Home / Thumbnail Story


Vera's 1972 Will


Vera's Nature Preserve Saga

HAF Revered or Reviled?

Happy 2002

Caveat Emptor

Forum
What's Your Opinion?

HAF Breaks Ground

 

Printable Form to Support Class Action

Open Letter to Supporters

Aug 01 Class Action Suit

APPEAL TO CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
 

Vera's Lament


Save the Nature Preserve


Protest Humboldt Area Foundation Building Permit To Supervisors


Invasion Of Vera's Trust Principal


Dolly Coffelt Declaration


Watchdogs Declarations


Timeline Of Humboldt Area Foundation Saga Development


Vera's Watchdog Rebuttal To Humboldt Area Foundation Public Misinformation


Bogus Attorney General's Letter


Internationally Acclaimed Architect John Yeon


Contact Us To Join The Class Action Suit



Perrott Family Album


Standing (Courtroom Rights)


Humboldt Area Foundation Board Of Governor Appointment


Who Owns The Property


Tell A Friend


Relevant Links



Contact Us

 

APPEAL TO CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION AGAINST HAF BUILDING PERMIT

In an effort to save what Vera gifted the North Coast, the public's 14.3 acre Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve at Indianola, Vera's watchdog heirs have appealed the extension of HAF's fraudulent 1998 building permit application. Fraudulent because HAF approached HAF Planning masquerading as if they were the OWNERS of the property (the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve), carefully disguising that HAF were in fact the interloper (1994) TRUSTEES, of property owned by the public (in trust). HAF thus fraudulently applied for a construction (destruction) permit to destroy the very assets that they had a FIDUCIARY responsibility to protect `native and unspoiled' for the true owners (in trust), the North Coast public.

Planning (18 Jan 01) and the Board Of Supervisors (27 March 01) whitewashed HAF's chicanery and approved extension of the bogus 1998 HAF building permit on the basis that the permit was `just an extension', nothing had changed from 1998. This over Vera's watchdog heir's protestations that something very dramatic had changed since the 1988 application, that during the past 22 months of litigation, stopping HAF's August 1999 groundbreaking, it had become known that the HAF permit application was fraudulent, to no avail. The procedure allows appeal to the California Coastal Commission (for property within their physical jurisdiction-the Coastal Zone), within 10 working days of the Board of Supervisor action. Below is a slightly abridged (for internet format) the Appeal as lodged with the California Coastal Commission on 10 April 2001.

Vera’s Coastal Commission appeal was heard by the Coastal Commission in Los Angeles on 14 June 2001. Unfortunately the `staff’ in the Eureka California Coastal Commission office took it upon themselves to parrot HAF chicanery, and refused to even forward
facts like Vera’s will to the Commission. The Eureka staff after six weeks of `diligent work’, and some 44 pages (plus attachments) or Orwellian doublespeak, sided with the destroyers HAF, and against Vera the creator of a public Nature Preserve, and claimed (recommended) that there was `no significant incident’ to the 12 Coastal Commissioners, who (with no time to read such a document) rubber stamped the decision, meaning no relief for the public in saving their Nature Preserve from our Coastal Commission `guardians’. That is Coastal essentially ruled that it is okay to destroy a public nature preserve with a `fraudulent and illegal’ building permit, without an Environmental Impact Report! This is a high order travesty, defying the letter and spirit of the tax payers voting in proposition 20 in 1972, creating the Coastal Commission, with a mandate to protect not destroy nature and cultural edifices (Vietor residence). More bureaucratic chicanery to cover up HAF `dirty’ tracks. We have all read stories of a corrupt Coastal Commission. You have just read another one.




INTRODUCTION-EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This appeal is an effort to try to save a threatened unique `private' gift to the North Coast public, what has become known as the Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve. It is 14.3 acres created (physically) some 60 years ago by the Vietors, and officially given to the public (in trust) in Vera Perrott Vietor's will on her death in June 1972. It is located between Eureka and Arcata, in the Humboldt Bay (California) Coastal Zone at Indianola (a quarter mile east from salt water). Vera's will also created a principal Trust, and Humboldt Area Foundation (HAF) as a charitable entity to distribute the income (only) off the San Francisco bank Trust to the California North Coast (Humboldt, Del Norte and Mendocino Counties).

Currently, HAF (post-1994 land trustees) has a building permit, which would destroy approximately 10 % of the public's 14.3 acre Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve (the Nature Preserve). This by adding a new 6300 Square foot building and 65 car asphalt parking lot (the Project), hardly within the `letter and spirit' of California's Proposition 20 (1972) and The Coast Act, and CEQA.

The main thrust of this appeal is to stop an inappropriate `land use' contrary to the California Coastal Plan, within which the property lies-without undue focus on the colorful activities that have transpired over the past two years to stop the `building-in-a-public-nature-preserve'. Because of the improper way the HAF permit was obtained, a critical review is necessary, and a stop to the destruction of valuable habitat, or a public- owned (in trust) nature preserve will be irreparably damaged.

Humboldt Planning issued the current building permit to HAF in 1998. Because of `legal proceedings' to protect the nature preserve by the Founder Vera Perrott Vietor's heirs (the `Heirs'), HAF were not able to commence with the construction within (despoliation of) the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve. HAF egregiously did not divulge to Planning in 1998 that HAF was not the owner of the property, that it was a public nature preserve, that HAF was actually the `trustee' of the nature preserve, with the solemn fiduciary responsibility to guard not destroy the public's treasure. Planning issued their 1998 permit on this flawed basis. In recent `permit extension' appeals to
Planning (18 Jan 01) and Humboldt Supervisors (27 Mar 01), these basic flaws were ignored, and the permits extended on the basis that `nothing has changed'. I.e. the fact that the permit was for construction (destruction) within a public nature preserve, not privately owned land, was ignored.

Despite the proposed (despoliation) within a public nature preserve, no Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was required! Despite gross inconsistencies between HAF's proposed Project and the Humboldt County General Plan, including its `Local Coastal Plan' and violation of relevant zoning ordinances, no EIR has been required. Since when can one destroy, build in and pave over a public nature preserve without an EIR? The Coastal Commission should either reject the permit, or alternately call for an independent EIR of the project. No professionally prepared EIR, knowing the public `nature preserve' status of the property would ever allow HAF's proposed (currently permitted) destruction of 10 % of the public's 14.3 acre Nature Preserve, especially not within the California Coastal Zone.

This appeal alerts the Commission regarding the anomalies between the true nature of the Indianola property as the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve. HAF presented themselves to Humboldt Planning as `owners' of the property, not `trustees' with the fiduciary responsibility to guard the property `native and unspoiled. As per Vera's will, the `nature preserve' as created in 1972 was not even to be despoiled by a picnic table
(Vera's will-Exhibit E). This led to HAF being issued a permit to destroy a public nature preserve without even an EIR being performed. Previous irreparable destruction to the
Natures preserve and Vietor's architecturally and historically significant residence was done by HAF (1995) under similar circumstances. The bottom line, HAF should not be given their requested building permit, which if approved would lead to irreparable environmental despoliation within the California Coastal Zone that is the exact opposite of the `letter and spirit' of the California's Coastal Plan's intent.

In Exhibits E (Vera's will), F (tax assessors documentation), H (HAF press release), I
(HAF web site) the true nature and ownership of the property is established.

Against this background of the legal origins of the public's Nature Preserve, this appeal reviews the Project in relation to the California Coastal Plan for the area, The Humboldt Bay Coastal Plan. Exhibit B (vis-à-vis Humboldt Bay Coastal Plan) and Exhibit C (critique of 1998 Humboldt Planning Staff Report on HAF building permit request), demonstrate the travesty of HAF being given their requested extension of a very flawed and improper building permit.

A print out of the Internet site carrying Vera's point of view, www.humboldtexposed.com is provided in Exhibit K for additional background information, as available to the public.

Appendix (L) is titled `John Yeon, Internationally Renowned Portland Oregon Architect, Designer, Naturalist, Ecologist, Environmentalist'. It provides information leading to the conclusion that the Vietor residence is of historical value, and along with the raw land `nature preserve' should be preserved, and could /should be made a National Heritage Site (or equal), not certainly not destroyed.

The Heirs, on behalf of the North Coast public, pray The Coastal Commission will come to their aid, and disapprove the extension of HAF's 1998 building permit. The Commission can and must save the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve from further despoliation and protect the John Yeon architectural treasure, as its grantor Vera Perrott Vietor clearly and unequivocally intended in her 1972 will.


INDEX-TABLE OF CONTENTS

1) California Coastal Commission Protest-Petition Form
2) Introduction-Executive Summary

ATTACHMENTS-EXHIBITS

A) Summary Land Use Permit Protest-Appeal
B) Review Of HAF Proposed Building Vis-à-vis Humboldt Bay Coastal Plan
C) Review of HAF Proposed Building Vis-à-vis 1998 Planning Staff Report
D) Distribution Of Protest-Appeal To HAF
E) Vera Perrott Vietor Will (1972) Creating Public Nature Preserve (Trust and HAF)
F) Tax Assessor-14.3 acre Indianola property (public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve)
G) Location Maps/Proposed building site plans
H) HAF's June 1999 `press release' On Building Within The Nature Preserve
I) HAF Internet Site Acknowledgement Of Nature Preserve
J) SAVE THE PUBLIC'S LYNN VIETOR NATURE PRESERVE release Mar 01
K) Vera's Watchdogs Internet Site www.humboldtexposed.com

APPENDIX

L) John Yeon-Internationally Renown Portland Architect, Designer, Naturalist,
Ecologist, Environmentalist, creator of Vietor residence and landscaping, the
Centerpiece of the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve


EXHIBIT A-SUMMARY HAF LAND USE PERMIT PROTEST-APPEAL

This appeal to the California Coastal Commission is based on `land use' (or misuse or ABUSE) as proposed in HAF's 1998 (now up for extension) construction permit inside a public (in trust) nature preserve, contrary to the California Coastal Act and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). To understand the story, subjects that may be deemed `legal' or `civil' in nature need be presented, if only for background. Such history and background is provided in this Exhibit C. The appeal is based on HAF's building permit to despoil and irreparably damage a public nature preserve not being in conformance with the `letter and spirit' of California's 1972 Proposition 20, the California Coastal Plan, the Humboldt Bay Coastal Plan, and CEQA. The ultimate aim of this protest is to resolve a conflict over land use in favor of the public (its owners in trust), within the guidelines spelled out in the Coastal Act Plan. The protest-appeal is to avert a repeat of past despoliation (1995) and further planned despoliation (announced 1999) of a rare surviving age old `ecosystem', as gifted to the public (in trust) in Vera Perrott Vietor's will in 1972. The Nature Preserve is located at Indianola in the Humboldt Bay Coastal Zone, just east of US Highway 101, approximately midway between Eureka and Arcata, in Humboldt County, northern California (See Maps in Exhibit G)

Brief history-The 14.3 acres property that is now in question was acquired by the Vietors in 1940, a wooded (predominately second growth redwood) hillock with a stunning view overlooking the north Humboldt Bay. Only because it was such a unique and spectacular site, was internationally famous Portland architect John Yeon enticed to design and supervise the building and landscaping on the site of the Vietor's residence, `falling in love with the site'. The stunning result, as much for its blending into nature and its landscaping as its `manmade structure', was such a perceived success that it was chosen to be shown (photographically) at the prestigious New York Museum Of Modern Art in the early 1940's alongside works of Frank Lloyd Wright. See APPENDIX (L) re John Yeon's work. The Vietors were nature lovers, outdoors people, and Vera Perrott Vietor an accomplished `bird watcher'. The Vietor's 14.3 acres became (post 1940) an isolated `nature refuge' inside a zone that was dedicated to agriculture (the flats) and low-density residences on the higher ground and rolling hills. On the Vietor's death in 1972, they (Vera the last to die) left the 14.3-acre property in trust as what has become known as the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve. Vera's will mandated that it be open to the public, to be guarded `native and unspoiled', `and all of it', property line to property line. The 14.3-acre property was not even to be despoiled by a picnic table. The Humboldt Area Foundation (HAF) a charitable 501-( c)-(3) non profit entity was created, to receive the income (only) from (operation out of San Francisco). Crocker Bank (Trust Department) was the Trustee of the 14.3-acre `nature preserve' (72-94). HAF had the `use' (not ownership or abuse) of the residence, under the overview of the San Francisco bank Trustees.

All went well for the first 20 years. HAF operated out of the Vietor residence with three or less employees, in their low overhead `grant making' charitable mission, funded by the income off the Principal of the Vietor estate. Over the years additional principal funding was obtained from other North Coast residents that joined under the charitable umbrella that Vera had created, as donors to HAF. The sanctity of the `nature preserve' was religiously guarded. A friend of Vera's was even admonished for picking a few flowers off Vera's rhododendrons to put on Vera's grave on Memorial day in those early days.

HAF since its inception in 1974 has become a great North Coast success story often referred to in the press as a sacrosanct `sacred cow' with a benevolent altruistic image, for which its Founder Vera would be very happy. Unfortunately, with post 1994 changes in direction (HAF's `rethought mission), the HAF Board became more than the HAF overseers but took on the additional duties as trustees of the land (replacing the San Francisco Trust banks, initially Crocker then Wells Fargo Bank cum HAF in 1994). Post 1994, HAF with its secondary avocation as trustee of land (Nature Preserve) favored `growing the Foundation' over `guarding' the public's Nature Preserve, what Vera would see as a `conflict-of-interest' over land use, leading to illegal despoliation of the Nature Preserve. Vera's Heirs were not informed thus not present in Court to argue against the improper 1994 change of land trusteeship. It is a matter of record that HAF has in fact (1995) despoiled the public's Nature Preserve with chains saw, wrecking bar, bulldozer and paving machine in a misguided and illegal `expansion' within the Nature Preserve. This to physically expand HAF's `gift giving-grant making' activities (parking space and offices) within what is (Vera's will) to clearly and unequivocally be kept `native and unspoiled' as the public's Nature Preserve. This is followed on by the currently disputed
1998 (extended) HAF building permit, the subject of this appeal.

All was well for the first 20 years, with HAF and Mother Nature living in harmony. But in 1992 HAF's first Executive Director was shown the door. New leadership took over HAF. They wanted to `grow the foundation'. Nothing wrong with that per se. But unfortunately HAF wrong-headedly decided to breach their Founder's will and despoil the public's Nature Preserve to expand within it. By early 1994, the new expansionist HAF was approaching Humboldt County Planning for a permit to physically expand within (and destroy) portions of the Nature Preserve, though not divulged at the time to be funded by Vera's invaded trust principal.

The Trustees of the land, originally Crocker Bank, then Wells Fargo Bank (1994) refused to go along with participating in the `breach' of Vera's 1972 will and Trust (despoliation funded by invaded trust principal). So HAF took a different tact. They persuaded now trustee Wells Fargo Bank to resign in favor of HAF as trustees of the property, filed with the Court on 13 October 1994; Court order making HAF the `land' trustees 7 December 1994.

Unfortunately as the successor trustees (post 1994) ad hoc HAF have shown no fiduciary responsibility to protect the public's Nature Preserve. HAF has rather done quite the opposite. Both the 1994 and 1998 building permits were obtained under deceptive conditions. HAF approached Humboldt County Planning for a building permit, with HAF masquerading as `owners' of the property, vs. divulging to Planning HAF's true role as Trustees and the true nature of the property as the public's Nature
Preserve.

HAF did considerable irreparable damage in 1995, to both the architecturally significant residence and landscaping, excavating 6' deep into a `golf fairway' like lawn, and native forest north of the residence, cutting several redwoods, and other species of trees, and paving it all over. HAF are planning to do more despoliation (the currently appealed 1998 building permit). HAF's second `affront' has been delayed for some 21 months by legal actions by the Heirs in a last ditch effort to save what Vera created and gifted in trust to the North Coast public, and left as her heartfelt tribute to Mother Nature (see Vera's will Exhibit E), to be kept `native and unspoiled, not even to be despoiled by a picnic table'.

But by 1998, this was not enough. Only three years after the 1995 despoliation, HAF wanted to expand further. This lead to the currently protested `building permit' (issued in 1998-now up for extension), which would destroy 10 % of the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve. HAF's objective, to add a 6300 square foot building and 65 slot parking lot (a 200 % increase in office space and parking), do some 800 plus cubic yards of excavation (cut) and a like quantity of embankment (fill). In making their application to planning HAF again as in 1994 masqueraded as `owners'. They did not divulge the real nature (public ownership) of the property. Nor HAF's fiduciary responsibility as trustees of the land to protect the public's Preserve `native and unspoiled' for its real owners, the North Coast public. Or that HAF intended to fund the despoliation with Vera's invaded trust principal. .

HAF have been able to get the Court to go along with HAF having access to Vera's principal trust money (hens) vs. HAF being restricted by Vera's will to only having access to income (eggs). In Court, without Vera or the Heirs being invited or represented (illegally denying Vera of her `due process and equal protection of the law'), HAF egregiously argued that the land was principal, and thus that `now' trustee HAF should have access to Vera's proscribed principal funds to `maintain' the property. What does it take to maintain a `nature preserve'? Very little, maintained by Mother Nature, with tall standing trees. But HAF's intended `maintenance' was to despoil the nature preserve for HAF's ill advised and wrong headed `physical' expansion within the public's nature preserve.

