Shires' little house once stood is not in keeping with the rural character of Manila and this neighborhood, it does not respect the natural coastal landforms, nor its characteristic shore pine and coastal scrub, and it will drain the run-off of all these homes into its wetlands. It is simply too damn much.
When this is pointed out, the applicant portrays himself as a victim of persecution and declares that like Rob Arkley he's just another developer who believes Humboldt County needs more urban sprawl. This project could be Manila's own little Sunny Brae.
It is astonishing that a project of this magnitude, entirely inappropriate to its natural and social setting, should get this far. Here again, the applicant has taken a legalistic and adversarial approach to the planning process. Using measures designed to preserve natural values, donating to nature what is already natural and ought to remain so, he proposes to level dunes and fill dune hollows and call the result enhancement. By this letter of the law we could level everything up to the lines marked NR and reduce Manila to ten feet above sea level where we already locate our densest housing. Of course a development at that level would not be permitted. Like the shooting option, the strictly legal approach seems justified, but does not lead to a desirable outcome. I ask that you resist this approach to planning.
Please uphold the spirit of our coastal zoning laws, the values of the natural world, the character of the neighborhood, and the community of Manila.
Sincerely,
Jerry Martien
###
Then, there are times when the wind blows the trees down...
exerpted from Dunes Forum February 8, 2006 Meeting Minutes:
...Storm Damage in the Dunes
...Andrea Pickart shared a brief power-point presentation showing the impact of the New Year’s Eve storm in the dunes. Wind events are the process that drives forest dynamics and blow down event bring about pulsed of pine and spruce regeneration in the dune forest. There was massive tree fall in the dune forest combined with heavy rains which exacerbated the effect. Some trees in the forest that went down were over 150 years old. There will be an article in the next issue of Dunesberry discussing the effects of the Storm. Andrea will be qualitatively monitoring the new gaps in the forest to see what comes up. If there grad students who were interested in a project, this would be a good opportunity for a project....
Andrea Pickart- Restoration is in full swing at Ma-le’l. CDF crews had to be setiched to doing trail clearing and removal of downed trees. They are having a strip flown (low flight at a low scale) from the north end of the spit down to Manila. Low flight at a low scale. (if Manla has money, they might possibly be interested in the flight). There is a topography map of Ma-le’l that will be available when the plan comes out. Tree fall in the dune forest also exposed some more ivy spots and made a mess of some areas...
Sometimes it is ok to bulldoze the dunes and fill in hollows...
Minutes from meeting held November 09, 2005
Carruthers Cove Dune Restoration Project
...European Beach grass removal with heavy equipment commenced this month at Carruthers Cove. The beach grass was dug out with an excavator and then reburied 3meters down and fresh, clean sand was then used to fill in the trenches and re-contour the landscape. This is a pilot project involving RNSP, DPR and other partners. The hope of this project is to remove beach grass on the north end and hold the south end. The southern portion of the project was at Osogan to Carruthers cove. The beach grass was removed around the endangered Abronia. There were two federally endangered species that were impacted by this project, Abronia umbellata ssp. breviflora, and the western snowy plover. Also in the project area was Layia carnosa and the tidewater gobi. The permitting for this project was extremely laborious (CEQA, T&E consultation, coastal commission and coastal conservancy). The project was timed to be outside the breeding season for the snowy plover, also the heavy equipment operators were busy doing watershed restoration until after the first rains. It has been observed that once the winds are over 30 miles per hours, the wind will whisk the dune grass rhizomes about and the project becomes less efficient...
###
Arcata Eye A high-density cluster dumped on Manila’s dunes Jennifer Savage: – May 8, 2007
###
Times Standard Dozens decry Manila proposal: Opponents of 17-unit development getting organized James Faulk 04/12/2007
***
Minutes: Planning Commission
4. ROBERT RILEY, Manila Area (1521 Peninsula Dr.): a Major Subdivision to divide an approximate 8.5 acre parcel into seventeen (17) parcels. 5.1 acres is proposed to be dedicated as open space. The proposed subdivision is to be a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and a two-year Blanket Coastal Development has been requested. A Special Permit is required to allow for fill within a wetland buffer area, for major vegetation removal, and for wetland restoration following fill placement. NOTE: It is recommended a Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted. CASE No. FMS-06-05, CDP-06-41, PUD-06-03 & SP-06-48; File Nos. APN 400-131-05. (MEW)
Issues: Wet Land Buffer
Staff report and recommendations:
Michael Wheeler gave the staff report describing the Final Map subdivision, proposed tsunami hazard mitigation, drainage via a stormwater collection system and infiltration trench, the Planned Unit Development, and its relationship to the beach and dunes. Mr. Wheeler presented maps, showing the environmental layout and sensitive areas of concern. He spoke about the supplements that have been received from the neighborhood and from the Coastal Commission.
The public comment period was opened.
Dendra Dengler, Manila Community Service District (CSD), read their resolution (#2007.02) to maintain the rural character, preserve natural resources & coastal access into the record.
Aryay Kalaki, Manila, submitted petitions from residents and non-residents of Manila. They object to increasing housing density in their area.
Ken Terpening, Manila, had concerns about the project. He felt the road was not adequate or safe for a subdivision.
Violet Glass, Manila CDS board member, had concerns about subdivision traffic and about area wild life.
Tim Ayers, Manila, asked which community this subdivision is in the best interest of.
John St. Marie, Friends of the Dunes, had concerns about the effect of the subdivision on the dunes.
Miriam Holliman, Manila, submitted a supplement. She had concerns about the rapid urbanization of the coasts. She felt urbanization has destroyed a significant amount of coastal wetlands, degraded coastal water quality and stressed coastal ecosystems. She felt the subdivision would be a gross over development of the property.
