Coastal Commission to Take up Schneider Appeal 

California Coastal Commission staff is recommending the commission take over jurisdiction of the permitting fiasco that enveloped local developer Travis Schneider's family dream mansion overlooking the Fay Slough Wildlife Area.

The commission is slated to decide whether "substantial issues" exist in an appeal of a Coastal Development Permit issued by the Humboldt County Planning Commission in an effort to reconcile pervasive code violations at the property at its meeting later this month. If the commission concurs with staff's recommendation at its March 15 meeting, a "de novo" hearing before the commission would be set for a future date, negating the county's jurisdiction over the project, the compliance agreement Schneider reached to put the matter behind him and — potentially — his promise to gift the portion of his property containing a culturally sensitive archeological site to be held for three Wiyot area tribes.

Schneider did not respond to a request to comment for this story.

In July, the Humboldt County Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the permits and permit modifications necessary for Schneider to tear down the partially constructed mansion on Walker Point Road in order to avoid up to $3.6 million in potential fines as part of a compliance agreement intended to resolve pervasive code violations. But one of those violations — Schneider's encroaching on a mandatory wetland setback when he began construction of the 20,000-square-foot home on a footprint different than what county staff had approved — put the project in the Coastal Commission's jurisdiction and two commissioners filed an appeal.

In a report, commission staff say they feel the appeal does raise "substantial issues" and the county's permits and compliance agreement are insufficient to protect archeological resources and environmentally sensitive habitat on the property, warning they could set an "adverse precedent" if allowed to stand and, as such, the "appeal raises issues of regional and statewide significance."

Schneider's property has been mired in controversy since the county issued a stop-work order in December of 2021, which Schneider then defiantly ignored for weeks, setting up a protracted face-off between the prominent developer, county staff and local tribes. The stop-work order was issued after Schneider was found to have cleared environmentally sensitive habitat, encroached on the wetland setback and cut an access road on the property without permits, grading over a documented archeological site — a well-preserved, pre-contact Wiyot village first documented in 1918 — in the process. But in the ensuing months, it was also discovered that the home under construction was more than twice the permitted size, that Schneider had hauled in 10 times more fill dirt to the property than his coastal development permit allowed and began construction without a required septic permit.

The project also became a focal point of public debate after former Planning Commission Chair Alan Bongio's outbursts at a hearing in August of 2022 at which he made far-reaching comments about "Indians," while accusing local tribes of negotiating in bad faith and playing a "game" with cultural resources. The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors later censured Bongio for his conduct and asked him to step down as the commission's chair, while the commission itself penned a letter of apology to the Wiyot area tribes that stated "univocally" that the comments were "racist" and "biased."

Things seemed to reach a resolution with the planning commission's unanimous vote in July — with Schneider publicly apologizing "to all those who have been affected" during the hearing — but the coastal commission has loomed throughout the process, with county Planning Director John Ford having repeatedly warned the project lies within the state agency's jurisdiction.

The deal formalized with the planning commission's vote in July provided that Schneider would remove the foundation and framing already constructed on the house, remove the up to 15,000 cubic yards of fill dirt brought into the property and restore it to its natural grade. Additionally, he would seek a lot-line adjustment that would leave the archeological site entirely on one of the property's two parcels, which he would then convey to a third part to be held for the three local area Wiyot tribes. The remaining parcel would carry no entitlements, meaning if someone wanted to build a home on it, they would need to start the permitting process over from the beginning.

In exchange for Schneider walking away from the project and gifting the parcel with the archeological site to be held for the Wiyot area tribes, the county agreed to settle the code enforcement case it had brought against him and the accompanying fines and penalties of up to $3.6 million. (According to county records, the parcel containing the archeological site has an assessed value of about $164,000. Under the compliance agreement, Schneider also agreed to pay $294.50 in administrative costs.)

The coastal commission staff report for the March 15 meeting contends the county's approval of the deal with Schneider falls short of providing "reasonable mitigation measures for impacts to archeological and tribal cultural resources" and fails to adequately protect environmentally sensitive habitat.

Specifically, the report contends that the county's coastal development permit modifications do nothing to mitigate impacts to the archeological site or address damage done, noting that those are "directed by a separate compliance agreement" that is not incorporated into the permit's conditions. That leaves the mitigation measures "not legally assured," staff contends, adding that even if legally assured they wouldn't be "fully adequate," as they fail to fully protect against future disturbances of the site.

"Given these issues, there is a low degree of legal and factual support for the county's findings that the (coastal development permit) modification as conditioned requires reasonable mitigation for development that impacted archaeological and tribal cultural resources," the report states.

When it comes to environmentally sensitive habitat, meanwhile, commission staff contend the county's approval defers final restoration plans to a "future date without having objective standards ... to guide that later discretionary decision."

"In addition," the report states, "the county's findings were based on incomplete maps and plans that did not depict all disturbed areas and required restoration areas."

When the matter comes before the coastal commission on March 15, commissioners will be able to ask questions of Schneider, "aggrieved persons," the attorney general and staff before determining whether to take limited testimony from Schneider, those who opposed the application and representatives of the county Planning Department. If a majority of the commissioners then concur with staff's recommendation that substantial issues exist, it would essentially start the county process over, considering a coastal development permit application at a future hearing that will include testimony "from all interested persons." The commission could then choose to approve or deny Schneider's application and the underlying agreement, or approve it subject to conditions different than those imposed by the county. When appeals head to de novo hearings before the commission, permit applications are often updated to include additional measures or revised plans to address commission staff's concerns.

"In other words," Coastal Commission North Coast District Manager Melissa Kraemer told the Journal, "the project that the commission may review de novo may look a bit different than the project that the county approved — or not."

Asked whether a de novo hearing would put the commission in the place to reconsider the fines and penalties settled as a part of Schneider's compliance agreement, Kraemer said, "it's premature to speculate."

For more information on the appeal, as well as how to comment, visit coastal.ca.gov/meetings/agenda/#/2024/3.

Thadeus Greenson (he/him) is the Journal's news editor. Reach him at (707) 442-1400, extension 321, or [email protected].