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.

This may be because Mr. Girard, as he wrote in his staff report for the April 12 meeting, does not support CACs since they would “cost a significant amount of time and money.” It certainly is commendable that Mr. Girard is budget conscious, however, his opposition not only ignores what is expressed in the letters from the cities of Eureka, Fortuna, and Rio Dell; the Humboldt, McKinleyville and Garberville community services districts and several chambers of commerce, but also ignores a convincing public desire for a stronger voice in the General Plan and Housing Element updates. It is also worthwhile to note that Supervisor Clendenen also refused to support this modest effort at public participation despite written requests by both of the incorporated cities in the district he represents ,along with the Garberville Community Services District and chamber. In doing so he effectively ignored the majority of elected officials in the 2nd District.

Another proposal the supervisors could have considered in April was formation of a Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) to advise on the housing element update multi-family rezoning program, a contentious issue. Creation of a PAC is also provided for under Section 1500.

However, it does not appear to be gaining any traction with the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Girard does not support it either, stating in his April 12 report that “staff does not recommend this because it would likely prolong the length of time the Housing Element would remain uncertified.”

Yes, currently we have a county Housing Element, under Mr. Girard’s guidance, which has been decertified by the state due, in part, to its not providing enough zoning for low income, multi-family housing. Decertification (a qualified rejection by the state Housing and Community Development Department) means, among other things, that the county will have much less success in winning state grant funds for low-income housing projects.

As far as responding to service districts, it is true that Mr. Girard, with Supervisor Ryan Sundberg in attendance, met with the McKinleyville Community Services District on April 20 and Mr. Girard gave a presentation to the April 26 meeting of the Garberville Sanitary District.

Maybe there have been meetings with other service districts, cities and/or chambers of commerce, but, if so, the general public was not aware of them. Service districts, city councils and chambers represent the public and memberships, respectively. The letters that were sent to the county were in response to public and membership concern, so it does not seem unreasonable that these are places where additional General Plan and Housing Element discussion can take place. Debate is difficult, however, absent participants. This absence, however, is not the fault of the service districts, etc. The McKinleyville and Garberville meetings mentioned above were, of course, posted on their respective agendas. But why didn’t CDSD publicize its presentations? It almost seems like CDSD is trying to avoid any measurable amount of public observation and participation.

As has been noted previously by many citizens, lack of communication and transparency has eroded the public’s belief in the update process concerning the county General Plan and Housing Element and associated multi-family rezoning issue. In order to mitigate this erosion the CDSD should, independently, send out its own public notices whenever CDSD staff will be making presentations to outside entities regarding the updates. This would help allay public perception regarding a lack of transparency, particularly concerning this new outreach effort.

Lee Ulansey is founder and chair of HumCPR

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

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;

City of Fortuna

City of Rio dell

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.

At its March 1st meeting the Eureka City Council discussed its concerns related to how the General Plan Update (GPU) is being conducted, specifically with regard to public input as called for in the current plan.

Councilman Lance Madsen brought the matter forward along with a draft letter outlining the City’s concerns

After hearing comments from a wide range of local groups and individuals, including HumCPR, the council held a spirited discussion and the voted 4-1 in favor of sending the letter to the Board of Supervisors. The letter stated in part, “It is incumbent upon us as elected representatives of our communities, to ensure that the policies and measures in this document do not unfairly burden any segment of our communities. Therefore, we believe that Citizen Advisory Committees as provided for in section 1550 et seq. of the current General Plan are a necessity in making this process inclusive.”

It is unclear when or if the Supervisors will address this letter. We’ll keep you posted and will update our website as soon as we know.

In the meantime, you can find section 1500 of the General Plan by clicking here. (To see the section regarding Community Advisory Committees scroll down to Section 1550).

And here’s the letter that Eureka sent to the Board of Supervisors:

Eureka Letter GPU

A major flaw in the current General Plan Update (GPU) process is that it has thus far, failed to follow the process as outlined in the current (Framework) General Plan.

Section 1500 outlines how updates to the existing plan should ensure public participation and specific structures that can be used (section 1550) to accomplish that.

The writers of the Framework Plan understood very well the importance of an inclusive process: One of the first goals approved in the beginning of this program was: “To maximize the opportunity for individuals and groups to have meaningful participation in the planning process.”

“This goal was developed from the understanding that the public will be more able to support policies guiding the development of the County when an opportunity to participate in the development and review of the General Plan has been provided.”

Section 1500 of the Humboldt County General Plan:

1500 PLANNING AND COORDINATION

1510 OVERVIEW

The policies for citizen participation recognize the need for public involvement in the planning process. The successful application of any law depends to a great extent on the citizens’ understanding and support of the law.

The planning process, then, must provide for the education of the public. Armed with knowledge of the process, the citizen can have meaningful access to the decision makers, evaluate alternative proposals, and make specific recommendations in support of, or for change to hearing draft proposals.

In the local determination of the future character of Humboldt County, the public must understand the process, the alternatives and the reasons for decisions made that affect our County and our neighborhoods.