Jennifer Savage, Manila, had concerns about traffic and lack of sidewalks. She felt the subdivision would bring more traffic and less safety.
Doris Williamson, Manila, felt the project would be good for the community.
The public comment period was closed.
BY ORDER OF THE CHAIR, this project was continued to June 7, 2007.
On build-nothings
Editor
Whine, whine, whine!
In response to "Cutten run" ("Mailbox," Mar 15), those uptight respondents are what I call "I've got mine, but you can't have yours" hypocrites. No doubt they live in what was an undeveloped area at one time.
Every time a housing development is proposed, this self-righteous indignation raises its ugly head. I remember when a large dairy ranch - now Sunny Brae - was developed. Then Westwood Village, Sunset, Greenview, etc. They all had this same kind of public response. Get real!
More people want to come here, with them will come many positive things. Having big new development is the best way to build community. We had the 13th house built in Sunny Brae. I loved watching all the new people move in. And I still do like people.
The Humboldt County development process is very comprehensive, believe me. I am building 17 houses as a planned unit development in Manila, and nothing is left out of the planning. Mine is sustainable, green, efficient, healthy, beautiful, disaster-enhanced, low maintenance and recreational. Still there is much opposition as usual.
R.S. Riley, Manila
Then there was a letter from Fennel, apparently. I don't have that one yet, but will add it when I do.
And, Richard Salzman started exhorting the Orks to get involved.
Then, there was Hank Sims' commentary on the two letters, where he laid out the facts as opposed to the rhetoric. Discussed previously here and here
These letters are the result:
Letters to the editor, North Coast Journal
5/3/07
Battle of Manila
Editor
Why Hank Sims wants to adjudicate a serious development issue is beyond me ("Town Dandy" April 19) Since when does a column writer get between two letter writers and take sides? Mr. Sims went out of his way to make me look wrong, so let me respond to his findings.
Beach Pine trees: Is the NCJ advising coastal residents that it is legal to cut the coastal pine trees on areas of sensitive habitat? Mr. Riley cut 18 trees prior to filing his development plan. If it is ok to remove those, why does he need a special permit to remove the last two?
Sand dunes: I quoted Mr. Riley's own document to show that he is going to bulldoze 6,500 cubic yards of dunes. Mr. Sims defended him by saying they were restoring historic dunes on the property. This is pure fiction. the dunes are "natural now." Mr. Riley plans to disturb 100 percent of the vegetation, including the native dune plants that inhabit the property.
Density: Mr. Sims went to great length but didn't quite have the courage of his convictions to call me a hypocrite. Mr. Sims claimed that i built three homes on 3.7 acres and that is analogous to Riley's 17 homes on 3.4 acres. My parcels were each over 1 acre until the county asked me to separate the wetland area from two of the lots. Had I asked for 7 houses on my 3.7 acres, that would be analogous, although there are no dunes on my parcel either. And just for the record, I have built just one home, not three. Whose error of fact was that?
Michael Fennel, Manila
Editor
Sorry, NCJ, it was your call to jump into the middle of Manila's concerns regarding the Riley project, and now you complain that you are in the "tedious position of having to adjudicate their dispute." The Coastal Commission makes the ultimate decisions on any legal issues or requirements regarding the projects subject to the Coastal Act, not the Town Dandy, nor the planning department.
The California Coastal Commission was established by voter initiative in 1972 and was designed to give all Californians a voice in coastal development. It's mission was to protect, conserve, restore and enhance environmental and human based resources of the California coast and ocean for environmentally sustainable and prudent use by current and future generations.
The Coastal Act is most sensitive to adverse impacts if a project lies seaward of the first paved road. This is where the Riley project is located. The NCJ, I assume, has reviewed the Coastal Act and can render a fair judgement on the dispute which they are burdened with - specifically, Public Resources Code sections 30231 (Protection of Water Quality), 30235 (Geologic Stability), 30250 (New Development) and 30251 (Visual Resource Protection). IN addition, new tsunami standards are required that did not exist until recently.
All of us who are overwhelmed with coastal law will be relieved now that the NCJ has assumed the role as adjudicator between the community, developer and California State Coastal Commission. I am looking forward to the NCJ contributing its expertise and participating in the public process at the planning commission meeting on the Riley project.
John Rotter, Trinidad
Editor
Regarding Hank Sims column and the West Bay Dunes development proposal in Manila. Your facts are surprisingly incorrect.
First, regarding the pine trees. No, the property owner was not found guilty of cutting down mature beach pines, but whether or not the act of environmental destruction happened is unresolved. Witnesses and neighbors continue to disagree with the official findings.
Second, the sand. Perhaps plans call for the sand to be "moved" instead of "removed" but the essence of the argument remains the same. The building of 17 new homes on the property demands destruction of already existing dunes - an act impossible to environmentally justify.
Third - and this is where you were really off - Michael Fennel, my landlord, has not built three homes on his property as you stated. That lot began with a very nice trailer home already on it, and Michael's only built one new house so far. One, not three. He plans to build another next year which still adds up to fewer than you wrote. In any case, building one house on a slightly less than average sized lot adjacent to other standard sized lots is not equivalent to building 17 houses on 17 far less than average sized lots.
Finally, Michael Fennel is a thoughtful, kind man who has a vested interest in making Manila an ever better place to love. Unlike the West Bay Dunes development folks, he actually lives in the neighborhood - and walks his talk. Seeing him vilified in the Journal surprised and disappointed me. Your column was not only inaccurate, but unfair and insulting to Michael and all the other good people advocating for sensible development and land use in our neighborhood,
Jennifer Savage, Manila.
