Paoli, Diana
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jacob Patterson <[email protected]>
Monday, June 23, 2025 12:53 PM
cdd
Whippy, Isaac; City Clerk
Public Comment -- 6/25/25 PC Mtg., Item No. 6B, Continued Hearing Planning Commission,
I reviewed the updated information and I have two concerns I think you need to address prior to taking any action. If you don't address them, I think you need to require a traffic analysis that is specifically directed to look into these particular safety concerns rather than the old standard of just looking at LOS issues. (Just because past traffic studies didn't address something, doesn't mean we can't tailor this requirement to our specific safety concerns; the City has that level of discretion and you should exercise it.)
First, Marie said something that is only partially true in her memo but it has a huge impact on this project and her recommendations. She is incorrect that ther City has no legal authority to direct the applicant to pay for improvements to Ocean View Drive, particularly at its intersection with Harbor Avenue. If the project itself didn't contribute to the safety concerns based on existing conditions, I would agree with her but that is not the case. It is totally legal and, in fact, a standard practice, to make a developer pay for offsite street improvements to address safety concerns their project contributes to, even if existing conditions are part of the problem. That is why we calculate things called "fair share" contributions to roadway improvements. In some cases, it is even alright to impose the full cost of the off-site improvements on a developer when their project introduces additional pedestrian and vehicular crossings of dangerous intersections.
This project certainly meets those requirements but Marie has incorrectly rejected this option categorically rather than engaging in the necessary analysis to see if the particular improvements have a reasonable relationship to the project's contribution to safety concerns involving the existing conditions.
In this case, there is going to be a huge and significant new traffic generator at an already concerning intersection. The safety risks exist for the current much lower level of traffic at the intersection but this project will introduce a lot more traffic and pedestrian crossings than currently occur. The percentage of the traffic from this project compared to the baseline traffic without this project is generally how you calculate what the fair share is. If the percentage is large (e.g., 70%+), it is even fine for them to pay for the full improvements because the safety issues are really the additional potential vehicle and pedestrian conflicts because this project introduces them.
Second, her recommended language for Special Condition 44 (the one dealing with this issue) leaves out all the substance and context and instead refers to an alleged "traffic safety letter dated June 23, 2025 regarding this project." How can any of us evaluate if those improvements are adequate to address our valid safety concerns if the substance is in a mystery letter that isn't provided for our review? Any document that is incorporated by reference into another document you are being asked to approve needs to be provided for your, and the public's, review but it is nowhere to be found. In addition, the letter is supposed to be dated today (Monday) but that means when Marie wrote and published this, it didn't even exist yet so how can she even say that it is sufficient to address the issues? She can't and neither 1 can you. We don't on't even know wł s writing the letter or what type of ex tise they have to bebe making the recommendations ons you are purportedly requiring. Please recall that regardless of the City's legal ability to impose off-site imimprovements to this troubling section of the road, the applicant said they wevere happy to have a traffic stutudy and to implement whatever it required. If they are agreeing to do that, it is not relevant ifwe have theh authority to require it or not, just require it anyway. If MArie is concerned, she canan add in the consent language she discussed at the last meeting. However, in this case, we absolutely haveve the lega egal authority to require the developer to make improvements to Ocean View Drive and Harbor Avenue because this project is introducing the safety issues by increasing the pedestrian crossings and vehicl icles entering the intersection. If you want to do this right, you should require a traffic and transportation n study that is tailored to these concerns. A traffic engineer--no one in Public Works is a licensed engineer, let alone a traffic engineer--should be able to analyse the situation and come up with tailored and appropriate solutions to the safety concerns but Marie, PWstaff, or even the Planning Commission has the requisite expertise to do that on their own. I'd require an analysis limited to trying to improve the Ocean View Drive and Harbor Avenue intersection in a way that doesn't create any backup concerns for westbound traffic entering Ocean View Drive from Highway One. Frankly, that is what should have already been prepared because the Coastal General Plan requires it even if some standard analysis wouldn't have been useful in this particular situation. We have flexibility and discretion to determine what kind of traffic and transportation study/analysis to require for a particular project, it doesn't have to be a standard, off-the-shelf analysis of LOS or VMT without looking into project-specific safety concerns.
That being said, Iam pleased with the direction this review is going and I think your discussion and direction last time was on point. Please keep up the good work but don't drop the ball.