Besides the individual residents and property owners, other citizens in form of corporate, municipal and special district entities must also participate in the planning process. In Humboldt county there are seven incorporated cities, more that fifty special districts providing varied services plus school and street lighting districts that will be affected by this plan. Much of the resource land of the County is in corporate and other forms of business ownership and 28% of the County is in public ownership. This section of the plan provides direction for public participation in the planning process.

1520 FINDINGS

1. It is essential to the function of the democratic society that public policy shall be reflective of the needs of the citizenry as expressed by the citizens themselves.

2. Citizens will participate when they feel their participation will have an effect.

3. The large size of the County limits the opportunity for centralized citizen participation.

4. The disparate nature of the County creates conflicting interests within the County and point to the need for a forum for resolution.
opportunity for citizen participation

1530 GOALS

1531 Program Goals

1. To establish a set of planning documents that is a comprehensive statement of public policy concerning land use and the provision of public services;

2. To coordinate the preparation of regional plans that include more that one incorporated city, community, special district, and/or unincorporated area;

3. To provide a comprehensive General Plan in understandable language which is readily accessible to the public and encourages citizen participation throughout the planning process.

4. To maximize the opportunity for individuals and groups to have meaningful participation in the planning process.

1532 The Citizen Goals

1 The County shall maximize the opportunities to educate the public about the planning process and the citizen’s role in it.

2. The planning process shall maximize public access to the decision making process.

3. The County shall aggressively solicit the input of the public through an “outreach” program of public participation.

4.. The time period from public input to adoption of the plans shall be minimized.

1533 Goals for the Organizational Structure

1 The policy making organizational structure shall provide the most direct relationship between the public and the decision makers.

2. The funding to provide opportunities for public participation in the land use planning shall be maximized consistent with the budgetary constraints of the County.

1540 POLICIES

1541 Education

1. The County shall provide for the education of the public to motivate them to participate in the planning process.

2. The education of the public shall be provided prior to public hearings on the plan proposals in adequate time to insure informed participation.

3. The education of the public shall be provided through, but not limited to:
- Citizens Handbook
- Print and electronic media
- Public meetings

1542 Access to Decision Makers

1. The Commission shall maintain clear, consistent and fair procedures for operation and relationships with the public, the board of Supervisors, ad-hoc committees, and local, and Federal agencies.

2. Commission procedures shall be prepared in a format and language that is clean and readily available to the public,

3. The County shall encourage the formation of citizen organizations to provide input on specific matters in a format consistent with the adopted policies and procedures.

4. The County shall encourage the development of Community Plans consistent with overall county policies in the Framework Plan (Volume I of the General Plan.

5. The County shall insure that the variety of views within an area are taken into consideration, to the extent expressed.

6. Community preferences for urban and urbanizing areas, which otherwise are consistent with the overall county policies, shall be given preferential consideration.

7. The Commission shall provide notification of meetings adequate to insure public participation consistent with the goals of this program,

8. 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 county wide issues as addressed in the Framework Plan, such meeting shall be held in the regional centers most representative of the issues to be addressed.

9. Public hearings shall be organized to provide public opportunities to evaluate alternative proposals and participate in the choice of preferred alternative.

1543 Timing

1. The costs of review shall be minimized, consistent with the requirements of this section by the following:
- review on an exception or “consent calendar” approach’
- focusing testimony and comments on specific issues being addressed.

2. The Commission should prepare and adopt rules of procedure to govern the conduct of hearings, solicitation and limitations on oral comments, and other business of the Commission

3. The Commission should be authorized to create subcommittees from their membership, and to create joint committees for the conduct of planning matters.

1550 STANDARDS

1. Planning Advisory Committees (PAC) may be created to review and prepare recommendations concerning special or technical planning matters that may have countywide significance. Such PAC’s should:
a. Be established and appointed, subject to Board concurrence, by the Planning Commission;

b. Report directly to the Commission;

c. Be charged with a specific list of tasks and a schedule for completion;

d. Not be created as a standing committee;

e. Be composed of lay citizens and technical advisors.

2. Community Advisory Committees (CAC’s) should be created to review and prepare recommendations on planning matters that affect their individual communities. Such CAC’s should:

a. Be formed in the community;

b. Be representative of the community make-up, report on the selection process used to form the CAC and be considered by the Board based on a recommendation by the Commission;

c. Generally contain not less that five (5) or more than eleven (11) members;

d. Adhere to common CAC organizational guidelines adopted by the Board;

e. Direct all comments and questions on planning matter to the Planning Commission;

f. Establish a work program, regular meeting schedule and completion date;

g. prepare a map showing the limits of the community’s area of interest and all such limits should be approved by the Planning Commission;.

h. Designate a contact person who will communicate with the Commission and inform the public;

i. hold local workshops (planning staff assistance, maps and comments may be provided to CAC’s subject to departmental budget limitations).

3. Advisory Committees should be charged with the following tasks:

a. Educate the public about it’s community plan and other planning programs that affect the community;

b. Provide a forum for citizen comments, and provide a mechanism for relaying those comments to the Planning Commission;

c. Advise the Planning Commission on planning matters that affect the community;

d. Provide input to the Commission on specific matters in a format consistent with the adopted policies in the Framework Plan;

f. Community Advisory Committees, should be included in all planning notification procedures that affect their area.