Ed reply: Though I have not met him, I have no doubt that Michael Fennel is a "thoughtful kind man" I also have no doubts that opponents of the proposed "West Bay Dunes" project being proposed by R. S. Riley care deeply for their neighborhood, and for the dune ecosystem surrounding it. The Journal has no position whatsoever on the Riley project. We have not studied the issue at all, save for what is required by our legal and moral responsibilities to correct potentially libelous or defamatory false statements of fact that have appeared in our letters to the editor section.
Unfortunately, the false statements (or strong implications) in Fennel's original letter ("Mailbox" April 5) are still false. Riley did cut 18 trees on his property prior to filing his development plan, but county code enforcement officers determined that it was legal for him to do so. The county prohibits "major vegetation removal" inside the Coastal Zone without a permit. Code enforcement visited the site, measured the trees cut by Riley and found that they did not meet the county's definition of "major vegetation." It's perfectly acceptable to deplore the cutting of the trees, it is not acceptable to imply that Riley broke the law when he did not.
John Rotter's informed legal analysis would be more persuasive if he actually cited relevant sections of law. Like much of Humboldt County's coastline, the area in question is covered by a local coastal program - a Coastal Commission approved plan that gives a local jurisdiction control over coastal development decisions. (See Public resources Code section 30519(a). The fact that the proposed development does indeed lie seaward of the first paved road gives opponents of the Riley project the right to appeal to the Coastal Commission (if the county ends up approving it), however, the Coastal Commission will evaluate the project based on its compliance with the local coastal program, not the Coastal Act.
It was my mistake to say that Michael Fennel "built three houses" in his own subdivision. I ran a correction last week, but I'll reprint it here: One house already existed, another house was built, another is planned. The point, of course, is that in his original letter, Fennel set out the half acre minimum parcel size as an absolute baseline standard for new development in the area; he did not mention that his own subdivision, undertaken just last year, contains two (not one) parcels of less than that size. It is true that the parcels proposed by the Riley subdivision are much smaller still, and that seems like perfectly justifiable grounds for opposition to the project. We would be remiss, however if we did not point out that the half acre minimum standard is somewhat negotiable, at least in the minds of some Manila residents.
###
Then, you have letters like this one to the Planning Commission:
Letter to the Humboldt County Planning Commission
April 23, 2007
From: Jerry Martien
Re: Coastal Development Permit, Planned Unit Development & Special Permit Application, ROBERT RILEY, applicant, File No. APN 400-131-05, 1521 Peninsula Drive, Manila
Dear Commissioners:
The proposed Riley subdivision in inappropriate to the site and the neighborhood, threatens the rural character of manila, and abuses the County's planning process. I urge you to deny the application.
Unlike some, I do not advocate shooting the applicant, but over the years I've noticed his talent for provoking this kind of negative response. Ever since he made the move from Section 8 landlord to developer, and purchased the old Shires house at 1521 Peninsula, he has been at odds with the neighborhood. He tried to close a traditional beach trail in order to make the parcel more saleable and since that failed he has come up with one subdivision plan after another, each worse than the last and less appropriate to the site and to south Peninsula Drive.
Not long ago, this dune-top stretch of Peninsula was characterized by a rented trailer, with all the features of rural slum living, and the applicant's large For Sale sign. The past few years have seen a number of building projects and renovations that are creating a thriving neighborhood. Each of these has been required to protect natural features and wetlands, and a project at the end of the road was even turned down because it failed to meet these requirements. All have had community input, both in public forums and private discussion. Not all of these meetings have been peaceful, but issues have been resolved and the quality of life -- including the protection of wild space, privacy, and quiet -- has been preserved.
The applicant, on the other hand, has chosen instead to talk to lawyers and to work against the community. His proposal to build seventeen residences of up to 4000 square feet where Mr. Shires' little house once stood is not in keeping with the rural character of Manila and this neighborhood, it does not respect the natural coastal landforms, nor its characteristic shore pine and coastal scrub, and it will drain the run-off of all these homes into its wetlands. It is simply too damn much.
When this is pointed out, the applicant portrays himself as a victim of persecution and declares that like Rob Arkley he's just another developer who believes Humboldt County needs more urban sprawl. This project could be Manila's own little Sunny Brae.
It is astonishing that a project of this magnitude, entirely inappropriate to its natural and social setting, should get this far. Here again, the applicant has taken a legalistic and adversarial approach to the planning process. Using measures designed to preserve natural values, donating to nature what is already natural and ought to remain so, he proposes to level dunes and fill dune hollows and call the result enhancement. By this letter of the law we could level everything up to the lines marked NR and reduce Manila to ten feet above sea level where we already locate our densest housing. Of course a development at that level would not be permitted. Like the shooting option, the strictly legal approach seems justified, but does not lead to a desirable outcome. I ask that you resist this approach to planning.
Please uphold the spirit of our coastal zoning laws, the values of the natural world, the character of the neighborhood, and the community of Manila.
Sincerely,
Jerry Martien
###
Then, there are times when the wind blows the trees down...
exerpted from Dunes Forum February 8, 2006 Meeting Minutes:
...Storm Damage in the Dunes
...Andrea Pickart shared a brief power-point presentation showing the impact of the New Year’s Eve storm in the dunes. Wind events are the process that drives forest dynamics and blow down event bring about pulsed of pine and spruce regeneration in the dune forest. There was massive tree fall in the dune forest combined with heavy rains which exacerbated the effect. Some trees in the forest that went down were over 150 years old. There will be an article in the next issue of Dunesberry discussing the effects of the Storm. Andrea will be qualitatively monitoring the new gaps in the forest to see what comes up. If there grad students who were interested in a project, this would be a good opportunity for a project....