So what are we talking about today? The Vietor's 14.3 acres at Indianola that has been a `refuge to nature' for more than 60 years. The intended Nature Preserve is now (post 1994) being despoiled by HAF, the 1994 `interloper' trustee with a conflict of interest, leaning more to `growing' the Foundation than `preserving' the public's property `native and unspoiled' as Vera mandated, and as is HAF's fiduciary responsibility. HAF is a `trustee' (by Court order) with the fiduciary duty but quite clearly without the fiduciary intent to protect the public's treasure. To issue the requested extension of HAF's 1998 building permit would be a travesty and aid and abet the needless destruction of a public nature preserve. It would make a mockery of California's 1972 Proposition 20 and the ensuing Coastal Plan and CEQA to guard just such assets as Vera gave to the public in 1972, even before the California citizens voted the `Coastal Plan' into law.

Herein, in Exhibits E, F, H, I provide `evidence' of the true nature and ownership of the land, the public's Nature Preserve. Then Exhibits B and C are a revisiting of the flawed 1998 HAF building permit, in light of the `true nature' of the property. The permit stands in stark contrast to California's Proposition 20 (1972), the California Coastal Plan, the Humboldt Bay Coastal Plan, and CEQA. The fatally flawed 1998 Humboldt Planning `staff report' has led to the travesty of an approval of HAF's 1998 building permit.

We hope that we have provided enough information that it becomes clear that HAF's building permit is not in the best interest of the public, and the goals of the Coastal Plan, CEQA so that the Commission overrides HAF's 1998 building permit. The Commission will thus ensure a much needed win for Mother Nature (and Vera), and the North Coast public, and a few hundred years from now, a more understanding, knowledgeable and grateful humanity.

EXHIBIT B-REVIEW OF HAF PROPOSED BUILDING PERMIT VIS-À-VIS HUMBOLDT BAY COASTAL PLAN

The writer, appellant, an heir of Vera Vietor Perrott, herewith takes the liberty to review the proposed HAF `land use' vis-a-vis the HUMBOLDT COUNTY GENERAL PLAN VOLUME II, HUMBOLDT BAY AREA PLAN OF THE HUMBOLDT COUNTY LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, provided by planning, dated July 1989. This is as certified by the State Of California Coastal Commission on 14 October 1982. The cover of this document, and its index is to be found at the end of this Exhibit B.

For this review, the document is approached sequentially, front to back, and stipulations and comments found relevant to a review of the `land use' at Indianola are duplicated herein in bold print with page reference. This is followed by the appellants comments in normal print, focusing on the alleged inconsistency of awarding HAF the building permit as being outside the `letter and spirit' of the whole Coastal Commission initiative. The review focuses on `land use' conflicts with expansionist `interloper' trustee HAF wanting to expand onsite and destroy the nature preserve, rather than moving offsite to expand.

Cpt 1-pg 1: 1.10 INTRODUCTION. Second paragraph POST CERTIFICATION DEVELOPMENT NOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THIS PLAN SHALL NOT BE APPROVED BY THE COUNTY. This is of course a general introductory statement. The Vietors created the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve of their 14.3 acres in Indianola in 1972. It was so run, honoring the nature preserve through 1994. Then HAF made the decision as replacement trustees (1994) (despite their fiduciary responsibility to do otherwise) to despoil the Nature Preserve in favor of their `conflict of interest' commercial development. The letter and spirit of the California Coastal Act is that recreation and nature take preference over commercial activities in non-urban (rural) settings. HAF's building plans (1995) and current are not in conformance with the `Plan'.

Cpt1-pg 1: 1.30 USE OF THIS DOCUMENT. Fourth line of the second paragraph. IT (California Coastal Plan) INDICATES HOW THE LAND SHOULD IDEALLY BE USED. Presumably with the land left in trust for the public as a Nature Preserve, that is its ideal use. The `letter and spirit' on the California Coastal Act is to protect where possible the beauty of the coastal areas, and allow the public access to it. Vera so stipulated for her 14.3 acres gifted (in trust) to the public.

Cpt1-pg 2: 2.20 BACKGROUND, paragraph four. PROPOSITION 20 ESTABLISHED SOME PRIORITIES AND GUIDELINES FOR COASTAL DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION, AND CREATED THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION WHOSE JOB WAS TO PREPARE A COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM TO BE APPROVED BY THE LEGISLATURE. The important word is `conservation'. Vera died in 1972, before the fall elections when California's Proposition 20 was voted in. Vera as a private citizen created a `nature preserve' for the public (in trust) of her personal `nature refuge'. She would look to the Coastal Commission or whoever to support her act by not letting her public gift be destroyed by ill-conceived development HAF's non `nature preserve' commercial type activities would be better served in an urban area, or anyplace outside the public's Nature Preserve.

Cpt 2-pg 1: 2.20 COASTAL ACT GOALS AND POLICIES. THE STATE LEGISLATURE BY ENACTING THE COASTAL ACT OF 1976, ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING BASIC GOALS FOR THE COASTAL ZONE.

(a) PROTECT, MAINTAIN AND WHERE FEASIBLE, ENHANCE AND RESTORE THE OVERALL QUALITY OF THE COASTAL ZONE ENVIRONMENT AND ITS NATURAL AND MANMADE RESOURCES. Vera Vietor in her 1972 will had the same `letter and spirit' as the `not yet created' (or voted) proposition 20. Her 14.3 acres, with its architecturally significant residence (man made) and nature refuge (natural resources) should be taken under the wing of the Coastal Commission mandate, and protected from destruction by HAF. In the right hands, and renovated, the 14.3 acres should become a National Heritage Site (or equal), but certainly not further despoiled.

Chp 3-pg 1: INTRODUCTION, second paragraph, fifth line. IN ADDITION, THE COASTAL ACT REQUIRES THAT ALL DEVELOPMENT BE SUBJECT TO STANDARDS DESIGNED TO PROTECT NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES. Vera as a private citizen created and left in trust for the public a `natural resource', the Nature Preserve, and a `cultural resource' in her architecturally significant home, shown in the New York Museum Of Modern Art alongside of works of Frank Lloyd Wright in the early 1940's. This is the way it was for 20 years. Post 1994, the HAF trustees are bent on destroying these `resources' for commercial type development that has no business (inappropriate land use) inside the public's Nature Preserve.

Cpt 3, pg 6-7. B. DEVELOPMENT POLICIES. C. end of section. ANY LANDS LYING OUTSIDE THE URBAN LIMIT SHALL BE DEEMED RURAL FOR DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES, AND SUBJECT TO THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES. The Vietor 14.3 acre property is outside of urban limits of Eureka or Arcata. It has a zoning of RA 2.5, which is agricultural or `restricted' residential with 2.5 acre minimum lot size (see Exhibit F `Tax Assessor'). The Vietors originally had a two car garage. HAF converted the Vietor's garage to office space, the driveway to six parking spaces. In 1995 HAF `created' 21 parking spaces by destroying the heart of the nature preserve north of the residence. Their `approved' 1998 plan is for 65 new parking spaces--the main culprit in taking up 10 % of the total 14.3 acre Nature Preserve). If the building plan is approved, this will result in up to ninety-two parking spaces. On the 14.3 acres if it was developed on the 2.5-acre minimum zoning, that would allow a maximum of five private residences. Taking 2.5 cars per residence, that would theoretically be a 12.5 or 13 vehicle. HAF is asking (and has provisionally approved) 700 % of what would be expected by the zoning restrictions? This distortion of use gives some idea of how utterly inappropriate HAF's expansion in this rural area is, with the error by the fact the land is a public Nature Preserve, to be guarded `native and unspoiled', not even a picnic table to be introduced. But HAF made no mention of the true facts in their application to Planning.
.
Cpt 3-pg 8: C. NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURUES. IT IS THE INTENT THAT NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES MAY BE SUBSTITUTED WITH MORE CONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES. To build a modern structure and 65 parking spaces, destroy 10% of the public's Nature Preserve is presumably deemed `non conforming'. That is substituting a nonconforming use (new buildings and blacktop) for an long established more conforming use and structure (green space, redwoods, and an architectural gem now over 60 years old)-exactly the opposite as the goal of the Coastal Plan. In the Coastal Plan is the allowance of `wetlands mitigation', by `allowing the destroying of some limited wetlands, but the developer being obliged to recreate other wetlands elsewhere in their place. The Nature Preserve could be nominated as such a site (looking for wetland creation). It would be much more reasonable to create a pond or wetland on the southeast corner of the property. This would augment the quality of the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve, rather than allowing the illegal `out of place' commercial buildings HAF proposes, to `clear-grade-pave over', thus completely destroy 10 % of the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve.

Cpt 3-pg 9: Top of page, first line. AND VISITOR SERVING LAND USES SHALL NOT BE PRECLUDED BY OTHER DEVELOPMENT. The prime `visitor serving' and public benefit Nature Preserve should not be destroyed for administrative uses by HAF.

Cpt 2-page 12. B. DEVELOPMENT POLICIES two thirds down page, 2. RECREATIONAL: ANY PASSIVE OR ACTIVE RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY USE OF OPEN WATER, THE WATER BEACH INTERFACES, OR OTHER NATURAL FEATURES WHICH IN HUMBOLDT COUNTY EXIST ONLY OR PREDOMINATELY AT NEAR SHORE AREAS. This indicates that California Coastal Commission policies would seem to favor what Vera created for the public in her 1972 will. The Coastal policies would never condone the post 1994 destruction of the public's Nature Preserve. HAF's ill advised plan to destroy the public's Nature Preserve in favor of their Project will produce a high vehicle traffic `commercial' enterprise inside what should be a primarily foot traffic only reserve.

Cpt 3-page 12: B. DEVELOPMENT POLICIES, bottom of page, 4. WHERE …..USES CONFLICT AMONG THEMSELVES, PRIORITY SHOULD BE GIVEN TO RECREATIONAL OVER COMMERCIAL. That's what Vera mandated in her 1972 will leaving the Nature Preserve in trust for the public. Vera stipulated that if the property was not kept native and unspoiled, this trust SHALL be terminated. For the Coastal Commission not to disallow the HAF building permit violates the `letter and spirit' of the Coastal Commission mandates to conserve the coastal area for the public and posterity.

Cpt 3-pg 24: 3.15 RECREATIONAL AND VISITOR SERVING AREAS. *** 30213.(PART) LOWER COST VISITOR AND RECREATION FACILITIES…..SHALL BE PROTECTED, ENCOURAGED, AND, WHERE FEASIBLE, PROVIDED. DEVELOPMENTS PROVIDING PUBLIC RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES WOULD BE PREFERRED. Vera Perrott Vietor in her 1972 will gifted to the public (in trust) a low cost public Nature Preserve. According to California Coastal Commission guidelines, the present use should be `encouraged and protected'. The Coastal Commission can do this by denying HAF's building permit to destroy the public's Nature Preserve at Indianola.

Cpt 3-pg 24, following on the statement immediately above. *** 30222. THE USE OF PRIVATE LANDS SUITABLE FOR VISITOR-SERVING COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL FACILITIES DESIGNED TO ENHANCE PUBLIC OPPORTUNITIES FOR COASTAL RECREATION SHALL HAVE PRIORITY OVER PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL, GENERAL INDUSTRY OR GENERAL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. This statement shows a `coastal' preference for recreation over commercial, as did Vera in her will, creating the Nature Preserve to be guarded `native and unspoiled' with `not even a picnic table to be introduced'. However to allow HAF's conflict-of-interest' commercial activity destroys the property physically, introduces great quantities of `non-nature-preserve' auto traffic (92 parking spaces within the Nature Preserve) and degrades the ambience of the Nature Preserve. This conflict of land use should be resolved in favor of the public's Nature Preserve. HAF can move offsite to a more urban area to do their grant giving, if they can't abide by the rules of the `Nature Preserve'.

Cpt 3, pg 24: following the two statements above in 3.15, RECREATIONAL AND VISITOR SERVING AREAS *** 30252. THE LOCATION AND AMOUNT OF NEW DEVELOPMENT SHOULD MAINTAIN AND ENHANCE PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE COAST BY ASSURING THAT THE RECREATIONAL NEEDS OF NEW RESIDENTS WILL NOT OVERLOAD NEARBY COASTAL RECREATION AREAS BY CORRELATING THE AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT WITH LOCAL PARK ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPEMNT PLANS WITH PROVISION OF ONSITE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES TO SERVE THE NEW DEVELOPMENT. Vera created a 14.3 acre public Nature Preserve in 1972. As the populations of Eureka and Arcata increase, and the two cities will tend to grow together, Vera's 1972 contribution fills the mandates of the Coastal policy and plan and provides more public recreational areas. HAF's requested building permit within the public's 14.3 acre Nature Preserve at Indianola not only denigrates an existing Coastal recreation area, but fails to provide any off setting new recreation, park like areas.

Cpt 3, page 25. B. DEVELOPMENT POLICIES, top of page, 1. IT IS THE POLICY OF THIS COUNTY TO PREFER THE PRIVATE SECTOR AS THE PROVIDER OF VISITOR-SERVING FACILITIES. TO THIS END LAND HAS BEEN RESERVED IN EACH PLANNING AREA FOR VISITOR-SERVING USES; AND THE COUNTY DISCOURAGES PUBLIC AGENCIES FROM ESTABLISHING VISITIOR SERVING FACILITIES, BEYOND THE LEVEL OF OVERNIGHT CAMPGROUNDS AND PICNIC AREAS AND OTHER NONCOMMERCIAL DAY USE FACILITIES SUCH AS INTERPRETIVE CENTERS, BOAT LAUNCHING FACILITIES, ETC. Vera privately created the public's Nature Preserve in 1972. It has survived over some 30 years, but is now threatened by HAF wanting to destroy it for their self-serving commercial activities. The County Planning Commission and Supervisors have improperly gone along with this `loss' of a `Recreational and Visitor Serving Area', the public's Nature Preserve. This does not conform to the philosophy behind California's 1972's Proposition 20. The building permit for HAF to destroy the public's Nature Preserve should not be approved.

Cpt 3-pg 31. Under 3.21 RURAL SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS, top of page 31, c. INDIANOLA-RURAL RESIDENTIAL. THIS AREA IS CURRENTLY COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 80 RESIDENTIAL PARCELS AND INCLUDES APPROXIMATELY 210 ACRES. THESE PARCELS ARE LOCATED IN AN UPLAND AREA WHERE SOILS ARE SUITABLE FOR SEPTIC SYSTEMS. THE AVERAGE PARCEL SIZE IS 2.6 ACRES, WHICH IS REFLECTIVE OF THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THIS AREA. THE AREA IS PLANNED FOR AN AVERAGE DENSITY OF ONE UNIT PER 2.5 ACRES. As noted above, the Vietor's 14.3 acres would allow for five `residential parcels', at 2.5 cars per family, or optimally some 13. HAF if given their building permit, would create 65 new slots, a total of 92 parking spaces in little more than 10 % of the 14.3 acres. Such development is out of whack on population density, as HAF destroys the heart of the public's Nature Preserve.

Cpt 3-page 41: 3.27 RECREATION, mid page, last of seven items. ***30253. (4) NEW DEVELOPMENT SHALL MINIMIZE ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED. The answer to HAF's desire to `expand physically', finding themselves `temporarily' in a Public Nature preserve, is to move offsite. This should be a more urban area, not overloading a rural low density population area. This would result in energy consumption savings, and minimize vehicle miles traveled (and the need to destroy a nature preserve to then park the vehicles within it).

Cpt 3-page 41: A. PLANNED USES, mid page, second paragraph. PUBLIC RECREATION IS ONE OF THE ACTIVITIES FOR WHICH HUMBOLDT COUNTY IS FAMOUS, AND HUMBOLDT BAY IS A UNIQUE RESOURCE FOR BOTH LOCAL RESIDENTS AND VISITORS. Vera helped provide something unique in her 14.3 acre gift in trust to the public of her Nature Preserve and architecturally significant residence at Indianola. Theses treasures should be guarded by their trustees, even made into a National Heritage Site (or equal) vs. being destroyed by HAF's ill advised Project.

Cpt 3-page 42. Continued under 3.27 RECREATION, further under B. FINDINGS FOR PERMITTING OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, 2. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD NOT CREATE TRAFFIC FLOWS DETRIMENTAL TO AGRICULTURAL OR FORESTRY USES IN THE PLANNING AREA. The intersection at 101 some quarter of a mile west of the site is one of the most dangerous in the County. 101 is four lane. Travelling south (Arcata to Eureka) to turn into the Indianola roads, south bound traffic often fills the left turn land, and then all too often extends out (backs up into) a lane of 101 south, reducing 101 south to a single lane (south). This is an extremely dangerous intersection. HAF with their 92 parking slots can only exacerbate this problem. The obvious question, why let HAF 1) destroy a nature preserve, and 2) put high density population in a restricted low population density area, while 3) aggravating an already bad traffic problem? HAF should relocate their `expansion' offsite, to an urban area, with slower traffic and traffic lights, etc. and not worsen such extreme traffic problems. A denial of HAF building permit is thus of merit on many counts.

