Dear Board of Supervisors,

Our home is about 500 ft from Parcel B APN 069-320-02 on Nameless Lane, Fort Bragg Ca. We strongly support Dr. William Schieve's appeal of the Coastal Permit Administrator's approval of a boundary adjustment. We ask that the board members give close attention to the cogent arguments made by Mr. Collin Morrow, Dr. Schieve's lawyer, concerning the improper process used in the execution of the boundary adjustment.

We also ask that the Board take into account that this boundary line adjustment is being made for the sole purpose of advancing the approval of a planned 11-parcel sub-division. This sub-division is ill-advised for a number of reasons including limited water capacity for supporting 11 single-family homes and a land-use history as a waste disposal site for old motor vehicles and appliances. Despite recent wholly inadequate testing showing only low levels of hydrocarbon contamination that was directed by the property owner, it remains true that previous testing performed by the Mendocino County Environmental Health of this unremediated site showed soil levels of hydrocarbon contamination 300-times greater than the allowed limit. Neighbors are concerned the disruption of contaminants by the planned construction would threaten the water quality on the site as well as surrounding properties.

For these reasons, we ask that the Board approve Dr. Schieve's appeal.

With respect,

Liz O'Hara
Dr. Steve Lane

Board of Supervisors, Mendocino County
July 15, 2021
APPEAL - CASE B_2017-0043

Dear Supervisor Dan Gjerde and Mendocino Board of Supervisors:

As a member of a large neighborhood group – Concerned Neighbors of the Cleone Community (CNCC) – I am strongly opposed to the proposed Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) request from Travis Swithenbank (B_2017-0043). I urge the Board of Supervisors to deny this request.

On April 8, 2021, a hearing was held with the Coastal Permit Administrator for the BLA and many neighbors wrote in and spoke in opposition to this application. Planning argued that our concerns, while warranted, were not applicable to a Boundary Line Adjustment. I believe otherwise and I would like to express why.

INTENT
The applicant’s BLA request should be seen as part of one entire project. The two applications work hand-in-hand. They are not separate in their intent nor their final consequences.

In Mark Cliser’s staff report on page 4, Chronology, he states:
“The application for the Boundary Line Adjustment was submitted on June 30, 2017 in conjunction with Subdivision application S_2017-0003. The intent was to process both projects simultaneously.”

Planning states that Mr. Swithenbank eventually decided to process the BLA application first and these two applications are separate entities yet everyone knows one would not happen without the other. Most importantly, the applicant’s INTENT has been clear from the beginning.

Your consideration of this Boundary Line Adjustment should not be taken out of context to the whole project. And the whole project and applicant’s history is fraught with illegalities, omissions, violations and a stunning lack of environmental sustainability or best practices with the adjacent neighborhood. The BLA is a component of the proposed development and as residents of Cleone, we implore your support in our efforts to protect our neighborhood.

Critical issues at the forefront are: lack of drinking water, poor drainage of septic material, hazardous waste in soil and water, lack of fire egress, inadequate road maintenance, destruction of sensitive ecosystems and a deterioration of our quality of life.

LOCAL GENERAL PLAN & COASTAL LAND USE PLAN
On page 2 of Planning’s Staff Report, Gov. Code section 66412, subdivision (d) …”A local agency or advisory agency shall limit its review and approval to a determination of whether or not the parcels resulting from the lot line adjustment will conform to the local general plan, any applicable specific plan, any applicable coastal plan and zoning and building ordinances.”

Cleone is a designated Rural Village in Mendocino County’s Land Use Plan – Coastal Element and this project runs contrary to these plans--Chapter 2-2.2 Map Designations, Chapter 2.2 Intent, Chapter 3-3.1 Habitats and Natural Resources and Chapter 3.9-1 Locating and Planning New Development.

Addressing LUP’s own written criteria: Is there a community’s desire for this amount and rate of growth? NO. Will there be any significant adverse effects on coastal resources? YES. Does water and sewage disposal capacity exist? NO. Is the proposed development consistent with all applicable policies of this Coastal Element? NO.

In conclusion, this BLA request is an effort on the applicant’s part to not be encumbered by Coastal Zone policies so he can build as many lots as possible for a major subdivision in a designated rural community, no matter what type of damage is done to the environment nor the surrounding residential neighborhood.

I request the Board of Supervisor’s thoughtful consideration of the legal objections brought by attorney Colin Morrow, as well as opposing BLA neighborhood arguments and therefore urge you to deny the Boundary Line Adjustment.

Thank you,

Carla Sarvis