Andrea Pickart- Restoration is in full swing at Ma-le’l. CDF crews had to be setiched to doing trail clearing and removal of downed trees. They are having a strip flown (low flight at a low scale) from the north end of the spit down to Manila. Low flight at a low scale. (if Manla has money, they might possibly be interested in the flight). There is a topography map of Ma-le’l that will be available when the plan comes out. Tree fall in the dune forest also exposed some more ivy spots and made a mess of some areas...
Sometimes it is ok to bulldoze the dunes and fill in hollows...
Minutes from meeting held November 09, 2005
Carruthers Cove Dune Restoration Project
...European Beach grass removal with heavy equipment commenced this month at Carruthers Cove. The beach grass was dug out with an excavator and then reburied 3meters down and fresh, clean sand was then used to fill in the trenches and re-contour the landscape. This is a pilot project involving RNSP, DPR and other partners. The hope of this project is to remove beach grass on the north end and hold the south end. The southern portion of the project was at Osogan to Carruthers cove. The beach grass was removed around the endangered Abronia. There were two federally endangered species that were impacted by this project, Abronia umbellata ssp. breviflora, and the western snowy plover. Also in the project area was Layia carnosa and the tidewater gobi. The permitting for this project was extremely laborious (CEQA, T&E consultation, coastal commission and coastal conservancy). The project was timed to be outside the breeding season for the snowy plover, also the heavy equipment operators were busy doing watershed restoration until after the first rains. It has been observed that once the winds are over 30 miles per hours, the wind will whisk the dune grass rhizomes about and the project becomes less efficient...
###
Arcata Eye A high-density cluster dumped on Manila’s dunes Jennifer Savage: – May 8, 2007
###
Times Standard Dozens decry Manila proposal: Opponents of 17-unit development getting organized James Faulk 04/12/2007
***
Minutes: Planning Commission
4. ROBERT RILEY, Manila Area (1521 Peninsula Dr.): a Major Subdivision to divide an approximate 8.5 acre parcel into seventeen (17) parcels. 5.1 acres is proposed to be dedicated as open space. The proposed subdivision is to be a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and a two-year Blanket Coastal Development has been requested. A Special Permit is required to allow for fill within a wetland buffer area, for major vegetation removal, and for wetland restoration following fill placement. NOTE: It is recommended a Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted. CASE No. FMS-06-05, CDP-06-41, PUD-06-03 & SP-06-48; File Nos. APN 400-131-05. (MEW)
Issues: Wet Land Buffer
Staff report and recommendations:
Michael Wheeler gave the staff report describing the Final Map subdivision, proposed tsunami hazard mitigation, drainage via a stormwater collection system and infiltration trench, the Planned Unit Development, and its relationship to the beach and dunes. Mr. Wheeler presented maps, showing the environmental layout and sensitive areas of concern. He spoke about the supplements that have been received from the neighborhood and from the Coastal Commission.
The public comment period was opened.
Dendra Dengler, Manila Community Service District (CSD), read their resolution (#2007.02) to maintain the rural character, preserve natural resources & coastal access into the record.
Aryay Kalaki, Manila, submitted petitions from residents and non-residents of Manila. They object to increasing housing density in their area.
Ken Terpening, Manila, had concerns about the project. He felt the road was not adequate or safe for a subdivision.
Violet Glass, Manila CDS board member, had concerns about subdivision traffic and about area wild life.
Tim Ayers, Manila, asked which community this subdivision is in the best interest of.
John St. Marie, Friends of the Dunes, had concerns about the effect of the subdivision on the dunes.
Miriam Holliman, Manila, submitted a supplement. She had concerns about the rapid urbanization of the coasts. She felt urbanization has destroyed a significant amount of coastal wetlands, degraded coastal water quality and stressed coastal ecosystems. She felt the subdivision would be a gross over development of the property.
Jennifer Savage, Manila, had concerns about traffic and lack of sidewalks. She felt the subdivision would bring more traffic and less safety.
Doris Williamson, Manila, felt the project would be good for the community.
The public comment period was closed.
BY ORDER OF THE CHAIR, this project was continued to June 7, 2007.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
More on the Witch Hunt..."This is not a NIMBY issue" WITH KHUM UPDATES
In a message dated 5/2/2007 salzman@inreach.com writes:
To: Humboldt neighbors re 17-unit subdivision in Manila...
"...This is NOT just a Manila issue - and NOT a NIMBY issue. it's about what kinds of development the residents of Humboldt Bay wish to allow in our communities in the future, and how these critical decisions should be made...."
"...This is not a NIMBY issue. No developer should be allowed to place a densely packed subdivision of large homes on top of a wild dune ecosystem adjacent to a healthy willow wetland in a rural neighborhood on a narrow road...
Uh huh.
It does happen elsewhere, and it looks kinda nice.
UPDATE:
Letters to the North Coast Journal, from Fennel, his tenant, and a guy from Trinidad - and a correction noted, But the facts still stand. Michael Fennel asserts, and Hank agrees, that Fennel did not BUILD three houses. One existed, One was built and another is planned. Nevertheless, Sims points out, the point of his comments last week was that Fennel wants to hold Riley to a half acre minimum standard that he himself did not - or was not allowed to - follow.
ANOTHER UPDATE:
Calling out all the stops and using the media - today, (Thursday) Michael Fennel is on KHUM decrying Scott Riley's project, saying it is not a "green development" - STILL says this project plans to bulldoze the dunes - says people should be honest - says they are trying to impose a dense new neighborhood - still upset about the scrub pines which were cut, wants to ask for a measuring of the stumps, says he has already measured the stumps - (isn't that trespassing?) Says he doesn't see cutting a new road into the dunes is fair to the protected environment, says the new development must fit in with the character of the existing homes (-?-), and that these 3 story homes just won't fit in with the existing character, in part becasue they have to be built to withstand a tsunami. Says, essentially that John Ash, the architect is lying. (Spin, he says, to call using recycled products and installing solar "green.") No mention of the trail access, nor the fact that Riley offered to donate land to the Community... Like I said, there's no appeasing these guys.