Cpt 3-pg 43-44: 3.30 NATURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION POLICIES AND STANDARDS, bottom of page 43, *** 30240. (a) ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT AREAS SHALL BE PROTECTED AGAINST ANY SIGNIFICANT DISRUPTION OF HABITAT VALUES, AND ONLY USES DEPENDENT ON SUCH RESOURCES SHALL BE ALLOWED WITHIN SUCH AREAS. (b) DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS ADJACENT TO ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT AREA AND PARKS AND RECREATIONAL AREAS SHALL BE SITED AND DESIGNED TO PREVENT IMPACTS WHICH WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY DEGRADE SUCH AREAS, AND SHALL BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE CONTINUANCE OF SUCH HABITAT AREAS. First Mother Nature, then the Vietors `created' a nature sanctuary (habitat) when they moved to the Indianola site in 1940. Now 60 years later, it is officially the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve. Based on the mandates of the public's California 1972 Proposition 20, HAF should not be allowed to abrogate their fiduciary responsibility to guard this `environmentally sensitive habitat'. The 14.3 acres is the home of many animals, bedding ground for deer, with a wide variety of bird life and nesting sites. The areas, having mostly redwoods, could well be the nesting site for spotted owls or marbled murrletes. The Coastal Commission should make Humboldt County live up to their Coastal Plan, and deny HAF's building permit, and save this (rare in the zone) sensitive natural habitat.

Cpt 3, page 45: Continuing under 3.30 NATURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION POLICIES AND STANDARDS (PG 43), on page 45, A. PLANNED USES, HUMBOLDT BAY IS THE LARGEST WETLAND AND ESTUARINE HABITAT IN THE COASTAL ZONE, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 23% OF THE COASTAL WETLANDS IN CALIFORNIA. Continuing middle of the third paragraph, WHILE THE SHEER EXTENT OF THESE HABITATS PROVIDES IMPORTANT NATURAL RESOURCE VALUES, THE MIX OF THESE HABITATS IS A SIGNIFICANT FEATURE OF THE HUMBOLDT BAY AREA. MANY WILDLIFE AND FISH SPECIES USE A VARIETY OF HABITATES DURING THEIR LIFETIMES, OR EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF A SINGLE DAY. THE AVAILABILITY OF DIFFERENT HABITATS IS ESSENTIAL TO THE SURVIVAL OF THESE ORGANIZMS. The Vietor property now Nature Preserve has for some 60 years provided a `near shore' (less than a quarter mile from salt water) habitat. This is threatened by the HAF Project, to wit building on it and paving it over. There are few if any other `on shore' habitats of this nature in the zone. For the protection of the bio-diversity of the Humboldt Bay ecosystem, the public's Nature Preserve should not be destroyed. The ill conceived HAF building permit should be denied as an environmental disaster.

Cpt 3-pg 46. Continuing as above, top of page, last sentence of first paragraph, THE RESOURCE PROTECTION POLICIES ARE DESIGNATED TO MAINTAIN LAND AND WATER AREAS THAT ARE NECESSARY FOR WATERFOUL, WILDLIFE AND FISH PRODUCTION IN THE BAY. The `resource protection policies' from California's 1972 Proposition 20 should not permit HAF, as the `non-functioning' trustees of the Nature Preserve, to destroy that public owned `natural habitat' to build a monument to their own glory. The building permit should be denied. Let HAF relocate their `expanding' operation elsewhere in a more urban setting, more receptive and appropriate to large buildings and asphalt paving.

Cpt 3-pg 46: Same section as above, third paragraph. THE TRANSITIONAL AGRICULTURAL LANDS (FARMED WETLANDS) POLICIES ARE DESIGNED TO MAINTAIN EXISTING AGRICULTURAL LAND USES WHILE PREVENTING PRACTICES THAT WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT EXISTING WILDLIFE HABITAT. This section presents the `letter and spirit' of the Coastal Plan, of saving some 'natural habitat'. Vera Vietor did that in 1972 in creating the Nature Preserve in public trust. The Coastal Commission should reject, or at very least require an EIR, prior to considering any approval of HAF's Project that will adversely affect the wildlife habitat in the Nature Preserve.

Cpt 3-pg 46: Continuing the section 3.30 NATURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION POLICIES AND STANDARDS (pg 43), the sixth paragraph on page 46, THE COUNTY ALSO ENCOURAGES THE PURCHASE OF PRIVATELY OWNED PARCELS FROM WILLING SELLERS IN THIS AREA BY PRIVATE OR PUBLIC AGENCIES COMMITTED TO PRESERVING THE AREA IN ITS NATURAL, UNDISTURBED STATE. Vera Perrott Vietor in 1972 willed her then some thirty year old private `nature preserve' to the public in trust (no purchase cost to the County). Vera mandated that it be kept `native and unspoiled', not to even be `despoiled' by a picnic table. The Coastal Plan promotes private (and public) agencies which are committed to preserving the natural, undisturbed state of areas such as the Nature Preserve. HAF's Project is diametrically opposite to the Plan's purpose and expressly stated goals.

Cpt 3-pg 47. From the third paragraph. DURING THE PREPARATION OF THIS LAND USE PLAN IT BECAME EVIDENT THAT AGRICUTURE AND WETLAND USES ARE SEVERLY CONSTRAINED BY THE FACT THAT MOST LAND SURROUNDING THE BAY IS IN ONE OR THE OTHER SUCH PRODUCTIVE USE. AS INDUSTRIAL USES COMPETE FOR AVAILABLE LAND (E.G . THE KING SALMON AND FIELDS LANDING AREAS), IT IS LIKELY THAT CERTAIN ISOLATED WETLANDS WILL BE FILLED, LEADING TO STATE AND FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR WETLAND RESTORATION AT OTHER SITES. Currently `recreating' wetlands at new sites as a trade off for development obliterating smaller wetlands is an active Humboldt County process, mode of operation. Rather than building within and paving over 10% of the public's Nature Preserve, the `low' south west corner, the only open portion (the rest is redwood forest) could and should be designated as an `alternate' wetland site. Then install a pond to augment the existing hillock and forested nature preserve, vs. the Nature Preserve's trustees HAF despoiling it by building within and paving over the preserve. The topography, the sloping SW corner makes this easy with a `corner of property' dike.
.
Cpt 3-pg47: Last two lines on the page. RESTORATION OF THESE AREAS FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT SHALL BE ENCOURAGED, WHERE FEASIBLE, WHEN THEY ARE NO LONGER NEEDED FOR THEIR PRESENT PURPOSE. Continuing with the idea of installing a wetland within the public's Nature Preserve vs. HAF's proposed despoliation by building within it and paving it over, would be in line with the stated Coastal Plan philosophy above. Building in the public's `nature preserve' is quite the opposite of the California Proposition 20 (1972) philosophy.

Cpt 3-pg 51: Under 5. WETLAND RESTORATION, third paragraph IN WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECTS NOT SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED BY SECTION 30607.1 OF THE COASTAL ACT, IT IS THE POLICY OF THE COUNTY TO ENCOURAGE `MITIGATION BANKING' TO FACILITATE PROJECTS PERMITTED UNDER SECION 30233 OF THE COASTAL ACT. The Nature Preserve should be put into `mitigation banking' as `encouraged' by County policy, i.e. identified as a site for an up to 1.4 acre pond or wetland, in the low southwest corner, fairly open meadow that is now slated for destruction by HAF's currently proposed building. I.e enhance the now some 60 year old `nature preserve' gifted in trust to the County and/or public in 1972 by Vera Perrott Vietor rather than let it be destroyed. This could take place under a new trustee, as Humboldt State University, who would be real land managers and trustees, not destroyers.

Cpt 3-pg 62: 3.40 VISUAL RESOURCES PROTECTION. Top of page. ***30251. THE SCENIC AND VISUAL QUALITIES OF COASTAL AREA SHALL BE CONSIDERED AND PROTECTED AS A RESOURCE OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE. The Vietors left (1972) the public (in trust) a visually pleasing 14.3 acres as the public's Nature Preserve. To let HAF destroy it, and build an unattractive modern building on and pave over 1.4 acres, 10 % of the `nature preserve' is not consistent with the philosophy of California's 1972 Proposition 20 and the ensuing Coastal Act.

Cpt 3-pg 62: Continuing VISUAL RESOURCE PROTECTION, second paragraph, *** 30253. NEW DEVELOPMENT SHALL: (5) WHERE APPROPRIATE, PROTECT SPECIAL COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS WHICH, BECAUSE OF THEIR UNIQUE CHARACTERSITICS, ARE POPULAR VISITOR DESTINATION POINTS FOR RECREATIONAL USE. The Nature Preserve stands out as a sparkling Gem in the special community are known as Indianola. The Nature Preserve has been a destination primarily for nature lovers-not for business meetings. HAF's Project would significantly and irreparably change the nature and scope of activities and use of the property, opposite of those for which its was created as the Nature Preserve, and should qualify it for protection under California Proposition 20 Coastal Act provisions.

Cpt 3-pg 62, continuing VISUAL RESOURCE PROTECTION, B. DEVELOPMENT POLICIES, 1. PHYSICAL SCALE AND VISUAL COMPATIBILITY. NO DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE APPROVED THAT IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE PHYSICAL SCALE OF DEVELOPMENT AS DESIGNATED IN THE AREA PLAN AND ZONING FOR THE SUBJECT PARCEL, AND THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA SHALL BE DETERMATIVE IN ESTABLISHING THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. The `development' proposed by HAF is not compatible with the zoning, RA 2.5, Residential-agricultural, with 2.5 acre minimum building plots, for a non urban area. But that zoning does not take into account that this unique wooded (redwoods) hillock is a public Nature Preserve, with the one 1940 structure, an architecturally significant treasure that was shown at the New York Museum Of Modern Art alongside works of Frank Lloyd Wright in the early 1940's. Again under RA 2.5, there would be about 13 cars expected on this `acreage'. HAF's building plan brings the number of paved parking slots to 92! The physical scale of HAF's Project is grossly disproportionate quantitatively and qualitatively to the allowed residential zoning, but far worse in light of its destruction of a Nature Preserve.

Cpt 3-pg 62: Continuing from above, bottom of page, restrictive guidelines (1) NO GREATER IN HEIGHT OR BULK THAN IS PERMITTERD FOR THE PRINCIPAL USE, AND IS OTHERWISE COMPATIBLE WITH THE STYLES AND VISIBLE MATERIAL OF EXISTING DEVELOPMENT OR LAND FORMS IN THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHERE SUCH DEVELOPMENT IS VISIBLE FROM THE NEAREST PUBLIC ROAD. The `principal use' as per the 1972 will of Vera Perrott Vietor is as the public's Nature Preserve, or a predominately redwood forest on a 14.3 acre hillock with stunning views of Humboldt Bay, all in a rural-agricultural setting. Vera's will (see Exhibit E) clearly and unequivocally stipulates that the property (including residence) be kept `native and unspoiled, and all of it', not even permitting the despoliation by a `picnic table', clear and unequivocal. Prior trustees so guarded it for 23 years (72-95). The proposed HAF building and 65 slot parking lot, will destroy 10 % of the public's Nature Preserve and is `very visible' from the Indianola cutoff road, and but a quarter mile east of US 101, the main artery of the North Coast.

Cpt 3-pg 63, continuing on the next page with the comment immediately above (2) WHERE THE PROJECT CANNOT FEASIBLY CONFORM TO PARAGRAPH 1 (immediately above) AND NO OTHER MORE FEASIBLE LOCATION EXISTS, THAT THE EXTERIOR DESIGN, AND LANDSCAPING BE SUBJECT TO A PUBLIC HEARING, AND SHALL BE APPROVED ONLY WHEN : (a) THERE IS NO LESS ENVIRONMENTALLY DAMAGING FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVE LOCATION. HAF could relocate to `anywhere' in Humboldt County and make charitable grants. There is absolutely no need to destroy the public's Nature Preserve to act as a charitable entity. There are unlimited `less environmentally damaging feasible alternative locations' for HAF's `expansion'.

Cpt 3-pg 63, continuing with 3.40 VISUAL RESOURCE PROTECTION. 2. PROTECTION OF NATURAL LANDFORMS AND FEATURES. NATURAL CONTOURS, INCLUDING SLOPE, VISIBLE CONTOURS OR HILLTOPS AND TREELINES, BLUFFS AND ROCK OUTCROPPINGS, SHALL SUFFER THE MINIMUM FEASIBLE DISTURBANCE COMPATIBLE WITH DEVELOPMENT OF ANY PERMITTED USE, AND THE FOLLOWINGM STANDARDS SHALL AT A MINIMUM SECURE THIS OBJECTIVE. The 14.3 acre property is a unique forested hillock, with great natural beauty topped off by the architecturally significant John Yeon masterpiece. There should be no `disturbance' whatsoever of the natural landforms, etc. HAF's Project would forever alter this very visible and prominent natural and cultural resource in close proximity of US 101.

Cpt 3-page 63: Mid page, 3. COASTAL SCENIC AREA. IN THE COASTAL SCENIC AREA DESIGNATED IN THE AREA PLAN MAP (INDIANOLA AREA), IT IS THE INTENT OF THESE REGULATIONS THAT ALL DEVELOPMENT S VISIBLE FROM HIGHWAY 101 BE SUBORDINATED TO THE CHARACTER OF THE DESIGNATED AREA, AND THE FOLLOWING UNIFORM STANDARDS SHALL APPLY TO ALL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN SAID AREA, IN ADDITION TO THE APPLICABLE POLICIES OF THIS PLAN: The upper portion of the 14.3 acre property left in trust to the public in 1972 is visible from US 101 and `salt water' (Humboldt North Bay) approximately one quarter of a mile to the west. John Yeon the Portland architect left Portland for `boondocks' Humboldt County mainly because `he fell in love with the site', the stunning bay view, and redwood covered hillock that the Vietors proposed building on in 1940. So here we have a unique public nature preserve topped by a world class architectural treasure, in a special Coastal Scenic Zone. More reason to disqualify HAF's ill-conceived Project to build in and destroy the public Nature Preserve. This would leave open the active option of the `renovation' of the site (reversal of HAF's 1995 destruction) and the 14.3 acre property becoming a National Heritage Site (or equal), in the letter and spirit of California's Proposition 20 (1972).

Cpt 3-pg 64: Continuing 3.40 VISUAL RESOURCE PROTECTION (pg 62), 4. COASTAL VIEW AREA, b. (1) THE DEVELOPMENT IS NOT VISIBLE FROM THE ROAD OR WOULD NOT BLOCK AND PART OF THE VIEW. The `development' proposed is on the main secondary road, the Indianola Cutoff, is in full view from the road, and the construction (destruction) will not only cut off the view, it will `destroy it', the view and the public's Nature Preserve.

Cpt 3-pg 65. Continuing as above, (2) THAT THE EXTERIOR DESIGN, LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING COMBINE TO RENDER THE OVERALL APPEARANCES COMPATIBLE WITH THE NATURAL SETTING AS SEEN FROM THE ROAD. The `setting' is the public's, to be guarded `native and unspoiled', not even a picnic table to be added. No part of the proposed HAF building project, an ugly barn like 6300 square foot building and 65 slot parking lot is `compatible with the natural setting', and is all highly visible from the Indianola Cutoff Road. To destroy the natural setting is not compatible with the `natural setting'. To build within the limits of the public's Nature Preserve as proposed by HAF is illegal and an environmental travesty. HAF's proposed Project is an affront to the North Coast public (the owners), the public who passed California's Proposition 20 (1972), the ensuing Coastal Plan, Mother Nature, and last but not least, Vera the benefactor.

Cpt 3-pg 65: Continuing as above, (4) THAT ALL FEASIBLE STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO MINIMIZE THE VISIBILITY OF PARKING AREAS FROM THE PUBLIC ROAD. A minor detail, the 65 slot parking area (most of the 1.4 acres `to be' destroyed by the HAF building project) is adjacent to and clearly visible from the Indianola Cutoff Road. If `all feasible steps' are taken, HAF will be denied their building permit, they will relocate to an urban or other area, not destroy the public's Nature Preserve for parking and a commercial type building incompatible with the area in general, the restrictive rural zoning. Most importantly, the proposed `parking' destroys the heart of the public's Nature Preserve, to be kept `native and unspoiled', not even a picnic table to be added, certainly not 1.4 acres of blacktop (parking).

Cpt 3-pg 66: 8. NATURAL FEATURES. SIGNIFICANT NATURAL FEATURES WITHIN THE HUMBOLDT BAY PLANNING AREA, AND SPECIFIC PROTECTION FOR RETENTION OF THESE RESOURCES ARE AS FOLLOWS: AREA. BOTTOMLANDS BETWEEN EUREKA AND ARCATA. SCENIC PROTECTION. DESIGNATED PUBLIC RECREATION AND AGRICULTURAL EXCLUSIVE, AS WELL AS COASTAL VIEW AREAS. So in 1940 the Vietors chose one of the most charming and beautiful wooded hillocks in this `now' (per ensuing Coastal Plan) special scenically protected `coastal view' area, and created their own private 14.3 acre `nature sanctuary'. Vera died in June 1972 before the election that brought on California Proposition 20 (fall of 1972) and the Coastal Plan, but she left her jewel, her Walden Pond gift in trust to the North Coast public. After some 60 years as a nature sanctuary, should this public property be destroyed by HAF?

