Why we will appeal the Marshall Project

1. This project is absolutely CEQA applicable based on the potential negative cumulative impact that it will have on the Tsurai Study Area. Less than 20 feet from the building site, the 12.5 acres of bluff has tremendous cultural, environmental, and economic importance to all stakeholders in the future of Trinidad, including the Tsurai Tribal descendants (Axel & Kelly Lindgren) who are in the process of acquiring ownership of the land back from the city Yet, this has been repeatedly dismissed by the consultant, who acts as the city planner, and from whom the Planning Commissioners get most of their information from which they make their decisions. We were told by the city planning consultant that the onus is on us to demonstrate that potential negative cumulative impact, which completely contradicts the California Coastal Commissions directive. In fact, due to the ongoing erosion taking place along the bluff, we feel that taking it one step further and requiring an Environmental Impact Report is more than reasonable. Also, the city has not complied with mandate that it received from the state in regards to drainage and septic run off affecting the bluff (see Tsurai Study Area Plan on the www.trinidad.gov.ca site), and this project will just exacerbate that major issue.
2. The Preliminary Geological Report, which was accepted by the Planning Commission & the City Planner as comprehensive and accurate, falls way short of satisfying the requirements of the Coastal Commissions method for a Bluff Stability Analysis (found on the Coastal Commissions website). While the Coastal Commission does not specifically require one method, it does require the same level of information that it would get from the method they recommend in order to make an informed decision. The preliminary study that was submitted for the Marshall Project in no way meets that data requirement. Why would Trinidad not require this type of thorough analysis, when the stakes are so high if those potential negative impacts do occur? The response from the city has been one of we know there are some serious problems, but now is not the time to address those.
3. The citys general plan states that any house larger than 2,000 sq ft is considered bulky and out of character with the town. Yet this has been approved at 2,454 sq feet plus a 500 sq ft garage.
4. The proposed building site has been vacant for at least 100 years and is adjacent to historical landmarks, namely the church and the lighthouse. The building of this house, at its current size and height, will drastically limit the views between those 2 historical landmarks.
5. Trinidads General Plan specifically allows for the protection of view rights of private property owners (and has been applied in the past). The design, size, and location of the house will have a detrimental affect on many of the neighboring properties. Modifications could be made to the house which would not significantly reduce the utility of the home, while limiting the view impact on the existing properties (for example, lowering the height of the garage), yet the applicants have shown no interest in altering their plans or working with the community. (The planning commission specifically requested that the applicants work with the community, but they never did).