UPDATE to UPDATE (1:31):
Scott Riley called in to KHUM to set the record straight... Wow what a story! Basically, I'll stick to the order in which he spoke:
First he talked about the trees. He said it is illegal to cut anything over a foot in diameter. Then he talked about the trees he cut, He said, first of all, that he planted 150 native trees on the property (turns out he owns a tree farm), and said they had gotten to be about 15 to 20 feet tall. He said when trees grow to a certain height in the sand, they often get blown over, and that that had happened here. So he went in to clean up the dead and dying trees, cut them up for firewood.
Then the harassment begins...The next day, he said, he came to work on them and found a Stop Work' order posted. The County sent out a code enforcement unit to inspect his property, they told him they had gotten complaints from a couple of neighbors. He showed them the trees, explained what was going on. The code enforcement officers found that there was no violation.
A couple of weeks later he cut the trees up and stacked them up. Then another agency came to inspect, this time the Coastal Commission, again because of complaints from Fennel and company. The Coastal Commission representative also sees that this is not a violation.
Then another Federal agency showed up, because Fennel and his friends had complained about an illegal timber harvest.
All three agencies found that no violation had occurred. And, Riley said, he got three cords of wood finally.
Next, the radio host, Mike Dronkers, asked him about the three story houses that Fennel had complained so loudly about.
Riley said first that the house Fennel built was 6 feet from his own property line and that it is taller than any of the houses Riley plans to build, and that across the street Fennel had another 30 foot building. Riley said that his tallest house will be 35 feet in height, and that they will have underground garages.
Giving a background on the dispute, he said that in 1992 he talked to the property's then owners, the Shires, and asked if they would sell the property. they said the property was not for sale, but mentioned that Fennel and Aryay Kalaki had gotten the property appraised and made an offer to the Shires.
Noting that the property was not for sale, they then said that if someone offered them twice what Kalaki had offered, they would sell it. So Riley bought it, and made a lifelong enemy apparently. He said he himself had put the property up for sale, that for 15 years Kalaki and Fennel could have purchased the property and turned it into a dune sanctuary if they wanted to, but they did not.
Regarding the houses, he said he has posted the plans on a bulletin board and that people can see them at the Planning Dept. When he decided to develop it, the County suggested that he do a planned unit development, where you cluster the houses and leave the rest for natural habitat, the new wave of the future.
He said most of Manila is zoned for 5,000 sq. ft lots which is 8 houses to an acre, and some allow 16 per acre, and he pointed out that his property is 8.5 acres, and he is only building 17 homes, much better than the rest of Manila.
He said his homes will be set well back from the wetlands, while Fennel's house is only 7 feet from the wetlands, and that one of Fennel's buildings is in the wetland, something Fennel had requested a variance to hbe allowed to do so.
In fact, he said, Fennel has requested a variance each time he has done something, while he, Riley had not asked for any zoning variances.
The homes he is proposing have sod roofs, passive solar, solar panels, thermal mass, with recycled and organic materials. The building cost is substantially more than a "normal" house. They'll cost $400,000 to $500,000 to build, but they represent a new wave in sustainable development. Riley said he is willing to take the risk, but that it is a gamble, whether or not he will be able to sell them. "Green" housing is more expensive. Like organic produce. But worth it.
It's an ambitious project, and one people should be excited about, especially the so-called enviros.
To Mike Dronkers - like Hank Sims - you deserve thanks for allowing both sides to be told. Very interesting.
It is quite a story. Not a pretty story, though.
Footnote and disclaimer: I was scribbling as fast as I could as the two men were talking. I believe I got all the points correctly. But, given the interest this is generating, and given the fact that Fennel's side looks like they are the nitpicky ones who are probably looking for any little thing I might have gotten wrong that they can use against Riley, I am very thankful to have been given an mp3 copy of both appearances. I'm trying to figure out how to upload the file if I can't link to it at the station, so you can all hear it verbatim for yourselves. So, if I got any number wrong - my apologies.
MORE:
Though Fennel derided Riley's architect, John Ash, Ash is no lightweight. John Ash Group Architects received the Los Angeles Conservancy’s prestigious Preservation Award for 2005. John Ash Group Architects, with offices in both Eureka and Los Angeles, worked as the historic preservation architect on the winning Infomart-Los Angeles Terminal Annex project.
He also writes a column on building design for the Eureka Reporter:
(A new column: Design for Life)
Creating spaces, building fences
The life style brand: Bringing meaning to your life
The lighted path on the search for enlightenment
Doors — our humble guardians should give us more
The continuing story of the door
Defining your home's character
Imagining a better space
My Space, Chapter 2: Building the perfect shower
A brief plan for the 'me space'
A Deck For All Seasons Part 2
Clients come first, real or not
To: Humboldt neighbors re 17-unit subdivision in Manila...
"...This is NOT just a Manila issue - and NOT a NIMBY issue. it's about what kinds of development the residents of Humboldt Bay wish to allow in our communities in the future, and how these critical decisions should be made...."
"...This is not a NIMBY issue. No developer should be allowed to place a densely packed subdivision of large homes on top of a wild dune ecosystem adjacent to a healthy willow wetland in a rural neighborhood on a narrow road...
Uh huh.
It does happen elsewhere, and it looks kinda nice.