Cpt 3-pg 67: 3.50 ACCESS. PUBLIC ACCESS PROVIDES FOR RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AROUND THE BAY AREA THAT ADD TO THE LOCAL ECONOMY, AND ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR LOCAL RESIDENTS.Vera Perrott Vietor left her 14.3 acre `nature sanctuary' in trust for the public (1972), mandating that it be `open to the public'. Now some 60 years after her creating this jewel and tribute to Mother Nature in 1940, HAF's Project would irreparably despoil it. This is not in line with the `letter and spirit' of California's Proposition 20, Coastal Plan, CEQA, the public's interest, and Vera's 1972 will? The building permit should be denied.

Cpt 3-Pg 68: top of page 68, continuing on 3.50 ACCESS. ***30212.5 WHENEVER APPROPRIATE AND FEASIBLE, PUBLIC FACILITIES, INCLUDING PARKING AREAS OR FACILITIES, SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT THE AREA SO AS TO MITIGATE AGAINST THE IMPACTS, SOCIAL AND OTHERWISE, OF OVERCROWDING OR OVERUSE BY THE PUBLIC OF ANY SINGLE AREA. HAF by their plan will have 92 total parking slots within the 14.3 acre public Nature Preserve whereas if it was residential (as zoned RA 2.5-i.e residences when allowed on minimum of 2.5 acres), only five homes would be allowed on the 14.3 acres (taken as 15 acres). At 2.5 cars per home, 13 cars as contrasted to 92 parking slots that HAF seeks and that the County has `approved'. But isn't that all-academic? This `paving over' despoliation is occurring within the limits of the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve, 10 % of which will be obliterated by the ugly barn like office building and 65 parking slots. But none of these slots are for visitors to the nature preserve. They are all for `non-nature-preserve' visitors to HAF's `commercial' (even if non-profit) facilities. As a nature preserve, parking should be outside the `preserve', visitors would walk in. Instead HAF is planning to attract a different clientele, unappreciative garbage, and noise creating `visitors' with no interest in the nature preserve, but irreparably destroying its `natural' ambience. This is an environmental travesty if HAF's building permit is issued. Only the California Coastal Commission stands between HAF and their intent to despoil this natural treasure and further anger Mother Nature.

Cpt 4-pg 6. Chapter 4 lists the Humboldt County land zoning designations. At the tax office the zoning on the 14.3 acre Nature Preserve is RA 2.5. This is applied to non-urban, predominately agricultural with restricted residential with 2.5 acre minimum lots (where permitted-restricted and secondary to agriculture). This is the general zoning of the area where the public's Nature Preserve is located on a mostly forested (second growth redwood) 14.3 acre hillock. There are other zoning classifications that the unique 14.3 acres should qualify for, as below: (PR) PUBLIC RECREATIONAL. PURPOSE: TO PROTECT PUBLICLY OWNED LANDS SUITABLE FOR RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT OR RESOURCE PROTECTION. PRINCIPAL USE: PUBLIC RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE (PER SECTION 3.25) The 14.3 acres is not only `suitable' for `recreational development' it is (since 1940) a `nature preserve', officially so held in trust for the public by Vera Perrott Vietor's 1972 will as the Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve, and (page 7) (NR) NATURAL RESOURCES. PURPOSE: TO PROTECT AND ENHANCE VALUABLE FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITATS, AND PROVIDE FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE USE OF THEIR RESOURCES, INCLUDING HUNTING, FISHING AND OTHER FORMS OF RECREATION. PRINCIPAL USE: MANAGEMENT FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT. The 14.3 acre public Nature Preserve enhances wildlife habitat in a natural ecosystem of mostly forest. About 10% in the southwest corner is fairly open meadow where deer and other animals find shelter (the site of HAF proposed building and paving over for parking). There is no hunting, but there is nature walking, bird watching, and meditation in a soothing natural setting with Mother Nature in charge. It is the obvious hope that the Coastal Commission will stop the HAF construction (despoliation) as being incompatible with the `letter and spirit' of the Coastal Plan. Further, it would be reasonable to ask the Coastal Commission to recommend that Humboldt Planning or the Tax Assessors add the (PR) and (NR) designation to the 14.3 acre parcel in question as being compatible with its current (last 60 years) use. However, these `planning' or `zoning' designations are more for what `will be allowed' in the future, vs. tracking what is actually in place on the land.

Cpt 5-page 3: DEFINITIONS. "ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE" -MEANS ANY AREA IN WHICH PLANT AND ANIMAL LIFE OR THEIR HABITATS ARE EITHER RARE OR ESPECIALLY VALUABLE BECAUSE OF THEIR SPECIAL NATURE OR ROLE IN THE ECOSYSTEM AND WHICH COULD EASILY BE DISTURBED OR DEGRADED BY HUMAN ACTIVITIES AND DEVELOPMENTS (COASTAL ACT SECTION 301O7.5), INCLUDING: AREAS OF SPECIAL BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE AS IDENTIFIED BY THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD, RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES HABITAT IDENTIFIED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, ALL COASTAL WETLANDS AND LAGOONS, ALL MARINE, WILDLIFE AND EDUCATION AND RESEARCH RESERVES; NEARSHORE REEFS, TIDEPOOLS, SEA CAVES, ISLETS AND OFFSORE ROCKS, KELP BEDS, INDIGENOUS DUNE PLANTS HABITATS; AND WILDERNESS AND PRIMITIVE AREAS. After some 60 years as a `nature sanctuary' in a neighborhood otherwise stripped by agriculture or other human development, the public's Nature Preserve as an isolated haven for Mother Nature should qualify as `environmentally sensitive'.

Cpt 5-pg 4. DEFINITIONS, continued, "HIGHLY SCENIC AREA"-GENERALLY INCLUDE (2) OPEN AREAS OF PARTICULAR VALUE IN PRESERVING NATURAL LAND-FORMS AND SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION, OR IN PROVIDING ATTRACTIVE TRANSITIONS BETWEEN NATURAL AND URBANIZED AREAS. The 14.3 acre public Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve `preserves' natural land forms and significant vegetation (redwoods etc.) and provides a transition between natural and urbanized areas, in the Coastal-Scenic `zone' fronting on North Humboldt Bay between Eureka and Arcata where nothing else of the kind is available. It should be so preserved, a small win in the eternal struggle between mankind vs. Mother Nature, not destroyed by HAF.

This is the public's Nature Preserve at Indianola against the backdrop of the California Coastal Act, and HAF's Project to build within and `irreparably despoil' it. It is located midway between the Bay (salt water) and US highway 101 on the west, and the Old Arcata Road (east boundary of the Coastal Zone). And midway between the two biggest urban areas on the California North Coast, Eureka to the south and Arcata to the north. The exceptional property is a redwood forest covered hillock with stunning views of nearby Humboldt Bay, that has been guarded as a `nature sanctuary' for 60 years, then since 1972 held in trust for the public. In this Exhibit B section above, the `land use' of the 14.3 acres is compared against the more than 130 page HUMBOLDT BAY AREA COASTAL PLAN. This is as Vera's heirs believe should have been done by Humboldt Planning before issuing the 1994 and 1998 building permits to HAF, had they known the true nature of the property, a public Nature Preserve. . The review herein highlights the unique ecosystem, natural treasure involved. This is juxtaposed against HAF's current trustees ill-conceived intent (Project) to destroy it, and rob the public of the Walden Pond gift that Vera Perrott Vietor left them in 1972 in her special and final tribute to Vera's friend, Mother Nature in a losing battle against misguided over development in the Coastal Zone. If HAF's proposed building permit is issued, it will be an environmental travesty, and make a mockery of the Humboldt County Local Coastal Program.

EXHIBIT C-REVIEW OF HAF PROPOSED BUILDING VIS-À-VIS 1998 PLANNING STAFF REPORT

In 1998 HAF approached Humboldt Planning to obtain a permit to build a 6300 square foot building and 65 slot parking area, consuming 1.4.acres, 10 % of the public's 14.3 acre Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve. HAF presented themselves to Planning as it they were the `OWNERS' of the property, being careful not to divulge that HAF were in fact only the `TRUSTEES'. The trustees with a solemn fiduciary responsibility to guard the 14.3 acre site of their proposed construction `native and unspoiled', not to even introduce a `picnic table' as per the 1972 will of Vera's Perrott Vietor, creating the public nature preserve. Thus the whole permitting process was fraudulent as to HAF's submission and flawed in that Humboldt Planning went along with the chicanery, not finding out the true nature of the property and applicant. Planning went along, taking HAF at their word, missing the forest for the trees, and approved the permit (as Planning had approved an earlier HAF permit request in 1994 under similar `bogus' conditions). It is a must to keep the completely deceptive and flawed nature of the 1998 permit application in mind, as we critique in this Exhibit C the Planning Staff Report that was used in the process to approve the 1998 permit application. California Coastal Commission denial of the 1998 HAF building permit extension is now the subject of this appeal.

When Vera Perrott Vietor's heirs got wind of the project (HAF's June 1999 press release), they were unable to reason with HAF, that they were illegally destroying the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve and violating their Founder Vera's will. Vera's `watchdog' heirs were forced to take HAF to court to try to stop the despoliation of their aunt's public Nature Preserve gift to the North Coast. Thus HAF was not able to `break ground' as planned in August of 1999, although the bulldozers and chain saw and clearing gangs were mobilized at the site. The 1998 building permit expired during the currently ongoing legal squabbles between `Vera' and her `interloper' (1994) trustee HAF. HAF is currently applying for an extension of their expired fatally flawed 1998 building permit. That `permit extension' has been provisionally approved by both Planning (18 Jan 01) and the Board of Supervisors (27 March 01). But this was on the seriously flawed basis (2001 staff report) that `it is just an extension' and `nothing has changed'. This completely ignores Vera's heirs exposure in public hearings and correspondence of the fraudulent nature of HAF's applications (1994 and 1998). That is with HAF pretending to be the owners of the property. With HAF duplicitously concealing from authorities that HAF is in fact something quite different. The trustees of the property (post 1994) with the solemn fiduciary responsibility to protect, not destroy, the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve, and that the property is held in trust (owned) by the public.

A few selected pages of the Planning 1998 staff report are quoted and commented on below, the Staff Report in CAPITALS, comments in normal print. But first, a brief focus on the 27 March 01 `staff report', where the discussion of HAF being a trustee transpires. Our comments are based on a full knowledge of the `public nature preserve' status of the property, a critical fact not disclosed to Planning by HAF. Knowing the true status (ownership) of the property results in a `night and day' difference as to `approving' or `disapproving' 1998 HAF building permit (and 2001 extension). The `quoted' pages are to be found at the end of this Exhibit C section:

27 MARCH 2001-Staff Report-Supervisors Consider Extension Of HAF Permit

Vera Perrott's Vietor's heirs appealed mainly on the basis that the 1998 permit was `fraudulent' on HAF's part as they essentially masqueraded as `owners' of the property, did not 1) divulge that HAF was in fact only a `trustee', of 2) a public (in trust) nature preserve. Thus Vera's heirs argued that HAF had no right to build within or to destroy the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve.

Planning essentially ignored this, on the basis that `this in 2001was just an extension of a full 1998 approval', and everything (sewage, traffic, etc.) had been dealt with in 1998, `nothing was new', it was just a routine `extension'. In fact as shown in the previous
Exhibit B discussions above how grossly inconsistent HAF's Project is when compared to the Plan, nothing has been routine with the misguided approval of an environmental travesty. Vera's heirs argued (in writing and verbally) that HAF has given false information or omitted critical facts in 1998, so that the Supervisors would be contributing to the destruction of a `public nature preserve' by going along with the chicanery of the dubious `interloper' (1994) trustees HAF.

However in the staff report (see attached) is a discussion of `trusteeship'. I.e. to `deal' with the new 2001 issue that was brought out by Vera's heirs, not known in 1988, as Vera's heirs were not informed of the 1988 permit application or present to express their views at that time.

 

Page 2, (a): SUBSEQUENT TO THE ORIGINAL PERMIT, CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY OF VERA PERROTT VIETOR, WHO ESTABLISHED THE HUMBOLDT AREA FOUNDATION (HAF) IN 1972, CHALLENGED IN COURT WHETHER THE CURRENT HAF BOARD OF TRUSTEES HAS THE RIGHT UNDER THE TERMS OF THE WILL TO CHANGE THE LANDSCAPE, BUILDINGS AND USES OF THE PROPERTY IN THE MANNER PROPOSED. THIS INTERPRETATION OF THE TERMS OF THE WILL IS A CIVIL MATTER AND NOT AN ISSUE WITHIN THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION. HOWEVER, THE APPEAL DOES RAISE THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THE HAF CAN ACT AS APPLICANT FOR THIS PROJECT. THE HAF IS A `TRUSTEESHIP', WHICH, ACCORDING TO WEBSTERS' DICTIONARY IS A `PERSON TO WHOM PROPERTY IS LEGALLY COMMITTED TO BE ADMINISTERED FOR THE BENEFIT OF A BENEFICIARY (AS A PERSON OR CHARITABLE ORGNAIZATION). IT IS THE DEPARTMENT'S PRACTICE TO CONSIDER THE TRUSTEE OF RECORD TO BE THE LAWFUL DECISION MAKER IN REGARDS TO ALL LAND DEVELOPMENT MATTERS. Vera's heirs allege this is a flawed decision. The real question is `Land Use', or misuse, or in this case ABUSE (destruction of a public nature preserve in the California Coastal Zone). A staff person, while claiming that `civil questions' are outside their jurisdiction, makes a quasi legal `subjective' decision to believe the trustee, and ignore the `objective' `land use' question that `the property' is a public Nature Preserve that is being illegally destroyed. The staff discussion is only about HAF being a trustee not an `owner'. There is no discussion about land use, it is thus (if HAF is the trustee) not their private land, and it is a public nature preserve. The real issue over which Planning did have jurisdiction, the true nature of the property, is thus ignored. No one has the right to destroy a public nature preserve, not even the trustee, or especially the trustee with the fiduciary responsibility to guard it native and unspoiled while holding it in trust for the public. If vandals came in and cut redwoods in a public nature preserve they would be punished for destruction of public property. As bizarre as it may seem, the `vandals' in this case is the trustee HAF. But on a strict, non legal, `land use' approach, in the Coastal Zone, under CEQA, no one should be given a permit to destroy the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve, not Governor Gray Davis, President George Bush, or HAF. Hopefully, in light of the `letter and spirit' of 1972's Proposition 20 and the California Coastal Act, the current Coastal Commission would not let Vera's creation of a public nature preserve in 1972 within the Coastal Zone be in vain. It would seem to follow that the travesty of the issuance of a `legal' permit to HAF to destroy the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve would not happen, has happened due to chicanery (by HAF) and inattention by Planning, allowing themselves to be easily duped by HAF.

Page 2 (b): The next paragraph lists the five criterion that `had not changed' since 1998, the `reason' that Planning had approved the extension on 18 Jan 01. We repeat only number five. 5) NO NEW EVIDENCE REGARDING THE ORIGINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HAS ARISEN WHICH WOULD REQUIRE ADDITIONAL CEQA REVIEW. In 1998 HAF did not disclose that they were trustees of a public nature preserve. Planning presumably took HAF as the owners of private property, wanting to build on it. But by 2001 it was `public knowledge' that Vera's heirs were taking legal action against HAF for destroying the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve created by her will in 1972. The fact that by 2001 it was known that the `property' in question was not just `run-of-the-mill' land but a public (in trust) nature preserve is treated as `no new evidence regarding the original environmental analysis'. The environmental analysis of building within a nature preserve has to be night to day different than an application to build a `commercial building' on private land? Planning (2001) says in 5) above, that `additional CEQA review was not required'. The Planning files indicate that the closest to a CEQA review in 1998 was to fill in a few boxes in the
`Environmental' section of the staff working papers. There is no indication that a full-blown Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was undertaken. But Planning were misinformed into treating the Project as being sited on `run-of-the-mill' private raw land, not A PUBLIC NATURE PRESERVE. How can the authorities issue a permit to build in and destroy a public Nature Preserve without an EIR (1998) and in 2001 claim `additional' CEQA review is not warranted? This doesn't sound like the planning (staff) people had the `letter and spirit' of the Coastal Act or CEQA in mind in dismissing Vera's heirs heartfelt 2001 appeal to save the public's Nature Preserve created and gifted to the public in her 1972 will.

The next paragraph is also disturbing:

Page 2 (c ): THE APPELLANT HAS NOT RAISED ANY SUBSTANTITIVE ISSUE RELATED TO THE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION ITSELF. THE CONCERNS RELATE TO CIVIL MATTERS OVER WHICH THE BOARD DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION. Can it be that the difference between: 1) the land being the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve, held in trust for the public, and 2) hypothetically private land owned by HAF (the basis of the flawed 1998 staff review and issuance of building permit) is not substantive in deciding a `land use issue', especially in the California Coastal Zone? Under the umbrella of CEQA? When looking at a building permit application, presumably a planner starts by knowing if the building site is located in the empty wastes of the Sahara desert, or is part of the Arctic National Wildlife Range (ANWR) on Alaska's north slope. The civil matters of Vera's heirs lawsuit can be ignored. The `land use' question, once the nature of the property, as a public nature preserve is known, stands on its own merit and should not be avoided by `land use' authorities because there are secondary and peripheral `civil matters' outside Planning's (Board Of Supervisor's) jurisdiction. Hopefully Coastal will start out right, knowing the nature of the construction site, within the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve, and then reject HAF's bogus application forthwith, or alternately, demand that an EIR be performed. There is no way that a professionally conducted EIR can come up with allowing HAF's proposed building within the limits of a public nature preserve.

