Oct
15
2011
Follow-up public information request aims to clarify “shaded parcel” classifications
Eureka, CA. ..As a follow-up to HumCPR’s August public information request letter -(pdf file) for the Humboldt County Planning Department to release a list of land parcels considered to have questionable legal status (shaded parcels); HumCPR is now asking the County to release additional information regarding how the State of California views many of these parcels.
HumCPR is aware of communication, going back at least 7 years, between the California Department of Transportation (Cal-Trans) and County officials over the County’s position of classifying remnant parcels created by State acquisition in the furtherance of road improvements projects, as “shaded parcels.” In a 2011 letter the State asserts that “a continuation of this practice might create certain implications for the State, and can also expose the County to claims by property owners …”
A February 2004 letter from the State expressed opposition to how the County was handling remnant parcels created by State highway acquisitions. The State cited several Code Sections and court decisions exempting the State from local governmental control over State acquisition activities. These exemptions ranged from “impairing the State’s sovereign powers” to a State Supreme Court decision which states that “municipal governments –which are created by the State – cannot have superior power over the State …”
“The classification of parcels as ‘shaded’ at the new interchange at Alton, as well as various improvement spots along Highway 36, are just some examples of what HumCPR feels is bureaucratic overreach by the Planning Department and the County Counsel’s office,” said HumCPR President Lee Ulansey.
Local title company officials have also voiced their concerns for the process that the County has outlined to address the nearly 2000 “shaded parcels” currently in existence. They believe that the process the County has outlined to address this problem may “lead to a false sense of security, which may have drastic results…” They go on to say that, with respect to the innocent purchasers of bonafide illegal parcels, “due to the length of time that the County has ignored its responsibility … many responsible parties can no longer be held accountable …“.
Mr. Ulansey further stated that the most distressing revelation in this ongoing fiasco is found in the February 2011 letter, when the State says, “we were under the impression that this issue had been resolved when we did not receive a response to our 2004 letter.”
Is it proper for County officials to ignore, and fail to respond to, issues affecting the property rights of hundreds of County citizens?
It is our hope that the release of this information will help answer the following questions:
1) Why is Humboldt County the only county in the State taking this position on “shaded parcels” and 2) Why is the Humboldt County Counsel’s Office always uniquely interpreting so many sections of the law in a manner much different than the rest of the State, and almost always detrimental to the interests of Humboldt County property owners?
HumCPR will make the results of this information request available to the public when received.
HumCPR is dedicated to preserving the rural lifestyle that has been the historic tradition of Humboldt County. We will aggressively pursue the right to allow all members of our community a broad choice of alternatives for living, working and recreating. HumCPR will actively monitor and oppose actions that erode property rights or diminish the economic viability of our community.
October public information request letter – links to a pdf file
HumCPR Press Release_CPRA – pdf file for this post
Jul
26
2011
The Following Article Appears in The Latest HumCPR Newsletter (Available Now)
The Humboldt County Community Development Department’s handling of Forster Gill Development – As seen Through the Eyes of the Humboldt Grand Jury – Tina Christensen
In response to numerous complaints, the Humboldt County Grand Jury (Jury) investigated the activities of the Humboldt County Community Development Services Department (CDS) in support of a particular project. While most landowners do not find much support for their projects in the CDS, the Forster/Gill (F/G) project is one that the CDS has promoted with a favorable bias. F/G is a development proposed on 386 acres in the Ridgewood area, just outside the limits of the City of Eureka. F/G proposes to build 1442 residences and over 325,000 square feet of commercial space in 7 phases over the next 10-25 years.
Based on complaints from the public, the Jury interviewed residents, Planning Commissioners and representatives of the City of Eureka, Cal/Trans, Humboldt County Fire District#1, Department of Fish and Game and the Humboldt County Public Works Department as well as the CDS.
The Planning Commissioners stated that they were deprived of information needed to properly consider the merits and impacts of the development in a variety of ways. They testified that they were not given proper notice of meetings, were quite often not given a meeting agenda or staff report until minutes before some meetings, making it impossible to be prepared for the meeting. More than once, their requests to CDS Staff for information was met with the response “You don’t need this as it is not relevant.” The Jury cited Government Code section 54950: “The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good to know”
May
30
2011
Same Old Game With a Brand New Name
Lee Ulansey/For The Times-Standard
On April 12, the Board of Supervisors directed that the county Community Development Services Department (CDSD) respond to letters of concern received from city councils, service districts and chambers of commerce and begin outreach efforts regarding the update of the county General Plan and Housing Element.
Per board orders, CDSD staff was directed to include: discussion on use of second units as a source of affordable housing, discussion on use of flexible zoning for commercial/multi-family purposes, and discussion on efforts to seek voluntary multi-family zoning.
The board order also directed staff to bring back a work plan for further review of implementing formation of Citizens Advisory Committees (CACs) in the McKinleyville and Cutten areas, respectively. The CACs would review and make recommendations on any proposed General Plan update changes in those two areas.
Consideration of formation of CACs is included in the existing General Plan (Section 1500). Until recently, the board and Planning Commission were ignoring this provision. Now, we have a specific board order for a work plan to address it. To date, CDSD Director Kirk Girard has not produced such a plan.
Apr
11
2011
Citizen Advisory Committees to be Addressed
Responding to requests from numerous public elected officials and others, the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors will hold a meeting on Tuesday at 1:30 PM to hear our concerns and consider bringing the GPU process into line with Section 1500 of the Existing Plan.
The Times Standard published a report on the issue in their Sunday Edition .
You can also read more about it on the News Section of this site.
Please attend the meeting if you can: Tuesday April 12th, 1:30 PM. Board of Supervisors Chambers 825 5th St Eureka
Mar
29
2011
Supervisors Asked to Follow Section 1500 of Existing Plan
As reported elsewhere on this website, on March 1st the City of Eureka voted to send a letter to the Board of Supervisors asking them to oversee and correct the General Plan Update (GPU) process tat is currently underway.
Since then the city has been joined by numerous public bodies listed below. To read the letters just click on the names;
Garberville Chamber of Commerce
Humboldt Community Services District
Garberville Community Services District
McKinleyville Community Services District
Numerous individuals are now signing on as well and other community groups are in the process of approving letters.
We hope that the Board of Supervisors will give this outpouring of concern serious consideration and act to open up the process as called for in the existing General Plan.
