Last night, the Eureka City Council resolved the fate of a controversial five-plex proposed for a property on Buhne Street, which has stirred up controversy in the neighborhood. Last night’s meeting unearthed bad blood between the neighbors of the project and its developer, Adams Commercial General Contracting (ACGC) Inc.

After bouncing between review authorities – initially being denied by the Design Review Committee but later earning approval from the Planning Commission – ACGC’s five-plex landed before the City Council after neighbors appealed the commission’s approval. The two-story building will fill a vacant 9,000 square-foot parcel with five apartments (one one-bedroom unit, two two-bedroom units and one three-bedroom unit), each with its own garage. 

Neighboring owners of an old Victorian house claim the project will be detrimental to their health and safety, primarily by shading their home and exacerbating mold conditions. 

The Design Review Committee was tasked with approving or denying design review for the project at its May 8 meeting. The committee is only permitted to deny a project if it is found to be harmful to public health and safety, or if it does not meet the seven criteria of design review (which inform design consciousness around stuff like the fitting in with the neighborhood, landscaping and pedestrian environment). The committee opted to deny the project based on the neighbors’ concerns over their own health and safety. 

Eureka Director of Development Services Cristin Kenyon appealed the denial due to conflicts with the Housing Accountability Act, which directs local governments to approve all housing developments that satisfy local objective design standards. Because Eureka has no objective standard related to sunlight or shading on neighboring properties, the City cannot legally deny the design, Kenyon explained at last night’s meeting. The City has found that the design is consistent with the zoning code, which was written to protect public health, safety and welfare. 

“So in our eyes, if it’s consistent with the code […] then we feel that the development is consistent with protection of health, safety and welfare,” Kenyon said.

When the issue came before the Planning Commission on June 27, members voted to overturn the committee’s denial and conditionally approve the design.

On July 8, Dan Reid, owner of the adjacent Victorian, appealed the conditional approval. Reid argued that a standard objective has been met because shading over his home will be inevitable if the project is approved. Reid also argued that design review criteria state that design applications must minimize adverse impacts on neighboring properties where possible, which ACGC could do by decreasing the height of the building or flipping the design. 

At last night’s meeting, Councilmember Leslie Castellano asked whether the City Council has ever required a developer to change a design that met all objective standards. Staff couldn’t recall such an event. Design review for residential projects rarely escalates to the City Council, City Manager Miles Slattery said, adding he couldn’t remember this happening over the decade he’s regularly attended council meetings.

Council member Scott Bauer asked what the legal implications might be if the council opted to reject the design. 

Because the project is in “complete compliance” with the city’s guidelines, City Attorney Autumn Luna said, “to deny at this point, I think, could subject the city to a challenge.”

During the public hearing, the couple – Reid and Stacia O’Neil – made their case to the council. Their arguments are spelled out in letters and Reid’s appeal – see those documents here and here – but during public comment the couple reiterated their interpretations of the relevant laws, codes and processes. In sum, they argued that changing the design would not jeopardize the Housing Accountability Act, and that the council has an obligation to deny or require a change to the design because of safety hazards, from mold risk to fire safety to mental health.

The design poses a fire hazard to the house, O’Neil said, because shutting off the power and cutting through both property’s fences in an emergency would take time. 

“[We’re] looking at a 20-minute delay. Our Victorian will burn to the ground, my children will not be able to escape. That’s going to be on you,” O’Neil said.

“They are going to shade my property for all eternity, which will cause problems: mental health problems, well-being problems, mold problems, desirability for being onto my property and resale problems.”

During his turn, Reid said he would be entitled to compensation from the City for damage to his property.

“In this instance, the City of Eureka is making a decision that will have a negative impact on the use and enjoyment of our property.” Reid said a realtor has confirmed that his property value will drop following development of the five-plex. 

“I see that the council is being encouraged to steamroll my property rights because the proposed building will only impact my residence, as opposed to the buildings on the other side of the proposed project,” Reid said. “As a longtime resident of Eureka and the owner of a 132-year-old home, this really hurts.”

After hearing from the public, Councilmember Renee Contreras-DeLoach asked whether ACGC has considered flipping the design of the building as its neighbors are requesting.

ACGC’s Real Estate Development Director & Community Liaison Raelina Krikston said that the current design orientation creates the least impact on surrounding neighbors, noting that there are five other families near the site. 

That said, flipping the design isn’t as simple as it sounds, Krikston said. “To flip the property would be asking us to re-engineer the whole entire project. There’s grading, there’s surveying, there’s every single design aspect that’s made… it’s not just a quick copy/paste.”

Before making those points, Krikston said something else: there was never any discussion between ACGC and these particular neighbors because the residents allegedly threatened the developer years ago over a different project. 

“Ten years previously, when another development was built, the owner of the company was physically threatened by the property owner,” Krikston said. “So any initial conversations with the neighbor was avoided, just because we knew that the nature would be combative.”

Mayor Kim Bergel invited the neighbors to respond. 

“That’s an absolute lie,” O’Neil said, clearly shaken, adding that the only contact she’s ever had with ACGC founder Will Adams was at the May 8 commission meeting, after the design was initially denied. 

“I saw him in chambers and I turned around when it was denied. I said, ‘Please work with us,’” O’Neil said. “He said, ‘F you, lady.’ That’s the only contact. Then we got a restraining order in place against him and this woman here [Krikston] for harassing us. That’s the story.”

O’Neil said the situation has been extremely stressful, time consuming and expensive (filing the appeal fee was $800, she said) for the family.

The turn toward accusations between the two parties shifted the rest of the council’s conversation. 

Councilmember Contreras-DeLoach said it is frustrating to see the situation escalate – with the couple investing time, money and emotions into the appeal process – when the City’s hands are essentially tied. 

“I think we need to be a lot more transparent about that as a city,” Contreras-DeLoach said. 

“There needs to be some kind of discussion about that so that this type of thing doesn’t really occur, because we knew the end from the beginning. And they are in here, obviously very distressed and very upset, hoping that we’re going to make a different decision – but we’re not, because we’re in alignment with state law, and if we make an alternative decision then we open ourselves up to litigation where we would probably lose. And I think that’s frustrating for me.”

Contreras-DeLoach and other councilmembers said it’s disappointing to see the complete absence of communication between the two parties. 

“I think there’s a right way and a wrong way to do things like this. I don’t think that not engaging the people around a project is an appropriate way to do it,” she said. “I also think it’s incredibly inappropriate to have gotten up here and to make an accusation against this couple that’s here.”

Councilmember G. Mario Fernandez echoed Contreras-DeLoach’s comments, saying that there aren’t grounds to deny the design and the city must abide by state law. He also agreed that the process and communication should be improved. 

“I think we can improve this process overall,” he said. “I think there needs to be some sort of mediation before we get to this level of decision.”

Councilmember Castellano made a motion to uphold the Planning Commission’s conditional approval of the design and to exempt the project from the California Environmental Quality Act. It passed unanimously.

The Outpost will publish a report on the rest of last night’s meeting, which included a discussion on a proposed Vacant Building Ordinance, tomorrow.