Virginia Graziani

Redwood Times

In spite of the board of supervisors’ directive to streamline the General Plan Update process, the Humboldt County Planning Commission took nearly two hours of public testimony at its July 22 meeting.

In an hour and a half of comment on off-agenda items, 14 speakers covered topics including the accelerated schedule, the definition of the term “healthy ecosystem,” and communication with rural areas, particularly Southern Humboldt.

Commission vice chair Ralph Faust led the meeting in chair Jeff Smith’s absence. Commissioner Bruce Emad was also absent. Faust broke with the usual procedure to allow dialog between the commissioners and some of the speakers.

Several people objected to the supervisors’ accelerated schedule, including their request that staff and commissioners make up lists of key items in each “element” (chapter) for further discussion.

Kay Backer of the HELP group said this schedule “subverts public process. No one can determine which issues are major or not. This gives staff authority to choose what issues to discuss.”

Several other speakers, including representatives of the Humboldt Association of Realtors, agreed.

Faust pointed out that staff was pulling out all items that had different versions in each of the plan alternatives and that each commissioner is also selecting items that he or she thinks are unclear or likely to be controversial.

He encouraged members of the public to let the commission know either orally or in writing if there are additional items they want to be pulled for further discussion.

”The board of supervisors has the authority. They directed the planning commission [to follow this procedure] and we’re going to proceed,” Faust said.

At the July 15 hearing, several speakers representing the Realtors and the HELP group objected to the inclusion of the term “healthy ecosystem,” which was added to several provisions in the recently-completed Forest Resources section of the Land Use Element.

They asserted that the definition of “healthy ecosystems” is unclear, possibly leading to excessive restriction on timber production.

Joyce King, speaking for the Humboldt Watershed Council, and Ali Freedlund of the Mattole Restoration Council, offered definitions, while noting that the term is somewhat general and that ecosystem values vary according to context.

They explained that an ecosystem is a “dynamic set of living organisms” interacting with their environment. An ecosystem includes not only the plants and animals within it but also non-living elements such as soils, geology, watercourses, and weather conditions.

A forest ecosystem is characterized by “an abundance of trees,” Freedlund said, adding that humans have been part of forest ecosystems as long as humanity has existed.

”In the Forest Resources element, we need to look at why we in Humboldt County value forests,” she continued. Timber management for human need is among the many values of forest ecosystems, along with wildlife habitat, clean water and air, carbon sequestration, aesthetic values, and recreation.

Commissioner Dennis Mayo still felt the phrase “healthy ecosystem” was too vague, and that the recreation value of forest resources should specifically include hunting, fishing, horseback riding, and off-road vehicle use.

Speakers on both sides of this issue cited the state Deputy Attorney General’s opinion that productivity of timberlands is not limited to timber harvesting but also includes restoration of forest lands, watersheds, and wildlife habitat.

Critics of including “healthy ecosystems” in the Forest Resources section said that this statement was quoted out of context.

King, Freedlund, and Elizabeth Connor of the Healthy Humboldt Coalition argued that they asked the commission to add the phrase to offer more options to owners of land zoned for timber production (TPZ) who don’t want to cut their timber.

”Healthy Humboldt wants to allow flexibility,” Connor said, “but we would certainly include demonstration of active management,” whether by a Non-Industrial Timber Management Plan or by a restoration or conservation-oriented management plan, to the standards for including “healthy ecosystems” as a goal of the Forest Resources section.

SoHum resident Tom Grover addressed the commission about lack of communication, pointing out that many people in rural areas either don’t have Internet access or their access is inadequate to download the mountains of information about the GPU on the county website.

He asked planner Tom Hofweber to project a 2003 map showing areas of Internet service and speed of data of transmittal in the county. Most of SoHum showed up white on the map, indicating no service.

”The update process is not getting through to people,” Grover said. “Most people in southern Humboldt have no idea what the General Plan is about... Nobody has any idea what’s going on... I could take a survey for you. Maybe one in 100 people would know something.”

Mayo asked Grover how he felt about the planning commission hearing in Redway last December. “It was a good start,” Grover replied, but he would like to see all the people in the “white area” brought up to speed on the plan.

This reporter then addressed the commission, informing them and the public that the Redwood Times has reported nearly every GPU hearing for the last four years. The Independent and KMUD Nightly News also carry reporter Daniel Mintz’s coverage of the GPU hearings, and many talk shows on KMUD have featured discussion of the GPU.

Copies of basic documents, including the original draft plan, Housing Element, and preliminary land use designation maps, were distributed two years ago to the Garberville library, Garberville Sanitary District and Redway Community Services District offices, and the Redwood Times office.

This reporter has offered to obtain hard copies of the plan alternative comparison charts that the commissioners use in their deliberations, for the elements that will be reviewed in the next few months. They will be placed in the Garberville library this week.

