Leland's fight

[Darian]

rickhansen,.... Are you seriously trying to compare Leland Outfitters buying and moving into a 13 acre parcel next to an airport and what has happened since that time to actions of "....big city developers...." in other states??? If so, you're very much mistaken. This negative judgment sounds arrogant and is apparently based on your past of living outside of this state. Seems strange that even tho you cast us in such a negative light, you decided to move here didn't you(???).... As I've had a some experience in observing big city developers like KB Homes, etc., I can say "big city developers" are not comparable to what you're trying to make the case against Leland out to be.

Also, from available info/documentation on this, other than the agencies you've named, I don't really see the "....plethora of alphabet soup departments in federal, state and local government...." agencies that you claim are interested in this matter. Since the airport has existed "....for 65 years...." in proximity to it's own and other permanent ponds, located in a low lying flood plain, the danger of bird strikes originating from Leland's pond seems to be overstated. After all, only one strike has been mentioned in support of rejection of permits as occurring over the 65 year period the airport has been there and nobody can claim to know where that bird came from.

I don't usually get ticked off much but I'd like you to know that I object to your use of the term "Californification" to create a negative stereotype of Californians. Certainly we have as many problems in this state as everyone in any other state does. You use the term "Californication" to characterize what happened in Leland's case as an arrogant big city developer (from California) arriving in a rural area and throwing their money/weight around. Use of that term to generally cast all developers in this state in a negative light is unwarranted. Since every story has two sides, I'd like to share some of my own experiences with you. Over the years I worked in compliance activities, I've actually traced a law/tax evading sub-contractor (framer) from southern OR who routinely worked on housing projects in CA, failed to observe labor laws or pay into Workman's Comp and payroll taxes then skip to OR to avoid prosecution, leaving a trail of unpaid bills and injured workers who were disabled from injuries on the job and unpaid taxes. BTW, taxpayers in this state had to pay for medical needs of those injured while in this framers employment. Same experience with a couple of logging contractors, one of which ended up going to jail on federal tax evasion charges. I could go on but you get the idea. Sounds like there's bad apples on both sides of the border, doesn't it??

Since, as I've already said, there's two sides to every story, I acknowledge that there's still a permit issue to be resolved. Also, I'm still unclear whether a fence was completed by Leland in a safe zone. When I looked at Google Earth, I found what appears to be a fence that extends out along the Leland southern property line that has an opening roughly half way through it. If that's an issue, it's a simple matter for the county to ask that it be removed as a condition of granting permits.

However, from what I can see in the copy of (1) the "Landscape Plan" reflecting property lines and buidings outside the safe zones, (2) the photo's of the ranch and diagram of the safe zones for the airstrips, (3) locations of all of the ponds (not just Leland's, which is already permitted BTW) surrounding the airport and (4) the apparent lack of county code enforcement activity over the years makes me think that the complaints from the airport/neighbors appear to be overstated. If so, all of the related issues mentioned by the other so-called neighbors don't really add up to much to me. If the county approves the permits on the 24th, this stuff should just quietly go away. If not approved, the county will have to enforce. This seems to me to be more of a case of NIMBY.

Just to clarify, I have no personal interest in the matter, other than to get at the facts which seem to be sadly exaggerated by those fighting approval of the permit.

[rickhansen]

Hey Darian,
Been away from the computer – being semi-retired requires you to perform the “semi” part some days, so you can enjoy the retired part later in the week.
Great argument! I enjoy spirited debate. My sincerest apologies if you took offense at the wording in my post – that was not my intent. Neither was the unintended characterization of developers or residents from California as being inferior or subversive in their motives.
Heck, I’m FROM California! Raised in Napa, attended Napa High and my step-father, who moved us to California from St Paul in 1962, is buried in the cemetery at the Yountville Veteran’s Home.
I caught my first trout fly fishing in 1982 on the Silver Fork of the American, my first steelhead on the Trinity shortly thereafter. I got the door kicked in on my brand new Toyota pickup fishing for shad on the Sac below Dairyville, and the same rig broken into and burglarized while fly fishing for steelhead on the Feather below Matthews… Can’t get much more “from California” than that!
I moved to Oregon in 1991 to chase the woman of my dreams, raise a family and only moved back recently to the Roseville area to help take care of my wife’s aging parents. Believe me, the big draw was not increased taxes, higher crime and crowded streams!
“Hey Honey – I really miss driving on an over crowded highway - doing 15 mph over the speed limit and the thrill of nearly getting run off the road by that guy in a BMW crossing six lanes of traffic, who has a cell phone in one hand and a double peach schnapps skinny latte’ in the other… ooohhh, can we move back, please!?!? That conversation never happened…
I was perplexed when given the advice, “go to the DMV and get those California plates off your truck,” after moving to Bend, Oregon in 1991. During the next twenty some odd years, I began to understand and to certain degree, agree with the sentiment. The urbanization of rural communities is a sad thing to witness.
Yup, there are shysters on both sides of the boarder and rural communities have their issues, too. You have to agree however, that if KB Homes developed a piece of property the way Fly Fishing Outfitters, LLC did – they would loose their license, pay heavy fine’s and have a heck of a P.R. mess to deal with.
I don’t have a dog in the fight, Darian. I could care less what the people in the North Bay want to do to themselves. My hometown has already been turned into an international three-ring circus fit for the worlds famous and elite. While Napa is without a doubt a shinning jewel in the minds of most people - and rightly so, you can’t discount the fact that the path to progress is littered with the road-kill of those who inadvertently got in the way. The end justifying the means.
I wasn’t going to respond to this thread until I read the, please support me cause we’re all “lovers of fly fishing,” part in the posting by Leland’s. I don’t care to be patronized.
If you read the reasoning given in the post as to why Leland’s feels they should be allowed to operate, you start to realize it’s more of an argument as to why the airport should not – the post failed to mention the lawsuit filed in Sonoma Count on June 26th, 2013 by Fly Fishing Outfitters, LLC, contesting airports use of Leland’s property as a Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). With out the RPZ, no airport. With no airport, no zoning restrictions. With no zoning restriction – well, you be the judge. Here’s an excerpt from an article written and published on October 2nd, 2013 by Derek Moore, a staff writer for The Press Democrat, the local paper in Santa Rosa.