Page 18 (d) (Dated-`revised' 24 Feb 01)

1) THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVES THE PROPOSED MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT IN ATTACHMENT 3 AS REQUIRED IN SECTION 15074(b) OF CEQA GUIDELINES, AND FINDS THAT THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. The `environment' is this case is the public's Nature Preserve. HAF's Project will despoil and irreparably damage 1.4 acres, 10 % of the public's Nature
Preserve, and ruin the ambience of the rest of 14.3 acres. Traffic flows, visual impact, noise, unique inter-urban location, destruction of habitat, are all environmental concerns of the highest order under the Coastal Plan. Yet the Planning Staff report dismisses such concerns out of hand. The Coastal Commission must exercise its oversight responsibility to prevent such irresponsible action at the County level.

The following are taken from Humboldt Planning's 1998 staff report recommending and resulting in approval of the HAF Project.

Page 20 (a)

RELEVANT PLAN SECTION-PROTECTION OF NATURAL LANDFORMS.

See copy of the planning report, 20 (a) at the end of this section. A general comment. The 1998 Staff report reads fine until it is realized that HAF is not the `owner' of the property, rather something quite different. HAF is the post 1994 `land trustee' with the solemn fiduciary responsibility to guard the 14.3 acre public Nature Preserve `native and unspoiled' not to even add a picnic table. And that HAF is thus proposing to destroy the public's Nature Preserve, not protect it for its owners, the public. Planning may have been mislead by HAF not disclosing the true nature (ownership-the public in trust) of the property in 1998. But that fact had become known in the 2001 `building permit extension' hearings, but was ignored by Planning et al with the comment `nothing has changed it is only a permit extension'. On another tact, there is scant mention in the Planning Staff Report of the restrictive zoning, RA 2.5, i.e. agriculture has preference, and `where allowed' (very restrictive) residences are to have 2.5 minimum acreage. The plan being reviewed would bring HAF parking slots to 92. Hypothetically, Zoning would allow five homes on the 14.3 acre property (if they allowed that it was 15 acres). At 2.5 cars per residence, this would allow or result in a population of only 13 vehicles as juxtaposed against HAF being allowed 92? In a public nature preserve? Is Humboldt Planning aware of or living up to the Coastal Plan? CEQA?

Page 20 (b)

RELEVANT PLAN SECTION-COASTAL SCENIC.
See copy of Planning report at the end of this section, 20 (b). The planning people go through the laundry list of concerns for the `structure', siding and roofing materials, height restrictions, shielded external lighting, minimal vegetation clearing. This is like a `smokescreen' to cover up the true nature of the development. It is being proposed within the public's Nature Preserve, to be kept `native and unspoiled', not even a picnic table to be added! Then the Planning Report states under `MINIMIZE VEGETATION CLEARING'-ACCORDING TO THE PLAN OF OPERATION, THE APPLICANT WILL BE RETAINING THE EXISTING MATURE FIR AND REDWOOD TREES ON THE SITE. Not true. They will completely destroy, grade over, with over 800 CY of cut and over 800 CY of fill, 1.4 acres, 10 % of the public's Nature Preserve. But there are trees, bushes, in the 1.4 acres to be despoiled. It is a nature preserve. About 90 % of the total 14.3 acres is heavily wooded. HAF have chosen the only `fairly open' part, the southwest low corner, meadow. It is where the deer bed down at night. HAF has misinformed Planning, and Planning thus made a flawed judgement. The public and Mother Nature are being cheated.

Page 21 (a)

RELEVANT PLAN SECTION-RURAL RESIDENTIAL

Once again Planning is looking at HAF's plan as if HAF were bona fide `owners' of the property, not what they actually are, `trustees' acting contrary to their fiduciary responsibilities, out to destroy the public's Nature Preserve officially under their care and guardianship. Planning goes along with gag. THE DEPARTMENT FINDS THE PROJECT CONSISTENT WITH THE RURAL RESIDENTAL PLAN DESIGNATION BECAUSE IT INVOLVES THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPEPATION OF A FACILITY WHICH WILL PROVIDE EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE PUBLIC. But destroy the public's unique Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve. Still no mention of 92 parking slots as opposed to some 13 that the restrictive family housing of the zone would result in? The 92 parking slots:

a) Pre-1995, HAF did away with the Vietor's two car garage, and used the
Vietor 1941 driveway and access for six parking slots……………………….. 6
b) In the 1995 construction (destruction) HAF added 21 parking slots………….21
c) The current (1998) plan adds 65 parking slots.………………………………..65
___
d) Current `planned' parking slots………………………………………………92

Page 21 (b)

RELEVANT PLAN SECTION-PRINCIPAL AND CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USE.

Planning goes along with the `permitted use', naïve to or ignoring that it is the public's Nature Preserve, held in trust by the current post-1994 trustees HAF, who are taking advantage of their position (conflict-of-interest) as Trustees to destroy the public's treasure entrusted to their `safekeeping' Planning simply says, we didn't know, that's what HAF told us? Is naivete or ignorance a good enough excuse to forever irreparably destroy the public's Nature Preserve? But that was in 1998. In 2001 when Vera's heirs provided evidence of the flawed nature of the 1998 staff report? Irreparable damage to Mother Nature is at stake. Is this not what the Coastal Plan appeal process is provided as a safeguard to stop?

Page 21 ( c )

RELEVANT PLAN SECTION-RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RA)

The minimum lot size is 2.5 acres. HAF is `developing' 1.4 acres, but with 65 parking slots. The way the 1.4 acres of `development' is shoehorned into the `open' south west corner of the Nature Preserve, it is not clear that the Coastal Plan setbacks are adhered to. The HUMBOLDT COUNTY LOCAL COASTAL PLAN, the coastal plan `bible' Cpt 3, page 64-65, COASTAL VIEW AREAS (which the coastal Highway US 101 belt between Eureka and Arcata is) page 65, (3) NO DEVELOPEMT, OTHER THAN LANDSCAPING, SIGNS, UTILITIES, WELLS, FENCING AND A DRIVEWAY FOR ACCESS TO THE PUBLIC ROAD WHERE REQUIRED, BE LOCATED WITHING 50 FEET OF A PUBLIC ROAD. There are public roads on the south and west. The way that the 1.4 acre development is `squeezed' into the `non-heavily-forested' corner of the property, it is very dubious if the 50 foot minimums are in fact adhered to. But this is academic. HAF should not be allowed to build on the property and destroy the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve. End of story.

Page 24 (a)

FINDING-COASTAL SCENIC FINDING.

The Planning Report states in part THE DEPARTMENT FINDS THE PROJECT TO BE SITED AND DESIGNED TO BE SUBORDINATE TO THE CHARACTER OF THE SETTING. The `setting' is the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve, mandated to be kept `native and unspoiled' not even a picnic table to be added. The plan will irreparably destroy 10 % of the public's nature preserve, is no way SUBORDINATED TO THE CHARACTER OF THE SETTING. But Planning finds that it will be subordinated to the `character of the setting', rather hollow words for completely unnecessary irreparable destruction of the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve .

Page 24 (b)

6. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

The Planning Report states in part-STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE PROJECT WILL HAVE ANY POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECT, EITHER INDIVIDUALLY OR CUMULATIVELY, ON THE ENVIRONMENT. HAF's Project will irreparably destroy 10% of the public's Nature Preserve and destroy the `quiet natural' ambience of the rest of the 14.3 acres. This is a travesty and environmental disaster contrary to the Coastal Plan and CEQA, which Planning completely ignores. This is all accomplished with out an EIR that starts with the true nature of the property, a public Nature Preserve. No professionally conducted independent EIR could ever recommend the HAF Project. The Project should not be permitted to go ahead.

Page 28 (a)

1. AESTHETICS

On this check sheet, impacts, from `potentially significant' to `no impact' are to be checked off. Planning shows b) SUBSTANTIALLY DAMAGE SCENIC RESOURCES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, TREES, ROCK OUTCROPPINGS, AND HISTORIC BUILDINGS WITHIN A STATE SCENIC HIGHWAY. Planning marks this as `no impact'. How can it be that the destruction of the public's Preserve has no impact? Planning can claim not to know (1998) it was a public Nature Preserve, but it is as clearly divulged in the 2001 extension hearings. Hopefully CEQA and the Coastal Act do not flawed permit application information by the likes of HAF as an excuses for environmental destruction? Even when the flaws have been pointed out in public hearings, verbally and in writing (2001)?

28 (b)

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. WOULD THE PROJECT HAVE:

a) HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECT, EITHER DIRECTLY OR THROUGH HABITAT MODIFICATION, ON ANY SPECIES INDENTIFIED AS A CANDIDATE, SENSITIVE, OR SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES IN LOCAL OR REGIONAL PLANS, POLICIES, OR REGULATIONS, OR BY THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME OR US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. The Planning staff has marked the box `no impact'. The property is mostly forested. Has anyone checked to see if it is the home of spotted owls or the marbled murrlet which nest in redwoods, the predominate `tree' on the property. As the property is the public's Nature Preserve, the special area involved should be given the benefit of the doubt. Give Mother Nature a chance over scheming, self serving, greedy, materialistic `destructive', humans, a misguided HAF in this case.

Page 29 (a)

d) INTERFER SUBSTANTIALLY WITH THE MOVEMENT OF ANY NATIVE RESIDENT OR MIGRATORY FISH OR WILDLIFE SPECIES OR WITH ESTABLISHED NATIVE OR MIGRATORY WILDLIFE CORRIDORS, OR IMPEDE THE USE OF NATIVE WILDLIFE NURSEY SITES. Planning staff mark `no impact'. The truth is that since 1940, the 14.3 acres has become a bird and wildlife sanctuary with many resident `bird and animal' families, nurseries if you like. Deer are resident there, and their `beds' can be seen in the very 1.4 acres to be destroyed. Neighbors report deer going out to graze in the evening, but coming back to the 14.3 acres as their `haven' in the daytime, as the only such `refuge' in the predominately pasture and residential area. I.e. the only natural `open space' in the extended neighborhood.

Page 29 (b)

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. A) CAUSE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE CHANGE IN THE SIGNIFICANCE OF A HISTORICAL RESOURCE AS DEFINED IN # 15064. Staff says `no impact'. Meanwhile the 14.3-acre property (public Nature Preserve) is the location of an architecturally significant residence, shown at the New York Museum of Modern Art alongside works of Frank Lloyd Wright in the 1940's. University of Oregon School Of Architecture is the center for the works of Internationally acclaimed John Yeon (died 1994), the Vietor's 1940-41 architect and landscaper, and onsite `construction superintendent'. University of Oregon would like to bring the home back to its pre 1995 status, before HAF devastated the building and landscaping (cutting redwood trees, paving over forest and landscaping, knocking out walls, scabbing on rooms), all to cram 12-15 employees into a two bedroom architectural treasure. See Appendix (L)-an extensive section of John Yeon and his works. And U of Oregon has opined positively on the merits and feasibility of making the 14.3 acres a National Heritage Site (or equal), a recreational and tourist destination, an asset to Humboldt County. If the current HAF plan goes ahead, this becomes unfeasible, with too much of the nature preserve and residence irreparably destroyed and the ambience gone with up to 92 vehicles (parking spaces) changing the whole `natural' atmosphere. HAF's destruction must be stopped now, or forget it forever.

Page 34 (a) This section, sheets has a narrative discussion to back up the selections on the `checklist' boxes.

AESTHETICS (a), (c), (d) -The staff finds no problems with the ascetics. The construction (destruction) destroys 10% of the public's Nature Preserve, puts the resident deer out of a home, but all is well? Is this in conformance with the Coastal Plan and CEQA?

Page 34 (b)

AESTHETICS (b)-The staff finds THE PROJECT WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY DAMAGE SCENIC RESOURCES, INCUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO TREES. An interesting `finding' when `the project' is unnecessarily destroying 10 % of the public's Nature Preserve, for a `commercial' (if charitable) activity that should not be expanding in the heart of a public nature preserve, in such a rural setting.

Page 34 ( c)

AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES-the staff finds that the project will not convert prime agricultural land, ignoring that `the project' destroys the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve, and sensitive wildlife habitat, which is much more rare than `farm land'?

Page 35 (a)

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (a), (c), (d), (e) The staff report finds no threat to `biological resource'. This finding has to be ignorant of or ignore that this particular parcel (14.3 acres) has been a complete ecosystem since the 1940's. It is a haven and sanctuary for birds, animals, plants, the likes of which there is not another similar first `private' (to 1972) now `public' example in the Coastal Zone in Humboldt County. To ignore the fact that it is the public's Nature Preserve and allow HAF's Project to proceed is a travesty and environmental disaster. This would rob the North Coast public of Vera gift to them in the form of her architecturally significant home and Nature Preserve, as well as Vera's intended tribute to Mother Nature.

Page 35 (b)

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (b) The staff reports that they find no threat of adverse effect on riparian habitat. Again it has been a `nature sanctuary' for 60 years, officially the public's (in trust) Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve since 1972 (some 30 years). The Coastal Plan encourages the creation of such unique habitat. The Coastal Plan, Cpt 3-pg 3.30 quotes out of the California State Coastal Plan, *** 30240. (a) `ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT AREAS SHALL BE PROTECTED AGAINST ANY SIGNIFICANT DISRUPTION OF HABITAT VALUES, AND ONLY USES DEPENDENT ON THOSE RESOURCES SHALL BE ALLOWED WITHIN SUCH AREAS. I.e. the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve should be guarded `native and unspoiled' as was Vera's conditions on leaving the 14.3 acre property in trust to the public in 1972. Under the philosophy of the Coastal Plan, the destruction by `commercial interests' HAF should not allowed, no construction permit issued. Despite this Planning ignores the true situation (it's a public Nature Preserve), and approves HAF's wrongheaded plans, with Planning becoming a party to and joining with HAF in the destruction of a public treasure. Not at all within the `letter or spirit' of the California's 1972 Proposition 20 or the ensuing Coastal Act, or CEQA.

Page 36 (a)

CULTURAL RESOURCES. None says the planning staff. Meanwhile the University of Oregon School Of Architecture reckons that the architecturally significant Vietor residence (despite the damage done by HAF in 1995 and since) could and SHOULD be restored and the site become a National Historical Site (or equal). This would be the combination of the Nature Preserve with the historic residence, for a historic and tourist treasure for Humboldt County. This approach is more in line with the `letter and spirit' of the Coastal Plan and CEQA than HAF's Project destroying the site.

Page 38 (a)

LAND USE AND PLANNING-Staff finds no problem vis-à-vis planning, zoning or `division of the local established community'. The local community is adamant against the project. Especially those who knew the Vietors are dismayed at the HAF havoc being heaped on Vera's heartfelt gift to the public's as the Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve. It is a low density housing area, neighborhood. The population does not like the 92 parking spots, and the resulting `traffic', on narrow, horizontally and vertically curved, thus poor `site distance' Indianola Cutoff. Planning does a disservice to the public, by going along with, if not `intentionally' encouraging the destruction of the public's Nature Preserve. And for ignoring the `restrictive' zoning in the area, residential 2.5 acre minimum to something like seven times the allowed density of `vehicle population', to an announced 92 by HAF's plan vs. 13 (based on parking spots that would result on the 14.3 acres with residential use). And how soon will HAF come back for more? HAF first despoiled the public's Nature Preserve in their 1995 `parking lot and residence conversion to office' effort, breaching their founders will. A mere three years later, they were back at Planning to increase parking by 300% (great HAF planning?). HAF have now been delayed nearly two years by Vera's heirs from carrying out this second major `despoliation' of the public's Nature Preserve. How soon will HAF be back at Planning wanting to destroy more of the public's Nature Preserve for HAF's own self serving commercial activities? HAF's building permit must be denied.

Page 39 (a)

NOISE Planning finds no `noise' problem, only during construction. Planning misses the point that this `construction' (destruction) is taking place in the public's Nature Preserve. The nature preserve should be organized for `pedestrian' nature reserve visitors only (parking provided outside the limits). Nature lovers would come on foot to enjoy the quiet, undisturbed nature, to meditate and communicate with Mother Nature. Meanwhile HAF's Project would increase to 92 the parking slots within the Nature Preserve to keep a steady flow of vehicles violating its quite natural ambiance, with vehicles stopping and starting, doors slamming, loud conversations. This is not what Vera intended when she left her property in trust for the public enjoyment, and mandated that it be kept `native and unspoiled', not even a picnic table to be added. In this day and age to find a place with no man made noises, only the soothing sounds of nature, is hard to find. As a public Nature Preserve, Vera's gift to the public was meant to and would provide that `quiet'. HAF should take their `noise', crowds, destruction and disrespect for Mother Nature elsewhere, not be allowed to destroy the public's nature preserve. HAF's building permit must be denied.

