📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

Mendocino County Grand Jury • 1998-1999

How to Build a 55-foot-high Hotel in a 35-foot-high Zone in Fort Bragg

3 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F12

Findings 21 findings

F1 Page 24
The Planning Director is expected to know the Codes and Regulations.
F2 Page 24
The past planning commission was inexperienced and too dependent on the City Planner.
F3 Page 24
The City Manager is responsible for the Planning Director.
F4 Page 25
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that decision makers review the project to see that it is in conformation with local law and publish a "Notice of Determination." a. The 1992 Fort Bragg Planning Commission never conducted the CEQA review. There was no notice, no hearing, and no opportunity for public review. b. The information on the CEQA "Notice of Determination" dated August 19, 1992, and filed with the County Clerk on September 1, 1992, is inaccurate and cannot be verified, yet it was relied upon during the permitting process.
F5 Page 25
No coastal development permit for changes in the project was requested by the applicant nor approved by the City.
F6 Page 25
The Coastal Commission never received notice of formal action on the coastal development permit from the City.
F7 Page 25
Chapter 18.26.004 of the City LCP states the maximum height for buildings within its jurisdiction is 35 feet.
F8 Page 25
The project does not conform with Section 18.72.050 of Fort Bragg Municipal Code: "The height of buildings and structures shall be measured vertically from the average ground level of the ground covered by the building to the highest point of the roof."
F9 Page 25
No variance was ever applied for to increase the height limitations.
F10 Page 25
Evidence is lacking that the past City Planning Commission knew the details of what it was approving: ie. height.
F11 Page 25
The 1996 hotel plans did not in any way resemble the original 1992 approved plans. There were also a new owner, a new architect, and different plans.
F13 Page 25
There was no easy way to read indication of height on the plans.
F14 Page 25
The architect for the project acknowledged in an open meeting that the project was at least 44 feet high; the architect has a responsibility to know the codes that would limit the height to 35 feet.
F15 Page 25
At least one member of the Planning Commission knew the same to be true. At least some past and present members of the City Council consider this "minutia" and have various rationalizations regarding the project.
F16 Page 25
Information supplied by the City Planning Director to various involved agencies was in many cases insufficient and inaccurate, thereby significantly contributing to the current maelstrom.
F17 Page 26
The Coastal Commission never reviewed the 1996 plans because the Planning Director decided the design change was "minor."
F18 Page 26
At least one planning commissioner believes they were intentionally "misled."
F19 Page 26
In May 1998 when problems with the project surfaced, the City Manager hesitated and did not issue a stop work order. Pressure from the developer is alleged.
F20 Page 26
The City Attorney July 8, 1998 memo to the developer noted problems and advised the developer that if he chose to continue construction, he would be liable for expenses.
F21 Page 26
It appears the original Coastal Permit 10-92 was in conformity with the City LCP.
F22 Page 26
The hotel as ultimately constructed is not in conformity with the City LCP.

Recommendations 5