“However, he [Frazier] did not rule out seeking permission in the future to resume fishing on the property. “If we ever get through this, we might,” he said.”

Does Leland’s have the right to contest the zoning and use by the airport of his property? Absolutely! They should have done that from the beginning – we’d be having a whole different discussion if they had.
After completing all of the improvements and construction of the Ranch in violation of current zoning, design review and done without permits (except for the finaled Ag pond permit that was revoked), will Leland’s finally get use permits to conduct their business? Without a doubt.
Was the airport nearsighted in its vision, and shouldn’t have depended on “good neighbor” policy to ensure it owned and managed its own RPZ? I’m sure they hate life right about now…
Darian, I have to disagree with you. This is not only a case of a company moving into a rural area and “throwing their money/weight around” with utter disregard, it’s textbook.
Again, I’m not an advocate for the airport nor do I care if Fly Fishing Outfitters, LLC gets the OK or not – it’s probably safe to say, I’ll never be on one of their honored guests lists... And it’s good that, after seven years of violating the spirit of the law, they’ve had a come to Jesus moment and now want to follow the law to the letter. Why not? Just a battle between lawyers, now.
The end did justify the means in this case - It’s just sad sometimes to see the casualties littering the road to progress.
Thanks again for the exchange, Darian!

[Darian]

Good reply. Thanks for the clarification/information. We'll still have to disagree on a couple of points but the exchange was informative.

[TigerLilly]

"Was the airport nearsighted in its vision, and shouldn’t have depended on “good neighbor” policy to ensure it owned and managed its own RPZ? I’m sure they hate life right about now…"

Handshake agreements and "good neighbor' policy mean nothing to some people. When unlimited money (from Mom) can buy you anything, anything goes and screw the ethics.

[Darian]

TigerLily,.... I recognize that there's a lot emotion involved on the part of some on the sidelines in this. So, let's try to summarize this for some understanding.

What apparently happened here is that a company (corporation) who had/has access to money to purchase and develop an existing 13 acre property adjoining a private airport, did so. It's been stated that a small part of the property line for the parcel crosses the width of the RPZ on two sides and presents a potential safety hazard. The current owner, Leland, for what ever reason, failed to obtain all of the permits required in order to develop the property. This owner is now in the process of obtaining approval for those permits which will, undoubtedly, require payment of penalties to the county.

Local government apparently didn't/doesn't see the development without approved permits as a problem as they surely could've done something about it earlier but chose not to for whatever reason. Neither did other levels of government, who, having little authority in this matter and is reported to have objected to the development on the basis of safety(??), do anything further.

Individuals who describe themselves as neighbors object on the basis that Leland is from "....the bay area...." and has money "....(from mom)...." comes into the area and throws their weight around. All very subjective judgments. As I've previously posted, when I view the property and surrounding area on Google Earth, the only neighbors appear to be the airport on the north side, Innerstave and the public storage facility to the immediate south. There appears to be a canal/ditch crossing the RPZ from Innerstave's property. The public storage property, including storage buildings definitely crosses the end of the RPZ. Apparently those two companies properties are OK with everybody. There doesn't seem to be any residential neighbors in proximity of Leland's. I'm not going to get into naming the adjacent ponds/wetlands again. If you like, you can read my prior post.

If the airport would've purchased the portion of the ranch property which crosses the RPZ (undeveloped by Leland but developed by the public storage property), it wouldn't have much to complain about. So much for foresight.

The only mention I've seen of handshake/informal agreements is by you. So, if you're able to describe them, please do so. Otherwise, this amounts to nothing but unsupported innuendo.

