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”

After the applicant contested a negative Planning Commission decision on the project, the Commissioners sought an opportunity to present their rejection reasons to the Board of Supervisors during the appeal hearing. Their request was denied by the CDS Staff, with the acquiescence of the Board, because “This is the way it’s always been done”-only the applicant, the Director and the staff of the Department are allowed to speak to or answer questions from the Supervisors.

Projects requiring California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review are required to comply strictly with all of its guidelines, but in the case of F/G, the CDS decided that the rules did not necessarily apply to them. The developer and the CDS indicated to the public that the project was on hold due to economic restraints, while at the same time the CDS staff proceeded with the preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR). The DEIR was completed without involving many affected parties or agencies such as the City of Eureka, Cal/Trans, and Humboldt County, Fire District #1, the Department of Fish and Game and the Humboldt County Public Works Department.

The DEIR utilized outdated growth calculations developed in 1995 to determine the assessment value of each parcel for proportioning out the cost of the utilities infrastructure. These erroneous costs quite probably would have been discovered by one of the agencies not consulted in the DEIR process. Utilizing these outdated numbers would have resulted in having the taxpayers pay for development costs that should be the responsibility of the project. The DEIR led one to believe that the agencies listed above agreed with the DEIR, even though the CDS excluded their required participation.

The CDS did not form a Citizen’s Advisory Group, as provided for in CEQA, to address the concerns of the Community related to issues such as access, infrastructure, the Martin Slough ecosystem, endangered species, plants and animals, and a potential negative economic impact on the City of Eureka. All of these issues should have been meaningfully discussed and addressed in the DEIR.

An adjoining homeowner with threatened with the possible use of the Eminent Domain process to acquire a portion of the adjoining owners property for ingress and egress to the F/G project.

One important aspect of this abuse of power, which is not dealt with in the Jury’s report, is the involvement of the Humboldt County Counsel’s Office. Attorneys with that office work closely with the CDS in all that they do. County Counsel’s participation in the F/G project is unquestionable. They advised the CDS in all aspects of the project, including the preparation and appropriateness of the DEIR. They are required to advise each County department in the lawful performance of its duties, and to prevent this type of abuse. It seems in this case, they did the opposite.

The Jury charges the CDS with numerous violations of the Humboldt County General Plan, the Brown Act, CEQA, the Government Code, and the Public Resources Code.

Landowners who submit projects to the CDS for approval customarily encounter a process that is not friendly or lenient to their rights. The CDS has a record of putting roadblocks in the path of most development projects. These roadblocks consist of imposing a variety of expensive and time-consuming development standards, many of which are not required by State law or County codes and regulations. Changing requirements throughout the process and thus increasing the time and cost of the project is an oft-used method of frustrating the legitimate rights of many landowners.

If the Board of Supervisors do not hold the CDS Director and Staff involved in the irregularities evident in the F/G project, as well as the County Counsel Attorney, then they will only be emboldened to continue these practices upon additional landowners and citizens of Humboldt County. It is time for the Supervisors to do their job, and for these “public servants” to find out that the law applies to everyone. Demand this of your Supervisor today. Make them accountable and responsible for their oath of office and tell them to fix the abusive situation that has developed at the Humboldt County Community Development Services Department.

A full copy of the Grand Jury Report is here: Grand Jury:Ridgewood

ISSUE: Planning and County Counsel Manipulation of the General Plan Update Process

11/29/07 Supplemental staff report

In support of the Humboldt County Planning Commission meeting of November 29, 2007, Humboldt County staff (County Counsel’s office and the Planning Department) prepared a Supplemental Staff Report, which recommended approval of an amended TPZ ordinance.

The Supplemental Staff Report was signed by Kirk Girard, Planning Director, and as a general policy procedure, would have been reviewed and approved by the County Counsel’s office before being submitted to the Planning Commission. The staff report developed recommendations for a Planning Commission Resolution recommending to the Board of Supervisors that they adopt an amendment to the TPZ Regulations within the Humboldt County Zoning Ordinance.

The proposed Ordinance intended to amend the existing Zoning Ordinance to make the construction of a residence on lands zoned Timber Production Zone (TPZ) subject to a Conditional Use Permit, as opposed to a Principally Permitted use, as is set forth in the current General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, as well as adding additional burdens of required findings including that any residence must be “necessary” for the management of timber resources, among many others.

The Ordinance as submitted in the Supplemental Staff Report provided rationale to support Staff’s position that the changes to the Zoning Ordinance were not subject to CEQA environmental review because:

The report and proposed ordinance continues, saying:

This quotation of Section 15378 intentionally deletes language from the applicable state statute, which directly negates the position that the ordinance is not subject to CEQA. The entirety of Section 15378(a)(1) reads (bold added for emphasis to show portions omitted in the staff report):

It is clear, even to a lay person, that the Staff Report conclusions provided an opinion that is not supported by law and that these deceptions were meant to intentionally mislead the Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors, and general public in order to achieve the ends that the Planning Department and County Counsel sought (immediate passage and enactment of the amended ordinance). In our view this is direct evidence of county staff’s malfeasance because it involves dishonesty, as county counsel and planning staff specifically deleted the express language that negated the county’s position. These actions cannot be considered an error by mistake, negligence, or inadvertence under these circumstances.

The Humboldt Coalition for Property Rights (HumCPR), feels it is imperative to determine who is responsible for the intentional subterfuge and deception contained within the Supplemental Staff Report signed by Mr. Girard for the Planning Commission Meeting of November 29, 2007, and whether these actions constitute mis-, non-, or malfeasance of duty. WE WILL NOT REST UNTIL THIS MATTER IS RESOLVED, AND THOSE RESPONSIBLE ARE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.