Page 40 (a)

POPULATION AND HOUSING-staff finds `no problem'. The HAF population filling the 92 parking slots does not live there, nor will they be interested in the `nature preserve'. They will come for `commercial' reasons, to get grants from or become donors to HAF, or the many other `business and community' meetings HAF plans. Unfortunately all these `don't give a damn about the nature preserve' HAF visitors will displace nature, the deer that now bed where HAF are proposing to build, the raccoons, squirrels, the `birds and bees and trees'. It is after all the public's Nature Preserve. This degrades the whole area as a `nature preserve' and the intended `nature lover' visitors will give it a wide berth. HAF's Project is just the opposite of what California's Proposition 20 (1972) and the Coastal Plan and CEQA intends. HAF's building permit must be denied. .

Page 40 (b)

RECREATION-In finding that there are no recreational concerns, Planning Staff states NOR DOES THE PROJECT INCLUDE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES OR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUCH FACILITIES. The `project' just destroys the public's recreational destination, the public's own (in trust) Nature Preserve, and has no provision for replacing the resulting `recreational deficit' elsewhere, contrary to the letter and spirit of the California 1972's Proposition 20 and the ensuing Coastal Plan and CEQA.

Page 40 ( c)

TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC (a) (b). The traffic problem is real. The US 101/Indianola Cutoff Intersection is one of the most dangerous `intersections' in the nation. To get to the bottom line, why let HAF destroy the public's Nature Preserve with 92 parking places. This just to further exacerbate an already dangerous and frustrating traffic problem. Not only at the US 101's notoriously dangerous intersection a quarter of a mile to the west, but at the entrance to HAF's `now' two facilities, where the road is narrow, has a hill and curves for dangerously short vertical and horizontal sight distances. The neighbors are adamantly against HAF's Project, traffic density and unsafe roads are one of the major thorns.

Page 42 (a)

MANDATORY FINDING OF SIGNIFICANCE (a)- The Planning Staff states in part THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO DEGRADE THE QUALITY OF THE ENVIRONMENT, SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE THE HABITAT OF A FISH OR WILDLIFE SPECIES, CAUSE FISH OR WILDLIFE POPULATION TO
DROP BELOW SELF SUSTAINING LEVELS, THREATEN OR ELIMINATE A
PLANT OR ANIMAL COMMUNITY….Hollow words. How do you destroy the only public Nature Preserve of its kind in Humboldt County and the Coastal Zone and claim everything is fine and dandy. This is not the way that California's Proposition 20 (1972) and the Coastal Plan and CEQA are meant to be administered, a process to aid and abet the destruction of what the Coastal Plan was supposed to guard for the public and posterity?

Page 42 (b) MANDATORY FINDING OF SIGNIFICANCE (b). The Staff come up with the traffic problem as being substantial. It is. They then trust HAF (who will masquerade as the owner of the property to destroy it-i.e. `tell you what you want to hear'), to car pool and regulate meetings to avoid the traffic (at the US 101 intersection). But what about the Indianola Cutoff Road problems? But wait, this exacerbated `traffic problem' is all to permit HAF to destroy unique habitat, the public's Nature Preserve at Indianola. HAF should simply move outside the public's nature preserve, quit destroying it. HAF's real mission, to give away money. That is easy, and can be managed from anywhere, better urban than rural, but not from within and at the peril of destroying the public's Nature Preserve. Let's get real.

GENERAL COMMENT-As an heir to Vera Perrott Vietor who created the nature preserve and gifted it to the North Coast public (in trust), I find the 1998 Planning `staff report' recommending the original construction (destruction) permit to HAF to be very disappointing. From start to finish, the `staff report' misses the forest for the trees. The report is naïve to or ignores the tantamount fact that the `property' in question is the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve, that HAF are trustees not the owners they masquerade as, so the report is misleading, fatally flawed, utterly useless, whitewashes a fraudulent HAF application. But in 2001 when the permit is up for extension, the `staff' says it is just an extension, nothing has changed? But something has changed, the project has been held up for 20 months as it breached the will of the Nature Preserve's founder, Vera Perrott Vietor (1972). It has now been exposed that HAF is not the owner of the property as they have `indicated', but rather the `interloper' (1994) trustees with the fiduciary responsibility to guard the area `native and unspoiled' for the public, not destroy it as awarding them a building permit encourages. But HAF are doing just the opposite of their fiduciary responsibility. HAF are intentionally misleading the authorities to get a permit to destroy the very public treasures they as the post-1994 `land Trustees' have a responsibility to protect. But these year 2001 over 1998 revelations are egregiously ignored by the staff, and the Planning Commission, and Supervisors do not read the appeals, and rubber stamp the travesty primarily on the basis of the very flawed staff reports. This is not in the `letter or spirit' on the California 1972 Proposition 20 or ensuing Coastal Plan, CEQA.

Thus, this appeal to the California Coastal Commission to right this wrong and deny the building permit to HAF, to avert the travesty of further irreparable damage to the public's Nature Preserve at Indianola.

EXHIBIT D-DISTRIBUTION OF PROTEST APPEAL.

BARCLAY'S CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, page 604, 1311 FILING OF APPEAL. Requires the appellant to inform anyone who made written comments to the hearings, before the Planning Commission on 18 January 01, and before the Board of Supervisors on 27 March 01.

The only written comments we have seen in the hearing `staff report' and other correspondence file and distribution as `interested and affected' parties, and are thus aware of was from one of HAF's lawyers, James R. Schwartz (who was at neither hearing and thus did not speak or testify).

We will send a copy of (this) our complete report, protest, appeal to the California Coastal Commission, also to Humboldt Area Foundation at Indianola, addressed to:

Lane Strope, Chairman of the HAF Board
Peter Pennekamp HAF Executive Director,
Nancy Delaney HAF's local attorney in Eureka,
James Schwartz HAF's lawyer in Los Angeles,

All for HAF's further distribution, as they deem necessary.

We will also post parts if not all of our (this) appeal on our internet site, www.humboldtexposed.com which has been well advertised and become know to most interested parties on the North Coast , be they pro or con to HAF building in the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve.

And distribute this information whole or in part to friends of SAVE THE PUBLIC'S LYNN VIETOR NATURE PRESERVE, or any other interested parties.


EXHIBIT E-VERA PERROTT VIETORS WILL (1972)

See navigator site `Vera's 1972 will', as signed by her on 3 May 1972, after the death of her husband in April 72 left Vera without a valid will, and before her death on 21 June 1972.

A few comments on Vera's will are in order as history and background to the current land use issues, HAF's proposed Project (contrary to Vera's will). .

In 1972, the San Francisco bankers (Crocker Bank) were anxious that Vera would expire intestate, and they would lose their opportunity of a `significant' trust account. Vera was in a bad mental state, over the loss of her husband in April, poor health, and having to deal with accountants, attorneys, which her husband Lynn had always handled. The lawyers and bankers finally got an audience with Vera on 2 May, were back the next day for her to sign her will (for fear she was not long for this world-in fact survived less than two months). Vera's heirs believe that Vera, under these unusual circumstances, `created' and signed a clear and unambiguous will. It is clear that her main `heartfelt' interest was in creating the public's natures preserve of her architecturally significant house and 14.3 acre Indianola property. She clearly wanted them guarded native and unspoiled. Her only `other' real stipulation in creating the Trust and HAF as a charitable organization for the North Coast, was that HAF was only to be funded by income (eggs), not to have access to the Principal funds (hens). Vera did not want the `fox' in the hen house.

HAF (post-1994 trustees of the land) has down played the public's Nature Preserve in favor of HAF's `grow the Foundation' mantra, especially in the conflict of interest over opposing land use, preserving Mother Nature (Vera's aim) on one hand, HAF's `nature destroying' man made `commercial' activities on the other hand. Vera did give HAF the `use' of her residence, but not the ownership of it or the right to `abuse' it, which they have done post 1994. Vera will is very clear, she writes, that if the letter or spirit of this will is breached, the Trust SHALL be terminated, i.e. her Trust account returned and the land taken away from HAF et al. Strong words. What specifically does this mean?

1) If the nature preserve and her residence is not guarded native and unspoiled, as she gifted it to the public in 1972, not even a picnic table to be added, that is breach of Vera's will and Trust.

2) If HAF is allowed access to Principal, that is breach of Vera's will and Trust.

After 20 years of strict adherence to Vera's will in terms of `HAF operations' there was a drastic change. Since 1994, HAF has become the `successor' trustees of the property, an alleged breach, as it took away the checks and balances over the land and residence that Vera had built in her will. Post-1994 this allows an `ad hoc' organization HAF, not a Trust organization (who understand fiduciary responsibility), to in `conflict-of-interest', reinvent Vera and reinterpret her will. This has resulted in HAF accomplishing the two clear breaches Vera had in mind, 1) no despoliation of the `native and unspoiled' property (raw land and architecturally significant Vietor residence), and 2) no invasion of Vera's Trust principal. Post 1994, HAF has `managed' to destroy the nature preserve, funded by Vera's very own `invaded principal'. This is primarily a legal problem, but leads to the `land use' (or misuse) conflict that is the object of the current appeal to the California Coastal Commission, to try to save Vera's gifts to the public from ill-conceived destruction by HAF.

EXHIBIT F-TAX ASSESSOR RECORDS

The Tax Assessors current records; under OWNER, show Humboldt Area Foundation, TRUSTEES. What is a trustee? A legal entity that holds something, assets, property, whatever, in trust for some other entity with a solemn FIDUCIARY responsibility to protect the `assets' entrusted to the trustees care for its `owner'. A TRUSTEE does not have the right to destroy, sell, abuse the asset held in their trust, only to faithfully conserve them.

So who owns the 14.3 acres at Indianola? It is currently held in Trust by HAF (the third successor trustee over some 29 years), as the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve. It is `owned' by the public, held in trust as the Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve. As TRUSTEES, HAF do not have the legal right to approach Humboldt Planning `as if' they were the owners, and ask for a construction permit (actually a `destruction' permit of the public's Nature Preserve). Rather HAF has the solemn fiduciary responsibility to do just the opposite. HAF have a legal obligation to guard the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve `native and unspoiled', the clear and unequivocal conditions under which the Nature Preserve was created by its grantor Vera Perrott Vietor in her 1972 will. This was Vera's
quid-pro-quo `contract' with Crocker Bank for them to receive her liquid assets in trust in exchange for being her trustee to guard the public's Nature Preserve. This is what the first two `real' trustees, Crocker Bank and Wells Fargo Bank did for over 22 years (through 1994 until HAF assumed the land trusteeship over the 14.3 acres). Unfortunately, HAF is an `ad hoc' organization, with no understanding of Fiduciary responsibility (like Trust Bankers), with a built in conflict-of-interest, to expand within and destroy, not guard the property as the public's Nature Preserve. Planning and Court files document that HAF became `trustees' in late 1994 already having launched a
very dubious building permit early in 1994, thus with the alleged full intent of `despoiling' the property when the real trustees, first Crocker Bank, then Wells Fargo Bank refused to be involved (mid-1994) in such an activity violating Vera's clear and unequivocal will and Trust.

HAF applied to Planning (1994 and 1998, renewal 2001) and `pretend' HAF was the `owner' of the property, not something quite different, TRUSTEES. HAF disguised that the property (the Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve) is not theirs, but the PUBLIC's. This is an all important fact unknown to or ignored by Humboldt Planning. This fact (true nature of the property) is the very crux of the current appeal over the seriously flawed decision to award HAF a building permit. For Planning to go along with the HAF misrepresentation is unknowingly (or knowingly once the appellants made the true `ownership' known in early 2001) to thwart the `letter and spirit' of the Coastal Plan, CEQA, etc. frustrating efforts to protect such as the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve.

Is this a legal question? Yes and no. It is the facts. It makes all the difference in the world, to the Coastal Plan, between building in (destroying) the public's Nature Preserve (what is happening), as opposed to approving just another routine `commercial building' on private (the lawful owner's) land, the way HAF presented or Planning processed HAF's application. Now knowing the true nature and ownership of the property, as the public's (in trust) Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve, the Coastal Commission should revoke the HAF 1998 building permit. This would be a decision strictly on the basis of HAF's Project not being an allowed LAND USE, and permit the Commission to ignore (let others) and deal with the flawed HAF application and other `legal issues'. The real issue, halt the irreparable despoliation of the public's Nature Preserve.

See `navigator site' Who Owns The Property herein.


G) LOCATION MAPS

This Exhibit (see navigator site `There's No Trees') provides location maps, and other information to place the development midway between Arcata and Eureka, north to south, and within the California Coastal Plan belt. And midway between the salt water of Humboldt Bay and US 10I on the west, and the east boundary of the Coastal Zone, the Old Arcata Road on the east.

This section also has some `site photos' and location site location information, within the 14.3 acre property, the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve. Unfortunately, some of the aerial photos, etc. did not print out, but are available on the internet site: www.humboldtexposed.com. Of interest is an aerial photo of the site with the HAF proposed site developments superimposed on it. It is very informative. Also of interest and included herein is the plot plan (of the west `half' of the 14.3 acre property) covering the proposed (appealed) HAF Project in relation to the existing Vietor residence. Of note: 1) notation of `removal of small trees, typical 15 places', and `fir tree to be removed'. Note the 1995 parking lot addition that took out several redwood trees, a dogwood, and 80 % of John Yeon's 1940's `golf fairway' lawn landscaping north of the Vietor residence. The engineers call them trees. HAF has told the public `no trees will be removed'. How big does a tree have to be to be a tree. Vera will says, it's a nature preserve, `keep it native and unspoiled', i.e. even the lowly `Easter lilies' are protected.

The 14.3 acres is 90% wooded (predominately redwoods). The construction (destruction) site is the `somewhat' open southwest corner (meadow). The 1.4 acres taken (10 % of the nature preserve) by the proposed project is `shoe horned' into the meadow. HAF claims `no tree will be cut'. Not true, as there are trees and bushes on the site (see photos in color on the internet and engineers plot plan herein), but some of the main mature forest trees on the border will be threatened also. This should all be academic, however. HAF should never be allowed to break ground in the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve if the `letter and spirit' of the California Coastal Plan and CEQA is abided by.


EXHIBIT H-HAF'S JUNE 1999 `PRESS RELEASE' ON BUILDING WITHIN THE NATURE PRESERVE

See navigator site Pennekamp's Building In Nature Preserve Letter herein


EXHIBIT I-HAF'S INTERNET SITE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PUBLIC NATURE PRESERVE

Open HAF's internet site: www.hafoundation.org, wherein HAF `admits' that HAF is located on the 14.3 acre property at Indianola which is the Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve.

EXHIBIT J-SAVE THE PUBLIC'S LYNN VIETOR NATURE PRESERVE Press Release of 01 March 2001

This letter was published in the Times Standard, and is to be found herein within navigator site JOIN THE CLASS ACTION SUIT.


EXHIBIT K-INTERNET SITE www.humboldtexposed.com

This Exhibit (the total internet site herein) is a print out of the current internet site to provide the public with information as to what is happening with they the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve. It tells the whole story, has much information that may be considered 'legal', but is provided as a reference document, to be used as desired.

There are several sections (navigator sites) that shed light on the question before the California Coastal Commission, which is a land use question. Essentially, is HAF's proposed building in the public's LynnVietor Nature Preserve within the `letter and spirit' of California's Proposition 20 (1976), the California Coastal Plan, and the Humboldt Bay Coastal Plan, CEQA. No way!

Navigator sites that focus more on the land issues, and the public treasure to be protected (or allowed to be destroyed by HAF) are as follows:

#) Nature Preserve Pre/Post 1995-This section gives evidence of the despoliation done by
HAF in their 1995 `expansion'. This is now history, but should never have been
allowed to befall the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve under the intent of the
Coastal Plan and CEQA

#) There's No Trees-photos of the proposed `construction area' and site plans and aerial
photos showing how the 1.4 acre development is `shoe horned' into the meadow.

#) Who Owns the Property-HAF is the Trustee, not the owner. The public owns the
property (in trust) as the Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve. Humboldt Planning did not
know (or ignored) this basic and all important fact in approving building permits in
1994, 1998, 2001 (extension). A bureaucratic snafu, or something more rotten?

#) Internationally Acclaimed Architect John Yeon-the residence is a historical and
architectural treasure worth saving, part of Vera's gift to the public (held in trust)
currently with HAF (1994 interloper-non functioning land trustees), that competent
authorities reckon could/should be a National Historic/Heritage Site (or equal) .

#) Forum-a selection of public comments have been `copied' and included in this
Exhibit. The full `record' is available on the internet. There are some very interesting
comments by Vera's neighbors and people who knew Vera, taking umbrage at HAF's
current (post 1993) chicanery.


L) APPENDIX-INTERNATIONALLY RENOWNED PORTLAND ARCHITECT,
DESIGNER, NATURALIST, ECOLOGOIST, ENVIRONMENTALIST

Presented in this Appendix (abridged edition herein Internationally Acclaimed Architect John Yeon) is information concerning the man behind the Vietor residence, John Yeon who died in 1994, and for whom the University Of Oregon School Of Architecture has created a `library and center'. If one peruses this section, they should come to have more appreciation for the Vietor residence, and it being a large part of what Vera Perrott Vietor had in mind when she left her property in trust, to the public as the Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve, to be kept `native and unspoiled', and `all of it'. The residence and its immediate John Yeon landscaping blending the residence (man made structure) into nature is like the `painting', the 14.3 acres the `frame'. Together they should be protected (according to University Of Oregon et al) made a National Historic/Heritage site or equal. The John Yeon masterpiece is like the cherry atop the cake, that which makes the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve unique, not just a run-of-the-mill `grove of trees'.