What I'm having trouble understanding is that from photo's of the development on the ranch property it's consistent with the rural surroundings of that area. Certainly more amenable than Innerstave's or the storage facility's properties to the south.

IMO, aside from the obvious permit issues that are, apparently, headed for resolution, the implication of what has been brought up in most of the objections supports the idea that a wealthy somebody from an urban area has come to a rural area and defrocked it by (gasp!!!!) developing the property owned by that somebody without your approval.

Enough!!! Either raise a valid issue or Get over it....

[rickhansen]

Tigerlilly!
I see from your info you’re from Napa – lucky you!
I’ve spent the last couple of hours on Google Maps looking at all my old “haunts” in the Napa Valley, and since my last visit – my goodness, how things have changed. Makes me a little homesick. Just might drive the family over and show them where Dad grew up!
I noticed my old high school burger hangout, “Chicks” has been replaced by a Starbucks. Wow, is that a sign of the times or what…
Another sign of the times is that you are correct; it’s too bad that a handshake and a man’s word can mean nothing in today’s world, unless it’s written on paper, reviewed by a lawyer and filed with the appropriate department. Not saying there are not honorable men/women in this day and age, only that a piece of paper tends to keep an honest person honest.
Having said that, I think Darian is quite correct in his response, noting we have no information that there was any such agreement – handshake or not. The good neighbor policy I was making reference to was the implied consent given by previous landowners by never contesting the zoning, and working around those restrictions. The airport has been there for 65 years, and as far my research has taken me, I don’t see any documentation to dispute that either way. Leland’s honored it as well, evidenced by the fact that the original land use map with the intended improvements – including the pond were drawn outside the RPZ. I believe the original intent in doing the project was honorable and legal. As far as I can tell, the only reason the original site plan was denied is because the aviation agencies in the Federal and State government made an objection – not the County or the Airport. The appearance of impropriety stems from what happened after being denied, giving many the impression of someone who reacted with a, I don’t care what anybody thinks, it’s my property and I’m going to do what I want, attitude. To be PERFECTLY CLEAR – that is NOT a quote, only my own interpretation of events with a lot of fuzzy facts… I’ve gone to great lengths in my posts to ensure my references were in regard to Leland’s and Fly Fishing Outfitters, LLC, only. I don’t know the Fraziers, nor how the LLC is structured – for all I know, Josh might be a managing partner answering to investors, or it may be a small company ran by him and his wife. Tigerlilly, either way, it’s never a good idea to attack the individual and make it personal, but focus on the behaviors and law. Mr. Frazier has a great business, a wonderful supportive wife and a couple of darned cute kids. Any man would be proud. I don't know or care where his money came from - not the point.
Darian, one more thing, and then I think I’m going to let this dead horse lie and quit beating it with the same old stick. You’ve made the comment a couple of times that that the local government “didn’t/doesn’t see the development without approved permits as a problem as they surely could've done something about it earlier but chose not to for whatever reason.” I encourage you to dig just a little deeper, and make note that Code Enforcement did red tag the business and the County had to take Fly Fishing Outfitters, LLC to court to stop him. $53,000 in fines were paid, and Leland’s was given permission to operate the fly shop only, pending approval of their permits/plan. That is what this hearing on the 24th is about, I believe.
Google “I-Team Investigates Dangerous Skies over Sonoma” and watch their news video. County officials were interviewed, and they were very carefully when wording their responses, but you can easily tell they were mad, and this wasn’t a battle over who got the last piece of chocolate cake at the Church picnic last Sunday.
Leland’s, in their post, asked for our support and everyone can go as deep into this as they feel fit, drawing their own opinion for support or not. I think I’ve made my case as to why I will not. You may have come to a different conclusion and I’m good with that. In the end, we truly are “fellow lovers of fly fishing,” aren’t we?
Is this horse dead yet?

[Ed Wahl]

Because you asked Rick.

[Leland]

Thanks for all the thoughts,

Just in case you want to read more, here is an article from last week that is Fair to both sides. Written by a very respected Reporter in a Legit News Paper.

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article...1009895#page=0

Also, a comment in Sonoma Index Tribune from editor Bill Lynch about our ask. Note date has changed to October 24th.
- http://www.sonomanews.com/support-le...fishing-ranch/

Ranch Pictures
- http://www.pressdemocrat.com/gallery...7.html#slide=7


Tight Lines - Josh

[Railking]

BINGO
I live less than 2 miles from this location.. He was arrogant to build without the proper permits. and yes the pond is too close to the airstrip.
He should have played by the rules. This is not SF, it is Sonoma.

Moral of the story---if you are going to invest in your life long dream of operating a fly fishing school, dont buy close to an airport and get permits.

[Magic]

Has anyone flown into Oakland (on the water and estuaries) or SFO (on the water) and all the other runways on the water. I don't think this is a bird hazard.