Synopsis: At the last minute, the City of Morro Bay received a letter from the California Coastal Commission staff raising "numerous significant inconsistencies" with the pending approval of the proposed massive mansion atop little Cerrito Peak and urging postponement until these objections could be reviewed. But the city council went ahead and approved it over those and other objections of many residents living near the Peak and elsewhere in the community.
In spite of a last-minute letter from the California Coastal Commission staff expressing strong objections to the project and urging a delay in consideration of the highly-controversial development, the 5,532-square-foot mansion atop little Cerrito Peak has been approved by a 4-1 vote of the Morro Bay City Council, which completely ignored warnings from the commission staff that it may not legally conform to the city's own Local Coastal Plan.
The letter (CCC Letter Cerrito Peak), despite its strong contents, which was received by the city staff at 5:03 p.m. on Tuesday, December 13, was not shared with those appealing the project until moments before the appeal hearing was scheduled to begin at 7 p.m. As a result, project opponents said they had inadequate time to develop their comments at the hearing to include the important points made by the commission staff.
City planner Kathleen Wold, who received the letter from the commission staff at 5:03 p.m., said she did not have time to review and distribute it earlier, plus it is "standard procedure" to distribute such communications at a meeting, not necessarily before. Whether council members and the applicant were provided the letter prior to the meeting was not clear.
City attorney Rob Schultz made the decision to recommend the council to not postpone the project, as requested by the commission staff, Wold said. Wold also said she talked to Madeline Cavalieri, the Coastal Commission staff person who wrote the letter to the city, for an extensive period around mid-afternoon of the day of the hearing about the staff's objections to the project. But, Wold claimed, they did not "discuss the letter verbatim," so she, Wold, could not alert appellants at that time because the letter had not arrived.
The city staff and Coastal Commission agreed that the decision approving the project cannot be appealed to the commission because it is not in the commission coastal zone which permits appeals. Wold said Cavalieri told her that the commission staff had the authority to place it in that zone, which would permit an appeal, but chose not to. Cavalieri said Wold's information was false.
The commission staff's strong arguments against the widely-opposed project appear to open the way for litigation challenging the council decision. The residents living near Cerrito Peak who appealed the project to the council indicated they would ponder their options starting next month.
The conclusion of the commission letter said the El Cerrito "project appears to raise numerous significant inconsistencies with the City's certified LCP (Local Coastal Plan). We urge you to consider these comments and delay action on the project until the necessary information is obtained, allowing the City to fully evaluate the project for consistency with the certified LCP."
In other words, the city appears not to have considered all relevant information about the project before voting to reject the appeals of the city Planning Commission's approval of it on October 5.
The council meeting was packed with residents and neighbors who strongly oppose the project. One opponent was Fred Collins, tribal administrator for the Northern Chumash Tribal Council, who told the council that Cerrito Peak is a sacred Chumash Nation site and the city should develop more information about its "special treasures" and conduct an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) before "taking the hasty step" of allowing the property to be built upon.
The city staff told the council that the appeals raised no new issues since the Planning Commission decision, which appeared to satisfy the four council members who voted for the project.
However, council member Noah Smukler, who voted against it, raised numerous questions, including, in view of the commission staff objections, "are you still confident no EIR is needed and it (the council decision) will withstand litigation?" He got no clear answer.
But the bottom line for the four council members who voted to deny the appeals was protecting property rights, in this case those of Dan Reddell, the developer. "Private property rights are the issue," mayor Bill Yates said. "Some people see us as development (advocates). But I do feel like I am a guy with his hand on the pulse of the community."
"It is property rights we are talking about here," council member George Leage added. "I have to support property rights."
Council member Nancy Johnson said, "I have great trust in the city staff. They know a lot more than we do about when an EIR is needed. But it boils down to property rights."
Council member Carla Borchard said she agreed with most of Yates' positions on the issue but did not specify.
One of those who appealed the Planning Commission's approval of the project was Nicole Dorfman who said she made these edited comments at the December 13 hearing:
She requested an EIR be required prior to permitting of the project as required by CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) due to substantial evidence that contradicts those stated in the city's Initial Studies and Checklist and thus the accepted Mitigated Negative Declaration. If even one of the at least 100 questions on various matters indicated there is a "potential" for significant impacts, an EIR is required by law.
The city study says that development would have "no impact" on "scenic resources including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings . . . within view of a scenic highway." The study went on to state that site is not within view of a scenic highway. This is incorrect — the site is clearly in view of Highway 1.
In the section on Soils and Geology, the study also checked "no impact" when asked if the project would "expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects." However, in the discussion section there are two paragraphs describing what still needs to be done to investigate potential significant impacts including:
1. A detailed rock fall investigation and mitigation plan including "risk reduction measures on adjacent properties and need for long term maintenance."
2. A detailed erosion and sediment study plan for protection of adjacent properties.
In short, it is completely illogical to state there are "no impacts" when we have not even done the investigation.
With regard to public land being appropriated to serve the infrastructure of the development, to be built within public right-of-way includes a driveway, six-foot high security fencing, private drainage facilities, and retaining walls.
Other comments were made at the meeting by appellant Julian Smalley. (Read Comments)
In addition, Andrew Christie, director of the Santa Lucia chapter of the Sierra Club, made these key points to the Council:
In the opening scenes of the movie Edward Scissorhands, the camera swoops in on a picture-perfect middle American town. It tracks to the end of the town's main street, where it suddenly encounters a mountain; and on top of that American mountain is a European castle, and in that castle is a mad scientist and Johnny Depp.
Clearly, Mr. Scissorhand's neighborhood did not have a local coastal plan. But you do, and it requires that new projects be compatible with existing surrounding development, and acknowledge site context to maintain an aesthetically pleasing community and not detract from the natural environment. It has been noted previously that the proposed project will sit like a monolith in the middle of public open space, a fact the initial study omitted to state or otherwise (fails to) refer to the fact that this project constitutes a large house, secondary unit, access route, parking, fencing, and infrastructure shoved into the donut hole of open space that is Cerrito Peak.
In view of the substantial amount of evidence now in the record demonstrating that the MND (mitigated negative declaration) is inadequate, and supporting a fair argument that this project may have a significant effect on the environment, and the fact that there is a disagreement among experts — in the assertions of David Wolff in the biological assessment versus the statements of Brandon Sanderson of the Dept of Fish and Game — you would be well advised to decline to adopt the MND and order the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report.
