Peninsula Community Association

Planning and Development Issues in Manila

Tempers Flare over Building in Sensitive Dune Ecology

Please submit your letters and other documents related to this matter.

Letter Submitted to Planning Dept. Against PUD Zoning in Manila

Greetings Commissioners, and thanks once again for your time.
You’ve read our letters and heard our objections to this project. Based on the high-density proposals made available to the public in the Planning Department file, we respectfully ask you once again to deny the application for the following reasons.

1. A development of this size will:
• degrade the existing rural character of the neighborhood
• bring an unacceptable and hazardous increase in traffic to Peninsula Drive
• damage the sensitive habitat of the dunes and wetlands (the property is on a Beach and Dune Overlay parcel)
• and set a dangerous precedent for coastal development in Humboldt County.

2. The project is referred to as being on 8.5 acres, but only 3.5 acres of this parcel qualify for development.
• The other five acres require special protections, as they consist of environmentally sensitive habitat.
• Talk of donating those five wetland acres to the Manila Community Services District as a way of mitigating damage is redundant, as the board doesn’t want them and the wetland acreage is already protected.
• President of the Board of Directors of Friends of the Dunes – and local geologist – Bill Weaver has clearly stated that group’s opposition to the project.
• The Coastal Commission stated that the findings necessary for development have not been met.

3. While we acknowledge that the legality of prior tree cutting on this property by the applicant is still being investigated, his request for a retroactive cutting permit only underscores how questionable this removal was. Further:
• A 1993 map of a prior development proposal clearly shows tree habitat in the areas that are now cleared from his cutting.
• In April, county enforcement officer Jeff Connor sent an email to Supervisor John Woolley regarding the cut trees. In this email, Jeff Connor states that some of the stumps – in direct contradiction to Mr. Riley’s claims – were about two feet in diameter and that when he asked Mr. Riley about the firewood that Riley was supposedly chopping the trees for, he was directed to an abandoned residence. He says he thinks the issue has been waiting action in the Planning Department and that's why no enforcement has yet come about.
• This matters because more trees will need to be cut for this development to take place, and, as Mr. Riley has said he will be attempting to sell the property, this issue should be settled before any land transfers hands

4. We are not opposed to sensible and fair development. We simply ask that any development on that parcel happens with the same restrictions other property owners have been held to.
• Do not approve the PUD.
• Houses must have a 75-foot minimum frontage requirement.

Thank you,