The total 14.3 acres, the historically and architecturally significant John Yeon work and the surrounding `nature preserve' is the type of public treasure that the California Coastal
Plan recognizes for protection. The rather lengthy `presentation' (some 91 pages of articles, new clippings) is supplied so that there is an appreciation for what is involved. Unfortunately, HAF has no appreciation for the aesthetic value of the John Yeon masterpiece, despite it having been show in the New York Museum Of Modern Art in the early 1940's alongside works of Frank Lloyd Wright. HAF (post -1994) simply regards John Yeon's masterpiece of `structure and landscaping' as just another `building' to be abused, converted into another run of the mill everyday bull pen office, its unique landscaping to be paved over for parking. This is the travesty that has befallen a real International treasure post-1994, with HAF as trustees.

It is hoped that the California Coastal `staff report' participants will avail themselves of the information herein, to appreciate the value of what they have an opportunity to save for posterity. Once destroyed, it is gone forever. Not the philosophy of California's Proposition 20 (1972) or the Coastal Plan, or CEQA, or Vera's intent, in gifting her treasures to the public.


 


 

 

 

Page 20 (a)

RELEVANT PLAN SECTION-PROTECTION OF NATURAL LANDFORMS.

See copy of the planning report, 20 (a) at the end of this section. Our comments, this
1998 Staff report reads fine until it is divulged that HAF is not the `owner' of the property, rather the interloper (1994) `trustee' with the solemn fiduciary responsibility to guard the 14.3 acre public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve `native and unspoiled' not to even add a picnic table. And that HAF is thus duplicitously proposing to destroy the `nature preserve'. Planning may have been duped by HAF not disclosing the true nature (ownership-the public in trust) of the property in 1998. But that fact had become known in the 2001 `building permit extension' hearings, but was ignored with the mantra `nothing has changed'. On another tact, there is scant mention in the Planning Staff Report of the restrictive zoning, RA 2.5, i.e. agriculture has preference, and `where
allowed' (very restrictive) residences are to have 2.5 minimum acreage. The plan being reviewed would bring HAF parking slots to 92. Hypothetically, Zoning would allow five homes on the 14.3 acre property (if they allowed that it was 15 acres). At 2.5 cars per residence, this would allow or result in a population of only 13 vehicles as juxtaposed against HAF being allowed 92? In a public nature preserve? Is Humboldt Planning aware of or living up to the Coastal Plan?

Page 20 (b)

RELEVANT PLAN SECTION-COASTAL SCENIC.
See copy of Planning report at the end of this section, 20 (b). The planning people go through the laundry list of concerns for the `structure', siding and roofing materials, height restrictions, shielded external lighting, minimal vegetation clearing. This is like a `smokescreen' to cover up the true nature of the development. It is the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve, to be kept `native and unspoiled', not even a picnic table to be added! Then the Planning Report states under `MINIMIZE VEGETATION CLEARING'-ACCORIDNG TO THE PLAN OF OPERATION, THE APPLICANT WILL BE RETAINING THE EXISTING MATURE FIR AND REDWOOD TREES ON THE SITE. Not true. They will completely destroy, grade over, with over 800 CY of cut and over 800 CY of fill, 1.4 acres, 10 % of the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve. But there are trees, bushes, in the 1.4 acres to be despoiled. It is a nature preserve. About 90 % is heavily wooded. HAF have chosen the only `fairly open' part, the southwest low corner, meadow. It is where the deer bed down at night. HAF has duped Planning. Planning has naively gone along with the HAF chicanery. The public and Mother Nature are being cheated.

Page 21 (a)

RELEVANT PLAN SECTION-RURAL RESIDENTIAL

Once again Planning is looking at HAF's plan as if HAF were bona fide `owners' of the property, not what they actually are, `trustees' acting contrary to their fiduciary responsibilities, out to destroy the public's Nature Preserve officially under their care and guardianship. Planning goes along with gag. THE DEPARTMENT FINDS THE PROJECT CONSISTENT WITH THE RURAL RESIDENTAL PLAN DESIGNATION BECAUSE IT INVOLVES THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPEPATION OF A FACILITY WHICH WILL PROVIDE EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE PUBLIC. But destroy the public's unique Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve. Still no mention of 92 parking slots as opposed to some 13 that the restrictive family housing of the zone would result in? The 92 parking slots:

a) Pre-1995, HAF did away with the Vietor's two car garage, and used the
Vietor 1941 driveway and access for six parking slots……………………….. 6
b) In the 1995 construction (destruction) HAF added 21 parking slots………….21
c) The current (1998) plan adds 65 parking slots.………………………………..65
___
d) Current `planned' parking slots………………………………………………92

Page 21 (b)

RELEVANT PLAN SECTION-PRINCIPAL AND CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USE.

Planning goes along with the `permitted use', ignoring that it is the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve, held in trust by the current (interloper-1994) trustees HAF, the very people that are taking advantage of their position (conflict-of-interest) as Trustees to destroy the public's treasure entrusted to them. Planning simply says, we didn't know, that's what they told us? Is naivete or ignorance a good enough excuse? Irreparable damage to Mother Nature is at stake. Is that not what the Coastal Plan appeal process is provided as a safeguard to stop?

Page 21 ( c )

RELEVANT PLAN SECTION-RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RA)

The minimum lot size is 2.5 acres. HAF is `developing' 1.4 acres, but with 65 parking slots. Planning fills in the blanks, and everything is just fine? The way the 1.4 acres of `development' is shoehorned into the `open' south west corner of the Nature Preserve, it is not clear that the Coastal Plan setbacks are adhered to. The HUMBOLDT COUNTY LOCAL COASTAL PLAN, the coastal plan `bible' Cpt 3, page 64-65, COASTAL VIEW AREAS (which the coastal Highway US 101 belt between Eureka and Arcata is) page 65, (3) NO DEVELOPEMT, OTHER THAN LANDSCAPING, SIGNS, UTILITIES, WELLS, FENCING AND A DRIVEWAY FOR ACCESS TO THE PUBLIC ROAD WHERE REQUIRED, BE LOCATED WITHING 50 FEET OF A PUBLIC ROAD. There are public roads on the south and west. The way that the 1.4 acre development is `squeezed' into the `non-heavily-forested' corner of the property, it is very dubious if the 50 foot minimums are in fact adhered to. But this is academic, HAF should not be allowed to build on the property and destroy the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve. End of story.

Page 24 (a)

FINDING-COASTAL SCENIC FINDING.

The Planning Report say in part THE DEPARTMENT FINDS THE PROJECT TO BE SITED AND DESIGNED TO BE SUBORDINATE TO THE CHARACTER OF THE SETTING. The `setting' is the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve, mandated to be kept `native and unspoiled' not even a picnic table to be added. The plan will irreparably destroy 10 % of the public's nature preserve. But planning finds that it will be subordinated to the `character of the setting', rather hollow words for completely unnecessary irreparable destruction of the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve .

Page 24 (b)

6. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

The Planning Report states in part-STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE PROJECT WILL HAVE ANY POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECT, EITHER INDIVIDUALLY OR CUMULATIVELY, ON THE ENVIRNOMENT. It will just irreparably destroy 10% of the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve, but Planning unknowingly (or intentionally) whitewashes the HAF chicanery, promoting an illegal environmental disaster.

Page 28 (a)

1. AESTHETICS

On this check sheet, impacts, from `potentially significant' to `no impact' are to be checked off. Planning shows b) SUBSTANTIALLY DAMAGE SCENIC RESOURCES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, TREES, ROCK OUTCROPPINGS, AND HISTORIC BUILDINGS WITHIN A STATE SCENIC HIGHWAY. Planning marks this as `no impact'. Like the destruction of the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve has no impact? So Planning did not know it was a public
Nature Preserve, but it is. Is faulty staff work an excuses for environmental destruction?

28 (b)

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. WOULD THE PROJECT HAVE:

a) HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECT, EITHER DIRECTLY OR THROUGH HABITAT MODIFICATION, ON ANY S[PECIES INDENTIFIED AS A CANDIDATE, SENSITIVE, OR SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES IN LOCAL OR REGIONAL PLANS, POLICIES, OR REGULATIONS, OR BY THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME OR US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. The Planning staff has marked the box `no impact' The property is mostly forested. Has anyone checked to see if it is the home of spotted owls or the marbled murrlet which nest in redwoods, the predominate `tree' on the property. As the property is the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve, the special area involved should be given the benefit of the doubt. Give Mother Nature a chance over scheming, self serving, greedy, materialistic `destructive', humans, a misguided HAF in this case.

Page 29 (a)

d) INTERFER SUBSTANTIALLY WITH THE MOVEMENT OF ANY NATIVE
RESIDENT OR MIGRATORY FISH OR WILDLIFE SPECIES OR WITH
ESTABLISHED NATIVE OR MIGRATORY WILDLIFE CORRIDORS, OR
IMPEDE THE USE OF NATIVE WILDLIFE NURSEY SITES. Planning staff mark
`no impact'. The truth is that since 1940, the 14.3 acres has become a bird and wildlife sanctuary with many resident `bird and animal' families, nurseries if you like. Deer are resident there, and their `beds' can be seen in the very 1.4 acres to be destroyed. Neighbors report deer going out to graze in the evening, but coming back to the 14.3 acres as their `haven' in the daytime, as the only such `refuge' in the predominately pasture and residential area. I.e. the only natural `open space' in the extended neighborhood.

Page 29 (b)

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. A) CAUSE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE CHANGE IN THE SIGNIFICANCE OF A HISTORICAL RESOURCE AS DEFINED IN # 15064. Staff says `no impact'. Meanwhile the 14.3 acre property (public nature preserve) is the location of an architecturally significant residence, shown at the New York Museum of Modern Art alongside works of Frank Lloyd Wright in the 1940's. University of Oregon School Of Architecture is the center for the works of Internationally acclaimed John Yeon (died 1994), the Vietor's 1940-41 architect and landscaper, and onsite `construction superintendent'. University of Oregon would like to bring the home back to its pre 1995 status, before HAF devastated the building and landscaping (cutting redwood trees, paving over forest and landscaping, knocking out walls, scabbing on rooms), all to cram 12-15 employees into a two bedroom architectural treasure. See (L) Appendix-an extensive section of John Yeon and his works. And U of Oregon has opined positively on the merits and feasibility of making the 14.3 acres a National Heritage site (or equal), a recreational and tourist destination, an asset to Humboldt County. If the current HAF plan goes ahead, this becomes unfeasible, with too much of the nature preserve and residence irreparably destroyed.

Page 34 (a) This section, sheets has a narrative discussion to back up the selections on the `checklist' boxes.

AESTHETICS (a), (c), (d) -The staff finds no problems with the ascetics. The construction (destruction) destroys 10% of the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve, puts the resident deer out of a home, but all is well?

Page 34 (b)

AESTHETICS (b)-The staff finds THE PROJECT WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY DAMAGE SCENIC RESOURCES, INCUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO TREES. An interesting `finding' when `the project' is unnecessarily destroying 10 % 0f the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve, for a `commercial' (if charitable) activity that should not be expanding in the heart of a public nature preserve, in such a rural setting.

Page 34 ( c)

AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES-the staff finds that the project will not convert prime agricultural land, ignoring that `the project' destroys the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve, and sensitive wildlife habitat, which is much more rare than `farm land'?

Page 35 (a)

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (a), (c), (d), (e) The staff report finds no threat to `biological resource'. This ignores that this particular parcel (14.3 acres) has been a complete ecosystem since the 1940's, a haven and sanctuary for birds, animals, plants, the likes of which there is not another similar first `private' (to 1972) now `public' example in the Coastal Zone in Humboldt County. The fact that it is the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve is further ignored, for a bureaucratic whitewashing of HAF's chicanery to build in and destroy a public treasure, and rob Vera of her intended tribute to Mother Nature.

Page 35 (b)

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (b) The staff reports that they find no threat of adverse effect on riparian habitat. Again it has been a `nature sanctuary' for 60 years, officially the public's (in trust) Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve since 1972 (some 30 years). The Coastal Plan encourages the creation of such unique habitat. The Coastal Plan, Cpt 3-pg 3.30 quotes out of the California State Coastal Plan, *** 30240. (a) `ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT AREAS SHALL BE PROTECTED AGAINST ANY SIGNIFICANT DISRUPTION OF HABITAT VALUES, AND ONLY USES DEPENDENT ON THOSE RESOURCES SHALL BE ALLOWED WITHIN SUCH AREAS. I.e. the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve should be guarded `native and unspoiled' as was Vera's conditions on leaving it in trust to the public in 1972. Under the philosophy of the Coastal Plan, the destruction by `commercial interests' HAF should not allowed, no construction permit issued. Despite this Planning ignores the true situation, whitewashes HAF wrongheaded plans, with Planning becoming a party to and joining with HAF in the destruction of a public treasure. Not at all the `letter or spirit' of the California's 1972 Proposition 20 or the ensuing Coastal Act.

Page 36 (a)

CULTURAL RESOURCES. None says the planning staff. Meanwhile the University of Oregon School Of Architecture reckons that the architecturally significant Vietor residence (despite the damage done by HAF in 1995 and since) could be restored and the site become a National Historical Site (or equal). This would be the combination of the Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve with the historic residence, for a historic and tourist treasure for Humboldt County. This is more in line with the `letter and spirit' of the Coastal Plan than destroying the site.

Page 38 (a)

LAND USE AND PLANNING-Staff finds no problem vis-à-vis planning, zoning or `division of the local established community'. The local community is adamant against the project. Especially those who knew the Vietors are dismayed at the HAF havoc being heaped on Vera's heartfelt gift to the public's as the Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve. It is a low density housing area, neighborhood. The population does not like the 92 parking spots, and the `traffic' resulting, on narrow, poor `site distance' Indianola Cutoff. Planning does a disservice to the public, by going along with, if not `intentionally' encouraging the destruction of the public's nature preserve. And for ignoring the `restrictive' zoning in the area, residential 2.5 acre minimum to something like seven times the allowed density of `vehicle population', to an announced 92 by HAF's plan vs. 13 (based on parking spots that would result on the 14.3 acres with residential use). And how soon will HAF come back for more? They first despoiled the public's Nature Preserve in their 1995 `parking lot and residence conversion to office' fiasco. A mere three years later, they were back at Planning for increase parking by 300% (great planning?). HAF have now been delayed nearly two years by Vera's heirs from carrying out this second major `despoliation'. How soon will HAF be back at Planning wanting to destroy more of the public's nature preserve for the public's `interloper' trustees own self serving commercial activities?

Page 39 (a)

NOISE-Planning finds no `noise' problem, only during construction. But this construction (destruction) is taking place in the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve. The nature preserve should be organized for `pedestrian' nature reserve visitors only (parking provided outside the limits). Nature lovers would come on foot to enjoy the quiet, undisturbed nature, to meditate and communicate with Mother Nature. Meanwhile HAF wants 92 parking slots to keep a steady flow of vehicles coming inside the nature preserve, with cars stopping and starting, doors slamming, loud conversations. Not what Vera intended when she left her property in trust for the public enjoyment, and mandated that it be kept `native and unspoiled', not even a picnic table to be added. In this day and age to find a place with no man made noises, only the soothing sounds of nature is hard to find. As a public Nature Preserve, it would provide that. Santa Claus HAF should take their `noise', crowds, destruction and disrespect for Mother Nature elsewhere.

Page 40 (a)

POPULATION AND HOUSING-staff finds `no problem'. The HAF population filling the 92 parking slots do not live there, nor will they be interested in the `nature preserve', rather to get grants to or become donors to HAF, or the many other meetings HAF plans. But all these `don't give a damn about the nature preserve' HAF visitors will displace nature, the deer that now bed where HAF are proposing to build, the raccoons, squirrels, the `birds and bees'. It is after all the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve. This degrades the whole area as a `nature preserve' and the intended `nature lovers' visitors will give it a wide berth. Just the opposite of what California's Proposition 20 (1972) and the Coastal Plan intends. .

Page 40 (b)

RECREATION-In finding that there are no recreational concerns, Planning Staff states NOR DOES THE PROJECT INCLUDE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES OR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUCH FACILITIES. The `project' just destroys the public's recreational destination, the public's own (in trust) Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve, contrary to the letter and spirit of the California 1972's Proposition 20 and the ensuing Coastal Plan.

Page 40 ( c)

TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC (a) (b). The traffic problem is real. The US 101/Indianola Cutoff Intersection is one of the most dangerous `intersections' in the nation. To get to the bottom line, why let HAF destroy the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve with 92 parking places. This just to further exacerbate an already dangerous and frustrating traffic problem. Not only at the US 101's notoriously dangerous intersection a quarter of a mile to the west, but at the entrance to HAF's `now' two facilities, where the road is narrow, has a hill and curves for dangerously short sight distances. The neighbors are adamantly against it, traffic safety on of the major thorns.

