Redwood Times
Consensus on the importance of protecting agricultural land from development was easily reached by the Humboldt County Planning Commission at their December 11 meeting in Eureka. Questions about details will be discussed when the hearing on the Agricultural Resources section of the General Plan Update continues at the commission’s January 14 meeting.
Commission chair Jeff Smith and Commissioner Sef Murguia were unable to attend the meeting. Vice-chair Mary Gearheart conducted the meeting in Smith’s absence.
The only person to give public comment on items not on the agenda, which led off the meeting, was Kay Backer of the Humboldt Economic and Land Planning group (HELP). Backer had written a letter commenting on a possible violation of the California Open Meeting Law (Brown Act) at hearings when public comment was not taken.
Backer’s letter quoted Section 54954.3(a) of the Brown Act, which says in part, “Every agenda for regular meetings shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest...”
Several of the more recent commission meetings were restricted to deliberation among the commission itself, without taking public comment on the items being discussed. In all cases, however, there had been previous meetings at which time comment on the relevant items was provided.
The quoted section of the Brown Act continues, “...However, the agenda need not provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body on any item that has already been considered by a committee, composed exclusively of members of the legislative body, at a public meeting wherein all interested members of the public were afforded the opportunity to address the committee on the item...”
Backer asked the commission to consult with County Counsel for an opinion. Assistant County Counsel Carolyn Ruth, who usually advises the Planning Commission, was absent from the December 11 hearing.
Additionally, the commission’s regular clerk has been out on medical leave for several weeks so remaining staff had limited time to put the December 11 agenda together. Gearheart agreed to leave time at the later part of the hearing for public comment on the Agricultural Resources section under consideration.
Later in the meeting, senior planner Martha Spencer pointed out that comment on this section had been taken at four previous meetings.
Before the Agricultural Resources discussion could begin however, the commission needed to finish a few items left over from the November 19 deliberations on the Rural Lands section.
The commission agreed to allow five full-time daily employees as part of the definition of “cottage industry,” and to support the recommended wording in standard regarding water resources, which reads, “Water use is limited in accordance with the policies of the Water Resources Element.”
The commission will review the Water Resources Element in spring 2010. As water issues are studied in detail, policies and standards regarding water use and waste disposal will be refined. The commission can then go back to the Rural Lands section of the Land Use Element to bring it “into harmony” with Water Resources.
Tom Hofweber of the county planning staff pointed out that gray water, water storage, and alternative waste disposal are also supported by the Alternative Owner-Builder (AOB) policy in the Housing Element, which has already been approved by the Board of Supervisors.
Commissioner Dennis Mayo suggested that such policies should be included in all parts of the county, not just in those areas where AOB is permitted. Hofweber replied that the county does not want to “get sideways” with public water and sewer providers in the Urban Study Areas.
Discussion about an implementation method to establish transfer of development rights from resource production lands to rural residential led to staff’s suggestion that this issue be taken up when the land designation maps are reviewed.
Review of the maps, which is the last step in the commission’s review of the proposed General Plan Update before it goes to the Board of Supervisors for approval, is tentatively scheduled for late summer 2010.
Moving on to the Agricultural Resources section, the commission had a lengthy discussion about a proposed policy supporting planned rural developments as an incentive for agricultural landowners, particularly owners of large cattle ranches, to keep most of their land preserved for agriculture.
This concept would allow landowners to place residential development on one part of their property, ideally the part closest to a rural community center or a county road, while retaining the rest of the property for agriculture.
In exchange for restricting subdivision to the planned area, owners may receive a “density bonus,” allowing them to create more, although smaller, developable parcels.
Discussion arose over the amount of the bonuses and the methods to insure permanent protection of the balance of the property.
Staff had recommended a density bonus of twice the number of residences allowed on the property if 90% of the land is protected and three times the allowable number of residences if 95% of the land is protected.
Commissioner Bruce Emad argued that “quality agricultural land needs to be protected at all costs; otherwise we’ll be bringing all our food in from Mexico, with toxic stuff in it.” Commissioner Ralph Faust agreed with Emad, stating that he preferred to see no further subdivision on large holdings.
Planning Director Kirk Girard pointed out that land use designations permit subdivision to minimum parcel sizes, which cannot be taken away. Additionally, the county is required to honor existing patent parcels, although they may be below current minimum parcel sizes.
Under the current rules, owners subdivide resource lands into minimum parcel sizes because it’s easiest to do that, Girard explained. It’s more expensive and complicated to cluster development so incentive is needed to encourage it, thus keeping more land available for agricultural use.
Girard agreed that the proposed bonuses might be higher than necessary. The double and triple density amounts had been chosen because staff thought they would get resistance to planned unit development with smaller densities. The commissioners can recommend lower bonuses if they feel that would better achieve the policy’s purpose.
