📋
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.

Humboldt County Grand Jury • 2002-2003

03-pw-03 the Redwood National Park Building in Orick

5 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings 6 findings

F1 Page 35
The Planning Division determined this project to be a Aministerial@ project rather than a Adiscretionary project. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines section 15369, ministerial Adescribes a governmental decision involving little or no personal judgment by the public official as to wisdom or manner of carrying out the project. The public official merely applies the law to the facts as presented but uses no special discretion or judgment in reaching a decision. A ministerial decision involves only the use of fixed standards or objective measurements, and the public official cannot use personal, subjective judgment in deciding whether or how the project should be carried out.@ This regulation is pointed out in the annotated discussion in Friends of Westwood, Inc. V. Los Angeles (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 259. In CEQA guidelines section 15357 Adiscretionary projects means a project which requires the exercise of judgment or deliberation when the public Agency decides to approve or disapprove a particular activity, as distinguished from situations where the public agency merely has to determine whether there has been conformity with applicable statutes, ordinances, or regulations.@ That this project should have been categorized as a discretionary project is evident from the changes which were allowed without ODCC or other agency review. These changes included, but were not limited to the exterior finish, the fencing materials, the height of the building and the definition of the zoning to which CEQA was applicable, but not applied by the Planning Division. Further, under CEQA guidelines section 15268 (d) ...@where a project involves an approval that contains elements of both a ministerial and a discretionary action, the 34 project will be deemed to be discretionary and will be subject to the requirements of CEQA.@ When planning made the discretionary decision on this proposed Aoffice building@ that the building would meet the current zoning of Acommercial recreation,@ (Humboldt County General Plan, Volume II, Orick Community Plan, May 7, 1985, Section 2342: ‘campgrounds, RV Park, motel . . . and other visitor-serving uses such as gift shops, restaurants, bait shop,’ etc.) it automatically triggered the need to follow CEQA and the need to consider the potential impact on the environment. Numerous impacts have been identified as involving discretionary actions by the Planning Division while failing to comply with CEQA rules.
F2 Page 36
In its stipulations to the Planning Division the ODCC specifically noted the exterior of the project was to be redwood or some color replicating redwood. However, when the project was nearing completion a non-redwood like paint finish was applied to the exterior surface. When questioned during the grand jury investigation, the Planning Division personnel acknowledged the ODCC's stipulation, but admitted to their failure to communicate accordingly with the ODCC as required and stated they were, in fact, unaware of the changes made by the developer in the selection of an exterior finish. The barbed wire topped chain link fencing around the perimeter is clearly contrary to the original specifications approved by the ODCC in their meeting on November 3, 2000. No such fencing appears in the originally submitted renderings by the architect/developer or presented for approval to the ODCC in their meeting on November 3, 2000. The wording of the ODCC fencing stipulation was quite different...@six feet or under cyclone/wood slatted fence for vehicular enclosure and wrought iron fencing for perimeter@.
F3 Page 36
In the Planning Division’s records of the project specifications, the height of the building was shown as 40 feet. However, the actual height of the building approximates 52 feet. This difference exceeds the Humboldt County rule of allowing discretionary changes of 10% in specifications (Humboldt County Code Section 312-11.1.1.3). The Planning Division explanation for the difference is the addition of a raised facade above the first floor. In fact, where does the actual height of a building end; at its very top or somewhere between top and ground level?
F4 Page 34
Inadequate training and staffing hindered Environmental Health's ability to respond in a timely or appropriate fashion to these nuisance complaints.
F5 Page 34
There is no clear line of responsibility as to which County department has the authority to enforce animal abuse complaints.
F6 Page 37
Many of the deviations from the stipulations of the ODCC were brought to the attention of the Planning Division as early as 2002 either by the ODCC directly in their communications with the Planning Division or by concerned citizens residing in Orick. In each instance the Planning Division was aware of these concerns and nevertheless moved ahead with changes. The Environmental Health Division of the Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services allowed the developer to install a low pressure sewage disposal system at a time when the county was recording the highest April rainfall in its history in spite of the fact that the 36 general specifications for installing this system carries a prohibitive warning...@this system may not be installed during wet weather.@

Recommendations 6