Oct
26
2010
Foresters Discuss Possible Study Session
The Humboldt County Forestry Review Committee (FRC) is a standing subcommittee of registered professional foresters, appointed by and serving at the pleasure of the Board of Supervisors. They act in an advisory capacity to both the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors and to the Planning Commission and consider technical forest related matters of concern to Humboldt County. The committee informs and makes recommendations on these matters to both the Supervisors and the Planning Commission.
In 2007 and 2008 the FRC met several times to go over forestry-related issues in the proposed GPU and passed a number of motions outlining their comments. These were presented in June of 2008 and were discussed by the Planning Commission in April 2010 when the commission was discussing section 4.6 (Forest Resources) of the GPU.
However, the discussion of section 4.6 was not limited to one meeting and there were numerous times over the course of several meetings when commissioners sought the input of FRC members but there was no spokesperson in attendance.
Another issue that came up was the need for input on new and revised policies, standards and implementation measures that had been added since the FRC had first looked at the proposed plan.
Throughout the Planning Commission’s review of the GPU it has become very clear that the commissioners welcome and indeed desire, expert input on the policies before them. Yet that input has been lacking on forestry issues.
On Wednesday, October 20th HumCPR Executive Director, Estelle Fennell went before the FRC to encourage more participation in the GPU. Upon hearing the following letter, committee members discussed scheduling a study session and looking at other sections of the proposed plan that also touch on forestry issues.
We’ll keep you posted on further developments.
To: Humboldt County Forestry Review Committee 10/20/2010
Re: Participation in General Plan Update (GPU)
HumCPR appreciates the expert input you have already provided to the Planning Commission regarding Forest Land Use issues.
However, we believe that this is a conversation that has been truncated, interrupted and all but muzzled by temporary time constraints and other factors advanced during the process.
We share your frustration with some of those constraints and were pleased to note that the Planning Commission was respectful of your knowledge and experience with regard to forest management issues and asked for your input on many of the proposed policies, standards and implementation measures.
We also note that the commission specifically requested that staff provide you with revisions and additions to the proposed GPU that have been developed since your initial study of the plan in 2007 – 2008.
However, we were surprised to note that there is no planned discussion of the GPU on tonight’s agenda. Is this because you have not yet received those materials?
Over two years ago the FRC requested that the Board of Supervisors hold a study session on January 15, 2008 (or another suitable date) with the Planning Commission and the FRC to discuss TPZ issues. But it is our understanding that such a study session was never held.
Now that the Planning Commission has completed it’s review of section 4.6, Forest Resources, the next time this issue will come before the public is when it is forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. Given the need for clarity in this important decision making process we urge the FRC to remain active and to schedule a committee study session of the latest version of the proposed language in anticipation of being able to provide input to the Board.
We also note that in March of 2008 the FRC passed a motion recommending that: “the draft TPZ implementing ordinance language should be brought to the FRC for review of the development standards for ministerial permits on TPZ parcels less than 160 acres prior to Board adoption.” Though plan – related ordinances await future final approval of the plan we urge you to remind the Board and the Commission of that request.
In summary, we believe that your input is essential to a General Plan Update that addresses the future of Humboldt County’s privately held forestlands in a constructive and appropriate manner. We strongly urge you to remain involved in this process.
Sep
29
2010
The Humboldt Coalition for Property Rights (HumCPR) will host two very important town hall debates between Supervisorial candidates in the upcoming run-off elections.
The debates will be moderated by the League of Women Voters and will be taped for later broadcast by Access Humboldt TV.
The 4th District debate between Virginia Bass and Bonnie Neely will be held at the Wharfinger in Eureka on Monday, October 4th and the 5th District debate between Ryan Sundberg and Patrick Cleary will be at Azalea Hall in McKinleyville on Tuesday, October 5th.
Humboldt County property owners’ rights and our County’s future are at stake in this year’s election. This is a chance for you to put your questions directly to the candidates and learn where they stand on these important issues.