Several commissioners expressed concern about how to prevent landowners from doing successive planned unit developments, taking more and more land out of agricultural production as the years go by while getting density bonuses.
The proposed policy allows two methods of protection for the balance of the land if a double density bonus is chosen, an overlay zone that prohibits further subdivision, or a permanent easement to secure protection of the undeveloped land for agriculture.
If a triple density bonus is chosen, the landowner must secure protection for the remaining 95% of the property by a permanent easement.
The commissioners agreed to support the policy in general but will revisit the question of the most effective density bonuses if necessary.
The next question involved a policy to allow subdivision of properties designated Agricultural Exclusive and Agriculture Grazing Ranchland if there is a historic structure on the property.
During the public comment section, Humboldt County Farm Bureau member John LaBoyteaux gave the example of Fern Cottage outside of Ferndale as a historic structure. This policy would allow the owners to protect the structure for its historic value on a separate parcel while building a modern house for occupation on the remaining property, since only one residence is allowed by right on land designated for agriculture.
The commission next addressed the difficult issue of “no net loss” of agricultural land. As written, the recommended policy offers the possibility of conversion of ag lands to other uses if it can be “mitigated to less than significant effects.”
Emad pointed to the recent acquisition of prime ag land near Alton by Caltrans. In exchange for converting the land, Caltrans gave College of the Redwoods $1.5 million. Without those funds, CR would have been unable to continue its agricultural program, resulting in loss of its farm in Shively.
Faust responded that Caltrans, a state agency, has the right of eminent domain; therefore, the county’s hands were tied. Nevertheless, the county should not encourage agricultural conversion by private parties with this policy because new ag land cannot be created through mitigation, so a net loss is inevitable.
This led to a discussion of the knotty problem of acquisition of resource lands by public agencies and non-profit conservation organizations like Save-the-Redwoods League, which then take the lands out of production.
Staff agreed to look into solutions, or at least mitigation, with County Counsel. Senior Planner Martha Spencer said, “I don’t think we can prevent purchase but strong language will send a message to public agencies and non-profits.”
The next policy referred to a similar issue, supporting continued agriculture use on lands placed in conservation easements. The commission felt the policy needs to identify a “triggering event” to implement enforcement, as sale of the property to a conservation buyer can’t be restricted.
Some confusion arose over a policy about residential uses on land in the Timber Production Zone (TPZ) within agricultural preserves. Portions of properties designated for agriculture may be zoned TPZ because the land, usually within a cattle ranch, also contains valuable timber resources.
This policy, which states that if the ranch is also in a Williamson Act agricultural preserve, the restrictions on residential development under the Williamson Act prevail over the TPZ rules, is consistent with state law.
At this point Gearheart closed the deliberations and opened the hearing to public comment.
Bob Higgons of the Humboldt Association of Realtors wanted clarification of some confusing language in the Rural Lands section about minimum parcel sizes in Rural Residential designations. He also questioned staff’s estimate that 1,950 parcels are available for Rural Residential development, while admitting that it’s impossible to ground-truth properties in remote areas.
In addition to commenting on historic structures on agricultural lands, LaBoyteaux commented that the Farm Bureau, Cattlemen’s Association, and Buckeye Conservancy, who had collaborated on comments to the commission, felt the proposed Agricultural Grazing Ranchland (AGR) designation is unnecessary and the 600-acre minimum proposed in Alternative A, the most environmentally protection alternative, is excessive.
Instead, the combined agricultural groups prefer that the Agricultural Grazing (AG) designation include all grazing lands. A 160-acre minimum is adequate to “maintain grazing lands in sizes practical and useful for grazing,” the groups said.
Backer of the HELP group reappeared to ask the commissioners when the county’s Forestry Review Committee would be invited to make their presentation. The commission decided to invite them for the January 21 hearing, expected to be in the midst of the Forest Resources section review.
Commissioner Mel Kreb requested that to balance the FRC’s likely support of continued residential development rights in TPZ, the commission should also invite the county tax assessor’s office to attend the hearing to explain the revenue consequences of TPZ tax reductions.
Jen Kalt, representing Healthy Humboldt, stated that her group supported most of the Farm Bureau and Cattlemen’s recommendations, but cautioned the commissioners to be extremely careful about the wording of policies meant to ensure permanent protection of agricultural lands.
Under old business, the commission, with advice from staff, decided to respond to a request for a study session with the state Department of Fish and Game during the Environmental Impact Report review, which will probably occur during the summer of 2010.
Finally, under new business, the commission re-elected absent commissioner Jeff Smith as chairman for 2010 and elected Faust as vice-chair.
The Planning Commission will meet next on Thursday, December 17, at Redway Elementary School to take public comment on the Rural Lands, Agricultural Lands, and Forest Lands section (see related story). Commission deliberation on the Agricultural Lands section will resume in Eureka on January 14, 2010.
Font Resize