UPDATE:
Letters to the North Coast Journal, from Fennel, his tenant, and a guy from Trinidad - and a correction noted, But the facts still stand. Michael Fennel asserts, and Hank agrees, that Fennel did not BUILD three houses. One existed, One was built and another is planned. Nevertheless, Sims points out, the point of his comments last week was that Fennel wants to hold Riley to a half acre minimum standard that he himself did not - or was not allowed to - follow.
ANOTHER UPDATE:
Calling out all the stops and using the media - today, (Thursday) Michael Fennel is on KHUM decrying Scott Riley's project, saying it is not a "green development" - STILL says this project plans to bulldoze the dunes - says people should be honest - says they are trying to impose a dense new neighborhood - still upset about the scrub pines which were cut, wants to ask for a measuring of the stumps, says he has already measured the stumps - (isn't that trespassing?) Says he doesn't see cutting a new road into the dunes is fair to the protected environment, says the new development must fit in with the character of the existing homes (-?-), and that these 3 story homes just won't fit in with the existing character, in part becasue they have to be built to withstand a tsunami. Says, essentially that John Ash, the architect is lying. (Spin, he says, to call using recycled products and installing solar "green.") No mention of the trail access, nor the fact that Riley offered to donate land to the Community... Like I said, there's no appeasing these guys.
UPDATE to UPDATE (1:31):
Scott Riley called in to KHUM to set the record straight... Wow what a story! Basically, I'll stick to the order in which he spoke:
First he talked about the trees. He said it is illegal to cut anything over a foot in diameter. Then he talked about the trees he cut, He said, first of all, that he planted 150 native trees on the property (turns out he owns a tree farm), and said they had gotten to be about 15 to 20 feet tall. He said when trees grow to a certain height in the sand, they often get blown over, and that that had happened here. So he went in to clean up the dead and dying trees, cut them up for firewood.
Then the harassment begins...The next day, he said, he came to work on them and found a Stop Work' order posted. The County sent out a code enforcement unit to inspect his property, they told him they had gotten complaints from a couple of neighbors. He showed them the trees, explained what was going on. The code enforcement officers found that there was no violation.
A couple of weeks later he cut the trees up and stacked them up. Then another agency came to inspect, this time the Coastal Commission, again because of complaints from Fennel and company. The Coastal Commission representative also sees that this is not a violation.
Then another Federal agency showed up, because Fennel and his friends had complained about an illegal timber harvest.
All three agencies found that no violation had occurred. And, Riley said, he got three cords of wood finally.
Next, the radio host, Mike Dronkers, asked him about the three story houses that Fennel had complained so loudly about.
Riley said first that the house Fennel built was 6 feet from his own property line and that it is taller than any of the houses Riley plans to build, and that across the street Fennel had another 30 foot building. Riley said that his tallest house will be 35 feet in height, and that they will have underground garages.
Giving a background on the dispute, he said that in 1992 he talked to the property's then owners, the Shires, and asked if they would sell the property. they said the property was not for sale, but mentioned that Fennel and Aryay Kalaki had gotten the property appraised and made an offer to the Shires.
Noting that the property was not for sale, they then said that if someone offered them twice what Kalaki had offered, they would sell it. So Riley bought it, and made a lifelong enemy apparently. He said he himself had put the property up for sale, that for 15 years Kalaki and Fennel could have purchased the property and turned it into a dune sanctuary if they wanted to, but they did not.
Regarding the houses, he said he has posted the plans on a bulletin board and that people can see them at the Planning Dept. When he decided to develop it, the County suggested that he do a planned unit development, where you cluster the houses and leave the rest for natural habitat, the new wave of the future.
He said most of Manila is zoned for 5,000 sq. ft lots which is 8 houses to an acre, and some allow 16 per acre, and he pointed out that his property is 8.5 acres, and he is only building 17 homes, much better than the rest of Manila.
He said his homes will be set well back from the wetlands, while Fennel's house is only 7 feet from the wetlands, and that one of Fennel's buildings is in the wetland, something Fennel had requested a variance to hbe allowed to do so.
In fact, he said, Fennel has requested a variance each time he has done something, while he, Riley had not asked for any zoning variances.
The homes he is proposing have sod roofs, passive solar, solar panels, thermal mass, with recycled and organic materials. The building cost is substantially more than a "normal" house. They'll cost $400,000 to $500,000 to build, but they represent a new wave in sustainable development. Riley said he is willing to take the risk, but that it is a gamble, whether or not he will be able to sell them. "Green" housing is more expensive. Like organic produce. But worth it.
It's an ambitious project, and one people should be excited about, especially the so-called enviros.
To Mike Dronkers - like Hank Sims - you deserve thanks for allowing both sides to be told. Very interesting.
It is quite a story. Not a pretty story, though.
Footnote and disclaimer: I was scribbling as fast as I could as the two men were talking. I believe I got all the points correctly. But, given the interest this is generating, and given the fact that Fennel's side looks like they are the nitpicky ones who are probably looking for any little thing I might have gotten wrong that they can use against Riley, I am very thankful to have been given an mp3 copy of both appearances. I'm trying to figure out how to upload the file if I can't link to it at the station, so you can all hear it verbatim for yourselves. So, if I got any number wrong - my apologies.
MORE:
Though Fennel derided Riley's architect, John Ash, Ash is no lightweight. John Ash Group Architects received the Los Angeles Conservancy’s prestigious Preservation Award for 2005. John Ash Group Architects, with offices in both Eureka and Los Angeles, worked as the historic preservation architect on the winning Infomart-Los Angeles Terminal Annex project.
