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.

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.

On Tuesday, November 10th Executive Director, Estelle Fennell presented the Humboldt County Supervisors with the statement below asking for General Plan Update (GPU) meetings to be held in rural areas. At the same meeting, Syd Lehman of the Redway – Garberville Chamber of Commerce and Bonnie Blackberry of the Civil Liberties monitoring Project also asked for regional Planning Commission Meetings.

Letter to Humboldt County Supervisors

RE: A request for Regional Meetings of the Planning Commission

Dear Chairman Smith and Supervisors,

Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment on the public participation aspect of the current General Plan Update (GPU).

As you are aware, your Planning Commission is currently reviewing and deliberating on several sections of the Land Use Element of the Plan, specifically, Rural Lands (4.4), Agricultural Lands (4.5) and Forest Lands (4.6). Upcoming sections include Public lands (4.7) and Land Use Classification (4.8). As their titles imply, these sections deal specifically with the rural areas of your districts.

As you may, or may not be aware, there have been numerous requests from rural residents that the Planning Commission hold meetings in the rural areas in order to give landowners an opportunity to both give input and observe deliberations by the Commission, in short, to participate in the process.

The staff Revised Annual Report on the status of the General Plan, which you received on October 20th, includes the 2008 Annual Progress Report which addresses this very issue under section 6. Public Involvement and Education:

6.5. The meetings of the Planning Commission, whenever practical, shall be held in the geographic areas under consideration, or where the meetings of the Commission concern countywide issues as addressed in the Framework Plan, such meetings shall be held in the regional centers most representative of the issues to be addressed.

Aside from the commitment to fair and due process this statement promises, it is also a sensible and desirable approach to achieving a better Plan, by including those whom the Plan will most affect in the deliberations. And in some small way, it makes up for the inequality of access currently experienced by those who live beyond the urban areas and the reach of Humboldt Access TV.

The report also states “The Planning Commission shall encourage public participation in the land use decision-making process” (6.6). We hold that the public would be encouraged to participate if the Commission would take this small step toward being more accessible.

We urge you to ensure a meaningful degree of access to your districts’ residents by requiring that the Commission hold well-publicized and timely meetings addressing the land Use and other Elements of the GPU in the regional centers of Southern, Northern, Eastern and Western Humboldt County.

Humboldt County Planning Commission

As the planning commission begins deliberation on the land Use Element of the GPU we must make sure that they understand the importance of including our perspective in the final document.

The first rural section to be discussed beginning this Thursday (September 17) is Rural Lands – Section 4.4.

There are several areas that deserve your attention. Among them:

Currently, Alternative “A” calls for a decrease in the inventory of lands planned Rural Residential. In plain English, that means fewer opportunities for Humboldt families to enjoy the rural lifestyle.

It also calls for discretionary review of development in ALL areas designated for rural residential development. We believe this should remain a principally permitted process. After all, it is already very difficult to obtain a regular permit with the current planning system in Humboldt County. Discretionary permitting would put landowners at risk of arbitrary decision-making at county staff level.

On another front, we believe the County should follow the State’s example by revising and updating Gray water standards and guidelines in order to address water use issues throughout the county. This is an area where rural landowners have already done a lot of groundwork that the County could tap into (pun intended).

We are also concerned that some provisions contained in Alternatives A, B and C will result in hardship for those landowners having to rebuild after fire or other catastrophic loss possibly even to the extent that some may not be able to rebuild at all. We recommend that re-building be excluded from classification as “new development”.

If you value the quality of Humboldt County’s rural lifestyle please consider attending one or more of the UPCOMING MEETINGS on the land Use Element of the GPU

Planning and Conservation League

REAL DROUGHT RELIEF:

STATE GIVES GREEN LIGHT TO GRAYWATER;

NEW STANDARDS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY

Responding to the increasing pressures on our state’s water supplies, last month the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) approved new standards that facilitate the use of graywater in homes and voted to make the standards effective on August 4th, 2009 rather than waiting until 2011.

The new standards will make it much easier to reuse water from bathtubs, showers, sinks, and washing machines for outdoor irrigation while protecting local water quality and public health.

Senator Alan Lowenthal’s successful 2008 legislation launched this revision of the graywater standards.

Landscape designer Bernadette Balics applauds the move. "My clients have always been interested in using graywater systems for irrigation, but were wary about negotiating the permitting uncertainties. The new standards make it easier for homeowners to reuse their graywater simply, safely, and legally."

Graywater provides a cost-effective and reliable source of water that can be implemented quickly and helps guard against water shortages in future drought years.

While the new standards are a great leap forward, they don’t yet tap the full potential for graywater. Clean Water Action’s Jennifer Clary notes that "the big missing piece is indoor reuse, specifically hooking systems up for toilet flushing or laundry." While using graywater for irrigation serves only seasonal demands in many parts of the state, expanding the standards to include indoor uses of graywater would provide year-round water savings across California.