Font ResizeRedwood Times
Amid confusion and accusations of violations of the Brown Act, the Humboldt County planning commission came closer to, but did not reach, its goal of completing the General Plan Update last Thursday night, Jan. 26.
The commission held a special meeting Tuesday, Jan. 24 to respond to requests from individual landowners about land use designation changes to specific properties as part of finalizing new land use maps.
Since that process was not finished Tuesday, it was included in Thursday’s agenda along with revisions to some sections of the GPU that were also previously covered.
Once all these issues are resolved, the commission will review and hear public comment on the Draft Environmental Document (DEIR) prepared by staff, and then pass the entire package on to the county board of supervisors, who will revise and approve the final document.
The commission has been reviewing this draft of the GPU, itself nearly 10 years in preparation, since 2009, accompanied by controversy and threats of litigation.
Threats of litigation continued at last Thursday’s hearing, with one angry citizen from Blue Lake declaring that he is going to sue the county, planning staff, commissioners, and supervisors. He said the commission’s decision at a previous meeting cost him $2.5 million in lost property values.
Other speakers said the meeting was out of compliance with the California Meeting Act (Brown Act) because both Tuesday and Thursday’s agendas showed some different items than the notices sent out before the meetings.
A meeting notice is not the same thing as an agenda, Assistant County Counsel Davina Smith explained. A meeting notice is a courtesy to the public but it is not an official agenda.
Correct agendas for both meetings were posted in front of the courthouse in accordance with the Brown Act, which is all that is required. All items under discussion were listed.
Another speaker said that the county was also out of compliance with the California Permit Streamlining Act because the commission agreed to “bundle” complicated or controversial requests for review at a later date.
The Permit Streamlining Act, Section 65943, applies only to “adjudicated acts” such as permit requests, when the commission deliberates on specific projects, Smith said. It does not apply when the commission is acting as a legislative body, as it is when reviewing the GPU.
Commissioners and the audience both expressed their confusion about the best way to attack the detailed agenda, including two long lists of parcels with land use designations proposed for change in the GPU.
After several false starts commissioners finally attacked the lists. All the requests at Thursday’s hearings were from landowners in the more northern parts of the county, since Southern Humboldt properties had been reviewed at previous hearings.
SoHum resident Tom Grover commented on the GPU’s rural land policy in a more general way, however. He said that planners had done “city plans” but not plans for rural areas, and he criticized the commission and planners for a lack of understanding of rural issues.
”We all believe in the same environmental causes,” Grover said, but he added that some people don’t understand the primary rights of rural people living on their land.
It’s necessary to have people living on rural land to prevent forest fires and restore forests damaged by logging, among other benefits, he said.
His own carbon footprint is negative, Grover explained, because his carbon use is balanced by the timber he grows on his property.
”It comes down to lack of inclusion of rural areas” in the process, he concluded.
The staff’s written report contained a chart of the number of parcels, total acreages, and potential residences in each land use designation. The chart compared statistics based on the current (1984) Framework General Plan with statistics based on the proposed Alternative B of the GPU.
According to this chart, the proposed Alternative B would allow 1,979 parcels totaling 159,844 acres, with a potential buildout of 4,210 residences in the Rural Residential designation. The RR designation allows parcel sizes between five and 160 acres depending on local conditions, and it allows agriculture, timber production, and restoration activities as primarily permitted uses as well as homes.
This is only slightly less than the 2,064 parcels designated RR in the current plan, totaling 168,133 acres with a potential maximum buildout of 4,400 homes.
Some speakers pointed out that there is no way to know how many of these parcels are actually buildable due to constraints such as steep slopes, lack of water, road access, availability of fire protection, and the like.
But other speakers noted that even if only a portion of the land designated RR is buildable, it is still more than enough to meet the need for rural homesteading for the next 20 years.
With these arguments before them, the commissioners split three ways on the question of whether to adopt alternatives in the Land Use Element that call for either a decrease or increase in the proposed inventory of land designated as RR, or whether to follow the staff’s recommendation, Alternative B.
Commissioners Mel Kreb, who represents the 2nd district, and commission chair Mary Gearheart supported Alternative B. Commissioners Linda Disiere and Dave Edmonds voted for Alternative C, which calls for an increase in the number of proposed parcels available for rural development.
Commissioners Ralph Faust and Denver Nelson, who often spar on issues, both felt dissatisfied with any of the options and abstained.
Before making a choice, Nelson wanted a thorough study of land designated for agriculture and timber to determine their actual productivity before deciding whether they should be re-designated for homesteads or remain as resource lands with stricter restrictions on rural development.
Faust, on the other hand, declared that the whole notion of whether land is “resource land” or suitable for residential development is a “human construct.”
”I can’t think of any land put to residential purposes that’s not suitable for agriculture or timber,” he said, observing that virtually all land in Humboldt County can be used for timber, crops, or as pasturage for animals.
Furthermore, unless there is a fundamental shift in our local economy or wealthy people from Southern California decide to flee global warming by coming north, Faust said he “see[s] no sense in the numbers” shown in the projected inventory.
The commission’s split vote will be recorded with a summary of comments and will be forwarded to the board of supervisors for their ultimate decision, as will all the other votes taken by the commission in the past three years of the process.
The balance of the hearing was taken up with individual requests from landowners in the McKinleyville, Willow Creek, Carlotta, and Blue Lake areas and in unincorporated south Eureka.
The discussion of individual property requests will be resumed at the commission’s meeting on Thursday, Feb. 9.
At that same meeting, the staff hopes to introduce the DEIR that must accompany the commission’s recommendations to the supervisors. Since this is an early draft of the environmental documents, this is expected to be a quick review.
Staff reports and other information can be found on the GPU website, www.planupdate.org. Questions should be addressed to senior planner Martha Spencer at mspencer@co.humboldt.ca.us Persons who do not have Internet can call Spencer at 268-3704.
Planning commission meetings start at 6 p.m., usually adjourn at 9:30 p.m., and are held in the supervisors’ chambers at the county courthouse in Eureka.