He also writes a column on building design for the Eureka Reporter:
(A new column: Design for Life)
Creating spaces, building fences
The life style brand: Bringing meaning to your life
The lighted path on the search for enlightenment
Doors — our humble guardians should give us more
The continuing story of the door
Defining your home's character
Imagining a better space
My Space, Chapter 2: Building the perfect shower
A brief plan for the 'me space'
A Deck For All Seasons Part 2
Clients come first, real or not
Sunday, April 29, 2007
A witch hunt
She was my brother's teacher. She was creative, and innovative, and something of a radical. She talked about saving the forests long before the treesitters and Redwood Summer. She introduced the concept of organic food, and had the kids making (and drinking) carrot juice, brought in xeroxed sheets of information on the formaldehyde in ice cream. She exemplified the back to the land, grow your own, live off the grid lifestyle. And we loved her.
One day, a kid brought a Playboy Magazine into class. When she discovered it in his desk, she did something very unusual. She took it out, and hung it on the bulletin board. And the class had a discussion about what it represented.
The kids knew it to be the right reaction. It was just. It wasn't over-reactive. It was real and it was honest. And they loved her.
But the parents didn't. She was far too radical. And soon she was gone.
And the kids knew - she was the victim of a witch hunt.
It seems ironic to me that her son is now becoming a victim of the same sort of narrow minded thinking - but with a major twist.
Her name was Irene Riley.
Her son's name is Scott Riley.
His proposal for an "eco-groovy" development in Manila has brought out the lynch mob.
Salzman and his "eco-groovy" cohorts kicked into full gear, sounding the clarion call for warm bodies to kill the proposal, promising all kinds of dire consequences if Riley is successful - calling it "a very dense subdivision," stating that The development could be precedent-setting county-wide in a number of harmful ways. They "organized a publicized walk ... so local residents could see for themselves how d-e-s-t-r-u-c-t-i-v-e this will be. They hope that dozens of concerned residents across the Humboldt Bay area will recognize the i-m-p-o-r-t-a-n-c-e of this meeting, and that we're able to pack the chambers with articulate voices of opposition. They claim "None of us are opposed to this property being "developed" as long as it matches the existing neighborhood's low density, and doesn't destroy any of the existing dunes.,, Aryay Kalaki said it would irretrievably change the community's rustic attributes that residents cherish. ”We would permanently lose the rural character,” said Kalaki." (Don't laugh!) (Channel 3 they claim, ran the "publicized walk" as a lead story that night. The Times Standard and The Lumberjack covered it as well - Guys, you might wanna check your sources.)
As Hank Sims details in his recent column, there are some problems with their story.
"...Pine trees. In his letter, (Michael) Fennell stated that Riley was "caught cutting mature beach pines on [his] property prior to submitting [his] development plan." The implication was that this was an illegal act, and in a follow-up call Fennell asserted that it was.
In fact, it was not. The tree-cutting incident was covered in the Arcata Eye at the time. The story from that paper described how officers from the county's code enforcement unit had been called to the scene and had issued a stop-work permit for "possible" violations, but had later determined that no law had been broken. The trees were not, in fact, "mature," at least by the definition adopted by the county. In our phone conversation, Fennell insisted that code enforcement had simply been too busy to prosecute Riley, but this is not the case. No law was broken.
Sand. In his letter, Fennell mentioned that the Riley plan involves "bulldoz[ing] the dunes (about 650 large dump-truck loads)." In fact, the great majority of the sand removed from building sites in the Riley proposal will be used to restore historic dunes on the property, according to engineering plans that have been submitted to the county. Only one "large dump-truck load" of sand is scheduled to be removed from the site.
Density. Fennell, speaking for the community, said: "We welcome any new housing that ... maintains the half-acre minimum standard." (Half-acre-minimum lots are standard for the area's zoning.)
Riley's plan calls for 17 homes on 8.5 acres, which pencils out to one home per half-acre. However, those proposed homes will be scrunched into one corner of the property so that the rest of the parcel, which consists of sensitive wetlands, may be protected as open space. This kind of thing is the purpose behind "planned unit developments." Trevor Eslow, a planner with the county's Community Development Services division, assured us Tuesday that these kind of trade-offs -- smaller lot sizes for preserved open space -- are not entirely uncommon.
In fact, just last year there was another Manila developer who did a somewhat analogous deal with the county. His name is Michael Fennell. Last year, Fennell wanted to subdivide 3.7 acres, 3 acres of which was wetlands or pine forest. Fennell built three homes on the other seven-tenths of an acre, with the county's blessing. According to Eslow, the lead planner on the project, one of the lots was only 15,000 square feet in size -- about .35 acres, well below the standard he sets for Riley's development..."
Riley's development is "green" - the kind of thing that should make these guys happy.
And, there's more to the story. Kalaki has a longstanding grudge against Riley (reportedly he wanted Riley's piece of property, but offered less than Riley, and so did not get it, and has been on a vendetta ever since. There's also some evidence that he uses the "Dunes Forum" to harass Riley.)
Another neighbor is Salzman's buddy, extremist, Paul Cienfuegos.
Why is Salzman suddenly so interested in all proposed development? It's not just that he likes to meddle in other people's business. It appears that he's an active force in Mark Lovelace's "Healthy Humboldt." You can expect activist tactics to be employed, viral email alerts, plaintive "My Word's" penned by people other than him, and Salzman's Orks armed with talking points attending community meetings and speaking against Riley. Riley's only real sin appears to be that he doesn't belong to the Club.
It tells you that these guys are not really in it for "green" reasons. It's about power and control and you can't appease these guys.
The Humboldt County Planning Commission will consider Riley's development at its regular meeting on Thursday, May 3.
Paul Cienfuegos wants you to "share YOUR concerns with the various public officials who will be involved in this decision.
* Michael Wheeler, Humboldt County Planner mwheeler@co.humboldt.ca.us
* Bob Merrill, CA Coastal Commission bmerrill@coastal.ca.gov
* CA Dept of Fish and Game wcondon@dfg.ca.gov
* Your local Board of Supes, especially John Woolley jwoolley@co.humboldt.ca.us"
Will they take the time to check their sources?