The last speaker to address off-agenda items was HAR member Dave Varshock, who felt that the GPU process should be slowed down to allow more public participation.

”I don’t know how this could be slowed down more than it has been,” Faust observed after the 90-minute comment session.

Faust then opened the meeting to comments on agendized items, which included the last section of the Land Use Element, which establishes definitions for land use designations; and the Infrastructure and Telecommunications elements.

Twelve speakers commented in this session, some of them addressing more than one subject.

Eight speakers addressed on the Telecommunications Element. All were enthusiastic about including this new element in the GPU, although several suggested changing the name of the element to simply “Communications.”

Tina Nerat of Redwood Technology Consortium said she appreciates the county’s support of telecommunications. She pointed out that many of the “white” areas on the map Grover displayed are no longer “white,” an indication of how quickly things can change. But she acknowledged the “digital divide” of technological “haves and have-nots.”

She pointed out that the “have-nots” are often in rural areas like SoHum and lack of service is exacerbated by the fact that cell towers are often prohibited in scenic areas.

Sean McLaughlin of Access Humboldt stated that the element should stick to fundamentals and not attempt to set standards that are too specific because the technology changes so quickly.

Several important considerations to guide review of the element are the need for affordable access, future capacity, the right to privacy, digital literacy, and “net neutrality,” meaning that all telecommunications providers in Humboldt must make their services available to users in all parts of the county.

McLaughlin praised staff and commission for including this element, observing that no other county in California has a telecommunications element in its general plan.

Other speakers supported McLaughlin’s points, although some disagreed about specificity, calling for standards to support placement of cell towers away from schools, medical facilities, and residences.

Connie Stewart of the California Center for Rural Policy said that Trinity County has done a wireless siting survey for the entire county, choosing appropriate sites for equipment in advance, greatly speeding up the permit process. Trinity received a $2 million-plus grant from the Public Utilities Commission to fund the study.

”If little Trinity County can do it, so can we,” she said.

Regarding land use designations, John LaBoyteaux, representing the North Coast Growers Association and farmers’ market groups, asked for changes in the AG (Agriculture Grazing) section to protect prime soils within grazing lands.

Because NCGA and the market groups are made up of crop farmers, they defer to the Farm Bureau, Cattlemen’s Association, and Resource Lands Working Group recommendations on grazing land, he explained. On the other hand, there are several thousand acres of prime soils suitable for growing crops on ranch lands around the county.

LaBoyteaux urged the commission to change the subdivision standard for grazing lands near county roads to allow subdivision to 20 acres within a quarter mile of a county road, rather than requiring county road frontage. This would avoid the “bread slicing” of valuable ag lands into long narrow parcels to include road frontage.

He also asked that areas of prime soil within grazing land be treated the same as if it were designated AE (Agriculture Exclusive), which would restrict subdivision to 60 acres or more.

Dan Ehresman of the Healthy Humboldt Coalition expressed his group’s support for two tiers of timber land, T (timber) for smaller ownerships and TI (industrial timber) for larger holdings. The two tiers appear only in Alternative A, and are strongly opposed by HAR, the Humboldt Coalition for Property Rights, and the Resource Lands Working Group.

Ehresman further stated that Healthy Humboldt also wants to require a conditional use permit for all residents in TI to be certain that the residences support large-scale timber management, while allowing a residence by right in the T designation with a minimum parcel size of 40 acres.

The final speaker was county public works director Tom Mattson, who condensed a planned 15-minute presentation to a brief but impassioned plea for the commission not to overly restrict the building and expansion of roads and circulation routes within the county and to make sure that any requirement for new roads was matched with funding.

The commissioners asked Mattson to return at another meeting to show the video he had prepared about levels of service in traffic and the impact of substandard roads on safety, including safety to pedestrians, cyclists, and wheelchair-bound persons as well as vehicles.

When comment was complete for the evening, little time was left. The commission was able to deliberate upon some minor corrections to wording carried over from the previous hearing and to briefly discuss the controversial TI land designation.

Commissioners Mayo and Denver Nelson wanted to delete TI, while Commissioners Mel Kreb and Mary Gearheart preferred keeping it in Alternative A if staff strikes out the sentence calling for some substandard parcels of less than 160 acres be included in TI to form “cohesive units.”

Commissioner Faust agreed with Kreb and Gearheart, pointing out that the TI designation is intended only to apply to lands held by timber companies, not by individuals. While subdivision is allowed to a minimum of 160 acres, only one residence per 600 acres is allowed, and that residence must be used by a caretaker who is a full-time employee of the company.

Allowing one house on 160 acres on industrial timber land means creating the same situation that started the controversy four years ago, Faust said, referring to Maxxam/Pacific Lumber’s plan to sell off their timberlands as 160-acre residential “kingdoms.”

The planning commission will continue its GPU hearings on Thursday, July 29, at 6 p.m. in the board of supervisors’ chambers in Eureka, providing a quorum of the commission can be present.