The Wharfinger Building is located at 1 Marina Way, off Waterfront Drive in Eureka. Azalea Hall is located at 1620 Pickett Rd, in Pierson Park in McKinleyville.
Both debates begin at 7:00 PM and end at 8:30PM. You are strongly encouraged to attend. Please plan on being in time.
Jul
7
2010
Ambitious Agenda Also Includes Review of Infrastructure and More
This Thursday, July 8th, the Planning Commission will continue its’ discussion of Land Use Classifications. According to staff “The Commission intends to conclude the ongoing discussion of the draft Land Use Element, in particular, Section 4.8 Land Use Classifications (which include the text of the plan, not the proposed mapping changes) and begin review of the remainder of Part 2, which includes Chapter 5, Community Infrastructure and Services Element, Chapter 6, Telecommunications, Chapter 7, Circulation Element and Chapter 9, Economic Development Element.”
It’s important to note that the remaining classifications to be discussed on Thursday include such key designations as Open Space (OS), Agricultural Exclusive (AE), Agriculture General (AG), Agriculture Ranchland (AGR), Timber (T) and Industrial Timber (TI).
Although the Commission seems to have moved away from the Alternative “A” – proposed “TI” designation, it is still in the charts and we must ensure that it is dropped in this chapter. “TI” calls for a density of one home per 600 acres.
Similarly, the proposed “AGR” classification remains in this chapter. It calls for a minimum density of 160 acres under Alternative “B” and again, one home per 600 acres under Alternative “A”.
If the Commission concludes its’ discussion of Chapter 4.8, it will then move to Chapter 5 (Community Infrastructure and Service). This section will deal with such issues as the Adequacy of Infrastructure to meet discretionary development needs and the fiscal impact of those developments. It will also address On-site Sewage disposal and Expanded Fire Protection Services.
Jun
15
2010
Also Vote to Revise Merger Ordinance
On June 10th the Planning Commission almost completed their review of Section 4.6 (Forest Resources) of the GPU. In the process they cast some important votes regarding TPZ landowners’ property rights.
The issue of a two-tiered approach to TPZ land regulation came up under Forest Standard FR-S4; Commissioners voted 4-1(Smith, Emad, Nelson and Kreb) in favor of Alternative B and against the two tiered designation of Timberland (T/IT) that was contained in Alternative A.
The commission was split on the issue of the Merger Ordinance with the vote going 3-2 against full implementation; Commissioners Kreb and Gearhart voted for Alternative A which calls for full implementation. Commissioners Smith, Emad and Nelson voted for Alternative B which calls for a revision of the ordinance and would limit merger to TPZ parcels under Williamson Act Contract.
The commission also looked at rezoning “Substandard” TPZ parcels (FR-IMxx) and had a long discussion regarding their concerns about the size of parcels to be rezoned out of TPZ. The issue; “Substandard” would be any TPZ parcel under 160 acres. Some commissioners spoke of limiting the rezoning to parcels under 40 acres, others to parcels under 10 acres. The item was sent back for staff to try a re-write for consideration at the next meeting, Thursday June 17th.
Apr
28
2010
Second Units – Allowed on Parcels Greater Than 160 Acres, Conditional on Smaller Parcels
Daniel Mintz, The Independent 4/20/2010
Homebuilding on Timber Production Zone (TPZ) parcels is one of the most argued-about aspects of the General Plan Update (GPU) and a majority of the county’s Planning Commission supports allowing one residence per parcel as an unconditional right.
The Commission reviewed the policies of the draft GPU’s Forest Resources chapter and debated whether allowing a residence on a TPZ parcel should be based on a connection to logging operations. Four of the five commissioners at the meeting said they think a single TPZ residence should be allowed through a ministerial permit – one that doesn’t require conditions – and that second units should be similarly allowed on parcels bigger than 160 acres.
That will disappoint those who view small-scale residential development of timberlands as a slippery slope toward conversion. But those who support it say that it maintains property rights and land value.