ADDTL INFO:
Manila takes second look at Riley development, fluoride
Manila rejects wetland donation from developer
One day, a kid brought a Playboy Magazine into class. When she discovered it in his desk, she did something very unusual. She took it out, and hung it on the bulletin board. And the class had a discussion about what it represented.
The kids knew it to be the right reaction. It was just. It wasn't over-reactive. It was real and it was honest. And they loved her.
But the parents didn't. She was far too radical. And soon she was gone.
And the kids knew - she was the victim of a witch hunt.
It seems ironic to me that her son is now becoming a victim of the same sort of narrow minded thinking - but with a major twist.
Her name was Irene Riley.
Her son's name is Scott Riley.
His proposal for an "eco-groovy" development in Manila has brought out the lynch mob.
Salzman and his "eco-groovy" cohorts kicked into full gear, sounding the clarion call for warm bodies to kill the proposal, promising all kinds of dire consequences if Riley is successful - calling it "a very dense subdivision," stating that The development could be precedent-setting county-wide in a number of harmful ways. They "organized a publicized walk ... so local residents could see for themselves how d-e-s-t-r-u-c-t-i-v-e this will be. They hope that dozens of concerned residents across the Humboldt Bay area will recognize the i-m-p-o-r-t-a-n-c-e of this meeting, and that we're able to pack the chambers with articulate voices of opposition. They claim "None of us are opposed to this property being "developed" as long as it matches the existing neighborhood's low density, and doesn't destroy any of the existing dunes.,, Aryay Kalaki said it would irretrievably change the community's rustic attributes that residents cherish. ”We would permanently lose the rural character,” said Kalaki." (Don't laugh!) (Channel 3 they claim, ran the "publicized walk" as a lead story that night. The Times Standard and The Lumberjack covered it as well - Guys, you might wanna check your sources.)
As Hank Sims details in his recent column, there are some problems with their story.
"...Pine trees. In his letter, (Michael) Fennell stated that Riley was "caught cutting mature beach pines on [his] property prior to submitting [his] development plan." The implication was that this was an illegal act, and in a follow-up call Fennell asserted that it was.
In fact, it was not. The tree-cutting incident was covered in the Arcata Eye at the time. The story from that paper described how officers from the county's code enforcement unit had been called to the scene and had issued a stop-work permit for "possible" violations, but had later determined that no law had been broken. The trees were not, in fact, "mature," at least by the definition adopted by the county. In our phone conversation, Fennell insisted that code enforcement had simply been too busy to prosecute Riley, but this is not the case. No law was broken.
Sand. In his letter, Fennell mentioned that the Riley plan involves "bulldoz[ing] the dunes (about 650 large dump-truck loads)." In fact, the great majority of the sand removed from building sites in the Riley proposal will be used to restore historic dunes on the property, according to engineering plans that have been submitted to the county. Only one "large dump-truck load" of sand is scheduled to be removed from the site.
Density. Fennell, speaking for the community, said: "We welcome any new housing that ... maintains the half-acre minimum standard." (Half-acre-minimum lots are standard for the area's zoning.)
Riley's plan calls for 17 homes on 8.5 acres, which pencils out to one home per half-acre. However, those proposed homes will be scrunched into one corner of the property so that the rest of the parcel, which consists of sensitive wetlands, may be protected as open space. This kind of thing is the purpose behind "planned unit developments." Trevor Eslow, a planner with the county's Community Development Services division, assured us Tuesday that these kind of trade-offs -- smaller lot sizes for preserved open space -- are not entirely uncommon.
In fact, just last year there was another Manila developer who did a somewhat analogous deal with the county. His name is Michael Fennell. Last year, Fennell wanted to subdivide 3.7 acres, 3 acres of which was wetlands or pine forest. Fennell built three homes on the other seven-tenths of an acre, with the county's blessing. According to Eslow, the lead planner on the project, one of the lots was only 15,000 square feet in size -- about .35 acres, well below the standard he sets for Riley's development..."
Riley's development is "green" - the kind of thing that should make these guys happy.
And, there's more to the story. Kalaki has a longstanding grudge against Riley (reportedly he wanted Riley's piece of property, but offered less than Riley, and so did not get it, and has been on a vendetta ever since. There's also some evidence that he uses the "Dunes Forum" to harass Riley.)
Another neighbor is Salzman's buddy, extremist, Paul Cienfuegos.
Why is Salzman suddenly so interested in all proposed development? It's not just that he likes to meddle in other people's business. It appears that he's an active force in Mark Lovelace's "Healthy Humboldt." You can expect activist tactics to be employed, viral email alerts, plaintive "My Word's" penned by people other than him, and Salzman's Orks armed with talking points attending community meetings and speaking against Riley. Riley's only real sin appears to be that he doesn't belong to the Club.
It tells you that these guys are not really in it for "green" reasons. It's about power and control and you can't appease these guys.
The Humboldt County Planning Commission will consider Riley's development at its regular meeting on Thursday, May 3.
Paul Cienfuegos wants you to "share YOUR concerns with the various public officials who will be involved in this decision.
* Michael Wheeler, Humboldt County Planner mwheeler@co.humboldt.ca.us
* Bob Merrill, CA Coastal Commission bmerrill@coastal.ca.gov
* CA Dept of Fish and Game wcondon@dfg.ca.gov
* Your local Board of Supes, especially John Woolley jwoolley@co.humboldt.ca.us"
Will they take the time to check their sources?
ADDTL INFO:
Manila takes second look at Riley development, fluoride
Manila rejects wetland donation from developer
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)