Page 42 (a)

MANDATORY FINDING OF SIGNIFICANCE (a)- The Planning Staff states in part THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO DEGRADE THE QUALITY OF THE ENVIRONMENT, SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE THE HABITAT OF A FISH OR WILDLIFE SPECIES, CAUSE FISH OR WILDLIFE POPULATION TO DROP BELOW SELF SUSTAINING LEVELS, THREATEN OR ELIMINATE A PLANT OR ANIMAL COMMUNITY….Hollow words. How do you destroy the only public Nature Preserve of its kind in Humboldt County and the Coastal Zone and claim everything is fine and dandy. Is this the way that California's Proposition 20 (1972) and the Coastal Plan are meant to be administered? Is this what the taxpayers are paying for? A bureaucracy to aid and abet the destruction of what the Coastal Plan was supposed to guard for the public and posterity?

Page 42 (b) MANDATORY FINDING OF SIGNIFICANCE (b). The Staff come up with the traffic problem as being substantial. It is. They then trust HAF (who will masquerade as the owner of the property to destroy it-i.e. `tell you what you want to hear'), to car pool and regulate meetings to avoid the traffic (at the US 101 intersection). But what about the Indianola Cutoff Road problems? And remember, this exacerbated `traffic problem' is all to let HAF destroy unique habitat, the public's Nature Preserve at Indianola. HAF should simply move outside the public's nature preserve, quite destroying it. Their real mission, to give away money. That is easy, and can be managed from anywhere, better urban than rural. Let's get real.

GENERAL COMMENT-As an heir to Vera Perrott Vietor who created the nature preserve and gifted it to the North Coast public (in trust), I find the 1988 Planning staff report for the original construction (destruction) permit to HAF to be very disappointing. From start to finish, the `staff report' misses the forest for the trees. The report is naïve to the fact that the area in question is the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve, HAF trustees not owners, so the report is misleading, utterly useless, whitewashes a fraudulent HAF application. But in 2001 when the permit is up for extension, the `staff' says it is just an extension, nothing has changed? But something has changed, the project has been held up for 20 months as it breached the will of the Nature Preserve's founder, Vera Perrott Vietor (1972). It has now been exposed that HAF is not the owner of the property as they have `indicated', but rather the `interloper' (1994) trustees with the fiduciary responsibility to guard the area `native and unspoiled' for the public, not destroy it. But HAF are doing just the opposite of their fiduciary responsibility. HAF are intentionally duping the authorities to get a permit to destroy the very public treasures they as the `land
Trustees' have a responsibility to protect. But these year 2001 over 1998 revelations are egregiously ignored by the staff, and the Planning Commission, and Supervisors do not read the appeals, and rubber stamp the travesty primarily on the basis of the very flawed staff reports. This is not in the `letter or spirit' on the California 1972 Proposition 20 or ensuing Coastal Plan.

Thus, this appeal to the California Coastal Commission to right this wrong and deny the building permit to HAF, to avert the travesty of further irreparable damage to the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve.

 

EXHIBIT D-DISTRIBUTION OF PROTEST APPEAL.

BARCLAYS'S CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGURLATIONS, page 604, 1311 FILING OF APPEAL. Requires the appellant to inform anyone who made written comments to the hearings, before the Planning Commission on 18 January 01, and before the Board of Supervisors on 27 March 01.

The only written comments we have seen in the hearing `staff report' and other correspondence file and distribution as `interested and affected' parties, and are thus aware of was from one of HAF's lawyers, James R. Schwartz (who was at neither hearing and thus did not speak or testify).

We will send a copy of (this) our complete report, protest, appeal to the California Coastal Commission, also to Humboldt Area Foundation at Indianola, addressed to:

Lane Strope, Chairman of the HAF Board
Peter Pennekamp HAF Executive Director,
Sue Delaney HAF's local attorney in Eureka,
James Schwartz HAF's lawyer in Los Angeles,

All for HAF's further distribution, as they deem necessary.

We will also post parts if not all of our (this) appeal on our internet site, www.humboldtexposed.com which has been well advertised and become know to most interested parties north Coast , be they pro or con to HAF building in the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve.

And distribute this information whole or in part to friends of SAVE THE PUBLIC's LYNN VIETOR NATURE PRESERVE, or any other interested parties.


EXHIBIT E-VERA PERROTT VIETORS WILL (1972)

Following is a copy of Vera's 1972 will, signed by her on 3 May 1972, after the death of her husband in April 72 left Vera without a valid will, and before her death on 21 June 1972.

A few comments on Vera's will are in order.

The San Francisco Bankers (Crocker Bank) were anxious that Vera would expire intestate, and they would lose their opportunity of a `significant' trust account. Vera was in a bad mental state, over the loss of her husband, poor health, and having to deal with accountants, attorneys, which Lynn had always handled. The lawyers and bankers finally got an audience with Vera on 2 May, were back the next day for her to sign her will (for fear she was not long for this world-in fact survived less than two months). Vera's heirs believe that Vera, under these unusual circumstances, `created' and signed a clear and unambiguous will. It is clear that her main `heartfelt' interest was in creating the public's nature preserve of her architecturally significant house and Indianola property. She clearly wanted them guarded native and unspoiled. Her only other real stipulation in creating the Trust and HAF as a charitable organization for the North Coast, was that HAF was only to get income (eggs), not to have access to the Principal funds (hens). Vera did not want the `fox' (HAF) in the hen house.

HAF (post-1994 as `interloper' trustees of the land) has down played the Nature Preserve in favor of HAF's `grow the Foundation' mantra, especially in the conflict of interest over opposing land use, preserving Mother Nature (Vera's aim) vs. HAF's man made
`commercial' (Santa Claus) activities. Vera did give HAF the `use' of her residence, but not the ownership of it or the right to `abuse' it, which they have done post 1994. Vera is very clear, she writes, that if the letter or spirit of this will is breached, the Trust SHALL be terminated, i.e. her Trust account returned and the land taken away from HAF et al. .
Strong words. What specifically does this mean?

1) If the nature preserve and her residence is not guarded native and unspoiled., not even a picnic table to be added, that is breach of Vera's will and Trust.
2) If HAF is allowed access to Principal, that is breach of Vera's will and Trust.

Since 1994, HAF has become the `interloper' trustees of the property, an alleged breach, as it takes away the checks and balances over the land and residence Vera had in her will. It allows an `ad hoc' organization, HAF, not a Trust organization, who understand fiduciary responsibility, to in `conflict-of-interest', reinvent Vera and her will and get their way with the two clear breaches Vera had in mind, 1) despoliation of the `native and unspoiled' property (raw land and architecturally significant Vietor residence) , and 2) invasion of Trust principal. Post 1994, HAF has managed to destroy the nature preserve, funded by Vera's very own `invaded principal'. This is primarily a legal problem, but leads to the `land use' conflict that is the object of the current appeal to the California Coastal Commission, to try to save Vera's gifts to the public from destruction by HAF.

One other item., Vera in her will says that she signed the DECLARATION OF TRUST
On 3 May 1972. Not so. That document, in the Humboldt County Courthouse was not signed until early July 1972 then only the Crocker Trust Banker, White, not Vera as she had died some days earlier. Why the delay of some two months for this document? This is unresolved, but suspect. Why? As it is known that the Trust Bank was unhappy with
the `strings' Vera had on the Trust, i.e. that the Trust could be terminated simply by someone `despoiling' the `native and unspoiled' property with a picnic table'. The Bank tried to get Vera's heirs to rescind that clause of her will in 1972-73 `for a price'. They could have (may have) changed the Trust Document. They tried to `buy' a change in Vera's will, which Vera's watchdog heirs would have nothing to do with.

The only document signed by Vera is her will. However, HAF tend to try to use the `unsigned' Trust Document in their post-1992 `rethought mission' efforts to reinvent Vera and her will to thwart Vera's will's clear and unequivocal intent. This on HAF's part , to accommodate HAF's contrary, self serving, `conflict-of-interest' agenda.

See Vera's will at he navigator button herein (STEVE electronic connection)


EXHIBIT F-TAX ASSESSORS DOCUMENT

The Tax Assessors current records; under OWNER, show Humboldt Area Foundation, TRUSTEES. What is a trustee? A legal entity that holds something, assets, property, whatever, in trust for some other entity with a solemn FIDUCIARY responsibility to protect the `assets' entrusted to the trustees care for its `owner'. A TRUSTEE does not have the right to destroy, sell, abuse the assets held in their trust, only to faithfully conserve them.

So who owns the 14.3 acres at Indianola? It is currently held in Trust by HAF (the third successor trustee over some 29 years), as the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve. It is `owned' by the public, held in trust as the Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve. As TRUSTEES, HAF do not have the legal right to approach Humboldt Planning `as if' they were the owners, and ask for a construction permit (actually a `destruction' permit of the public's Nature Preserve). Rather HAF has the solemn fiduciary responsibility to do just the opposite. They have a legal obligation to guard the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve `native and unspoiled', the clear and unequivocal conditions under which the `preserve' was created by its grantor Vera Perrott Vietor in her 1972 will and `contract' with Crocker Bank to be her trustee. This is what the first two `real' trustees, Crocker Bank and Wells Fargo Bank did for over 22 years (through 1994 when HAF usurped trusteeship over the 14.3 acres). Unfortunately, HAF is an `ad hoc' organization, with no understanding of Fiduciary responsibility (like Trust Bankers), with a built in conflict-of-interest, to expand within and destroy, not guard the property. HAF became `trustees' in
late 1994 already having launched an illegal building permit early in 1994, thus with the full intent of `despoiling' the property when the real trustees, first Crocker Bank, then Wells Fargo Bank refused to be involved (mid-1994) in such chicanery violating Vera's clear and unequivocal will and Trust.

It is fraudulent for HAF to apply to Planning (1994 and 1998, renewal 2000) and `pretend' HAF is the `owner', not something quite different, TRUSTEES, and to disguise that the property (the Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve) is not theirs, but the PUBLIC's. This is what HAF has done. For Planning to go along with the HAF hoax is unknowingly (or knowingly once the appellants made the true `ownership' known in early 2001) to thwart the `letter and spirit' of the Coastal Plan, frustrating efforts to protect such as the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve.

Is this a legal question? Yes and no. It is the facts. It makes all the difference in the world, to the Coastal Plan, between building in (destroying) a public nature preserve (what is happening), as opposed to approving just another routine `commercial building' on private (the lawful owners) land, the way HAF fraudulently `concealed' their application. But now, once the true ownership of the property is known, The Coastal Commission should revoke the HAF 1998 building permit, on the basis of it not being allowed on LAND USE, and ignore (let others) deal with the HAF fraud, and other `legal issues'.

See Navigator site `Who Owns The Property' for copy of Assessor's document


G) LOCATION MAPS

This Exhibit provides location maps, and other information to place the development midway between Arcata and Eureka, north to south, and within the California Coastal Plan belt. And midway between the salt water of Humboldt Bay and US 10I on the west,
and the east boundary of the Coastal Zone, the Old Arcata Road on the east.

This section also has some `site photos' and location site location information, within the 14.3 acre property, the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve. Unfortunately, some of the aerial photos, etc. did not print out, but are available on the internet site: www.humboldtexposed.com. Of interest is an aerial photo of the site with the HAF proposed site developments superimposed on it. It is very informative. The 14.3 acres is 90% wooded (predominately redwoods). The construction (destruction) site is the `somewhat' open southwest corner (meadow). The 1.4 acres taken (10 % of the nature preserve) by the proposed project is `shoe horned' into the meadow. HAF claims `no tree will be cut'. Not true, as there are trees and bushes on the site (see photos in color on the internet), but the main forest trees on the border will be threatened also. This should all be academic, however. HAF should never be allowed to break ground in the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve if the `letter and spirit' of the California Coastal Plan is abided by.

See Navigator site `There's No Trees' panoramic photos of the `proposed' site, for site plot plan and aerial photos superimposing the proposed HAF construction (destruction) over Mother Nature.


EXHIBIT H-HAF'S JUNE 1999 `BUILDING' PRESS RELEASE

See Navigator site `Pennekamp's Building In Nature Preserve Letter' in which HAF's `unbelievable' Executive Director discloses that there is a Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve, but egregiously claims `the project' will not be in any way affected that to be kept `native and unspoiled' nature preserve. Like the new construction will be suspended in thin air by helium balloons. Let's get real.


EXHIBIT I-HAF INTERNET SITE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF NATURE PRESERVE

Go to www.hafoundation.org, HAF's internet site in which they disclose that HAF is located on the 14.3 acre Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve at Indianola, but proceed to act if it didn't exist, going to Planning as if they `owned' the land, and had a right to destroy it, not protect it as is their FIDUCIARY responsibility post-1994, having usurped the title
(responsibility) of `land trustee' in place of real trustees, Crocker Bank, and then Wells Fargo Bank that guarded the property `native and unspoiled', for the first 23 years (until 1995) as stipulated by Vera's will, thus the `rule of law'.


EXHIBIT J-SAVE THE PUBLIC'S LYNN VIETOR NATURE PRESERVE PRESS RELEASE-MAR 01.

See at navigator site `Contact Us To Join The Class Action Suit' for the two page press release.


EXHIBIT K-INTERNET SITE www.humboldtexposed.org

This Exhibit is a print out of the current internet site to provide the public with information as to what is happening with they the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve. It tells the whole story, has much information that may be considered 'legal', but is provided as a reference document, to be used as desired.

There are several sections (navigator sites) that shed light on the question before the California Coastal Commission, which is a land use question. Essentially, is HAF's proposed building in the public's LynnVietor Nature Preserve within the `letter and spirit' of California's Proposition 20 (1976), the California Coastal Plan, and the Humboldt Bay Coastal Plan. No way!

Navigator sites that focus more on the land issues, and the public treasure to be protected (or allowed to be destroyed by HAF) are as follows:

  1. ) Nature Preserve Pre/Post 1995-This section gives evidence of the despoliation done by HAF in their 1995 `expansion'. This is now history, but should never have been allowed to befall the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve under the intent of the Coastal Plan

  2. ) There's No Trees-photos of the proposed `construction area' and site plans and aerial photos showing how the 1.4 acre development is `shoe horned' into the meadow.

  3. ) Who Owns the Property-HAF is the Trustee, not the owner. The public owns the property (in trust) as the Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve. Humboldt Planning did not know (or ignored) this basic and all important fact in approving building permits in 1994, 1998, 2001 (extension). A bureaucratic snafu, or something more rotten?

  4. ) Internationally Acclaimed Architect John Yeon-the residence is a historical and architectural treasure worth saving, part of Vera's gift to the public (held in trust) with currently with HAF (1994 interloper-non functioning land trustees), that competent authorities reckon could/should be a National Historic/Heritage Site (or equal) .

  5. ) Forum-a selection of public comments have been `copied' and included in this Exhibit. The full `record' is available on the internet. There are some very interesting comments by Vera's neighbors and people who knew Vera, taking umbrage at HAF's current (post 1993) chicanery.

This is the internet site you are now perusing.


L) APPENDIX-INTERNATIONALLY RENOWNED PORTLAND ARCHITECT, DESIGNER, NATURALIST, ECOLOGOIST, ENVIRONMENTALIST

Presented in this Appendix to the Coastal Commission is information about the man behind the Vietor residence, John Yeon who died in 1994, and for whom the University Of Oregon School Of Architecture has created a `library and center'. If one peruses this section, they come to have more appreciation for the Vietor residence, and it being a large part of what Vera Perrott Vietor had in mind when she left her property in trust, to the public as the Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve. The residence and its immediate landscaping blending the residence (man made structure) into nature is like the `painting', the 14.3 acres the `frame'. Together they should be protected (according to University Of Oregon et al) made a National Historic/Heritage site or equal. The John Yeon masterpiece is like the cherry atop the cake, that which makes the public's Lynn Vietor Nature Preserve unique, not just a run-of-the-mill `grove of trees'.

The total 14.3 acres, the historically and architecturally significant John Yeon work and the surrounding `nature preserve' is the type of public treasure that the California Coastal Plan recognizes for protection. The rather lengthy `presentation' (some 91 pages of articles, new clippings) is supplied so that there is an appreciation for what is involved. Unfortunately, HAF has no appreciation for the aesthetic value of the John Yeon masterpiece, despite it having been show in the New York Museum Of Modern Art in the early 1940's alongside works of Frank Lloyd Wright. HAF (post -1994) simply regards John Yeon's masterpiece of `structure and landscaping' as just another `building' to be abused, converted into another run of the mill everyday bull pen office, its unique landscaping to be paved over for parking. This is the travesty that has befallen a real International treasure post-1994, with HAF as trustees.

It is hoped that the California Coastal `staff report' participants will avail themselves of the information herein, to appreciate the value of what they have an opportunity to save for posterity. Once destroyed, it is gone forever. Not the philosophy of California's Proposition 20 (1972) or the Coastal Plan, or Vera's intent, in gifting her treasures to the public.

This lengthy (some 91 page) presentation that went to the Coastal Commission is not duplicated on the net. See instead an abridged presentation on the Vietor's Internationally famous architect-landscaper-interior decorator, John Yeon, at Navigator site `Internationally Acclaimed Architect John Yeon'.