Best regards,
--Jacob
2 Stump, Valerie
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Paul Clark <[email protected]>
Tuesday, June 24, 2025 6:21 AM
Paul Clark; cdd
1151 S Main. 0652025 PC meeting
The Public Hearing for the Following Item has Been Continued to July 14, 2025: "Coastal Development Permit Amendment, Use Permit and Design Review Amendments to Modify an Approved Mixed-Use Multifamily Project at 1151 S Main Street to Respond to Coastal Commission Staff Requests to: 1) Change 3 units of Multifamily Housing into 2,450 SF of Hotel Units on the Ground Floor of Building 3; and 2) add a Signed Public Access Sidewalk through the Parcel
this should be the icing on the cake to just about anyone that believes in due process the applicant put in a design opposition was expressed.we were told by Staff that the The project met the intent of the general plan and allowable uses the council approved the project basically the same as the planning commission it was appealed because it does not meet the intent and did not follow all of the required and reasonable CEQA inspections and processes. Low and behold the coastal commission agreed and rather than go to a full hearing we were told that the applicant desired to resubmit their plan. at the city Council meeting last night the above information was read suggesting that the coastal commission was requesting this change maybe it's time for the planning commission and ultimately the city Council to develop some backbone in the city does not work for the coastal commission the City of Fort Bragg has its own approved general plan and we don't need to ask the Coastal commission whether or not we're doing a good job that's what the appellant process is for and if that doesn't follow the plan right or follow all of the regulations then the court system is the next step please don't take this lightly the concerns that many of us have that the process is being trampled on just to get housing that supposedly we have a crisis I have formally requested a copy of the studies that the city used to determine that they needed 200 new units by the end of 2026 have not seen it yet I do not believe it exists but I'll be pleased if something can be produced The impression that the coastal commission is requesting this implies to you decision makers that it is right don't be fooled you've all heard the story about the wolf in sheep's clothing have you not? and sadly it brings into question who is actually pushing this project we were told the applicant but it sounds like the applicant has indirectly the coastal commission on their side that's not the way it's supposed to work I thought a long time about this process and you cannot just stick a hot dog stand outside of a residential building and call it a commercial use no matter how much you want it to be. once again this is a predominantly residential project trying to be placed into a commercially zoned property. the proper path to have taken would be to request the property be rezoned and now that we see the state mandates that are being jammed down our throats the council and planning commission should make sure that the maximum building heights that are desired cannot be overcome by a state mandated bonus of any kind. dictated so it might not come across very well but I think you get the idea thank you sorry for the multiple emails everyone is busy so it's difficult to block out the time none of us are paid for this as it was pointed out it's a volunteer job to protect our community and keep the rural character of Fort Bragg as alive as we can keep it according to all the plans it is anyway. that's what I'm trying to do and I know most of the community feels the same way they're just not vocal and people are afraid to speak out against housing because you are convinced and have convinced yourselves that there's a crisis it's a concern what's not happening is the ability for homes that people can purchase and build equity that the city Council as I've mentioned for 20 years has gone out of its way to restrict that in the state with all of their rent controls and prop 19 have made it virtually impossible for the private sector to be in the rental business if they choose to 1 go into the rental business they should ffollow the same plans and same processes that anyone else has to do including view shed protections whether you like it or say it's not on n th map or not doesn't make it right Paul
Clark
2 Paoli, Diana
From:
Sent:
To:
Teresa Skarr <[email protected]>
Tuesday, June 24, 2025 1:08 PM
City Clerk
Subject: Coastal Development Permit Amendment 8-24
Dear Ms. Paoli,
Following are my comments about failures to properly notice public hearings regarding the abovereferenced permit application. These comments are in addition to the comments I previously submitted about traffic and pedestrian safety concerns. Please include these comments in the public comments section for tomorrow's Planning Commission meeting.
While preparing for the Planning Commission meeting, I became aware that the City Council's meeting on November 12, 2024, was a public hearing about the above-referenced development permit application. My husband Dave Skarr and I live at 19400 Harbor Ave., very close to the proposed development, but we didn't receive a notice about the November 12, 2024 City Council hearing. The November meeting was important because this was when the proposal was first presented publicly and at which the Council discussed and approved the applicant's density bonus incentives. We weren't notified about the application until shortly before the March 12, 2025 Planning Commission meeting about the project, soon after we first became aware of it from neighbors.
Failure to properly notify close neighbors of a development like this is contrary to legal regulatory requirements and undermines the integrity of the hearing.
In addition, the physical public notice currently posted at the proposed development site is very small for the location, low to the ground and illegible, particularly from the Spanish language side which faces west into thick weeds. See attached photographs taken today at the property from Unnamed Road.
Furthermore, there are no witness poles at the proposed development site to signal the locations and heights of the proposed buildings.
~Teresa Skarr
1 2
3