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.

Kevin Caldwell
P.O. Box 614
Miranda, CA. 95553

Letter to the Editor:

Once again the Board was provided more misinformation regarding residences on TPZ land. Staff has told the Board that the County TPZ regulations are not consistent with State law, that houses are not compatible uses on TPZ lands and that TPZ land owners with homes receive an unfair tax advantage. Because of this misinformation, staff convinced the Board to bifurcate the General Plan Update process, schedule another public hearing without adequate public notice and direct staff to prepare an ordinance to require Conditional Use Permits (CUP’s) for residences on TPZ lands.

Staff told the Board that the County TPZ regulations are not consistent with State law. This is not true. Any use that does not significantly detract from the use of the property for, or inhibit, growing and harvesting of timber is defined as a compatible use. State Law (§5t 104 (n) (6) C.G.C.) actually states that .."residences or other structures necessary for the management of the land…” are considered compatible uses. It does not say “residences necessary for the management…” of the lands. It is critical that this provision is read and interpreted correctly.

Furthermore, State Law required that each County determine which compatible uses would be allowed, provided they do not significantly detract from the use of the property, or inhibit, growing and harvesting of timber. In Humboldt County and most every other County in the State, residences were and are considered compatible uses on TPZ lands. In fact, a County publication that was provided to most, if not all timberland owners entitled the “ABC’s of TPZ” clearly states that residences are considered a compatible, principally permitted use. To help ensure compatibility, the County TPZ regulations limit residences and associated uses to two acres per parcel. State law actually allows up to three acres per parcel.

In 1989 and then again in 1998 the Board reaffirmed the compatibility of residential uses on TPZ lands and approved provisions for allowing second residential dwelling units on TPZ parcels 40 acres or greater. What did Staff tell the Board then?

Staff also told the Board that by allowing houses on TPZ land, those owners are receiving an unfair tax advantage. This is not true. I provided the Board information from the Board of Equalization regarding compatible uses, houses on TPZ land and the tax rules that apply. Bottom line is that there is no unfair tax advantage. Once again staff misled the Board.

Conditional Use Permits cost about $2500 to $3000 in application fees and take about 6 months to process. In addition, Fish and Game will require an $1800 impact fee. This one action alone will add about $5000 to the construction costs of a new home, not to mention the additional time. This certainly doesn’t help housing affordability. Furthermore, the Planning Department is up to its neck with applications, any increase in workload will certainly affect the processing of other projects.

I can only assume the motivation behind the TPZ moratorium and the recommended CUP for houses is due to the PALCO uncertainty. However, over the past five years, staff has been telling the public, the Planning Commission, the County Forestry Review Committee and the Board of Supervisors, that timberland conversion and development on TPZ parcels is out of control. Not true. According to Supervisors Geist, less than 20 Building Permits have been issued on TPZ lands over the past 20 years.

It’s apparent that the Board wants some sort of discretionary review of any homes proposed on PALCO lands. They actually have that power and apparently staff has not told them. Although the Planning Department does not do it, County regulations require that a Zoning Clearance Certificate be issued prior to the issuance of any Building Permit. This is the hammer the Board should be using.

The Zoning Clearance Certificate requires that the County determine among other things that the parcel is a separate legal parcel. The Certificate of Compliance process is not subject to the Permit Streamlining Act. Therefore, the County can and does drag-out the process for years. In addition, single-family development on an existing lot is not always exempt from CEQA. Where an agency (City/County) believes that the project could have an adverse impact on the environment, Statutory and Categorical Exemptions do not apply. The Courts recently reaffirmed this in SPAWN vs. County of Marin.

In addition to affecting private property rights and values of almost 1000,000 acres, the Boards action on Tuesday essentially predetermined the timberland policies and undermined and circumvented the public participation process (which has been very disappointing) of the General Plan Update, not to mention the role of the County’s Forestry Review Committee (FRC).

Unfortunately, the Board’s action was based on misinformation or lack of information. Our current TPZ regulations are consistent with State law; houses are a compatible use on TPZ lands and TPZ landowners with homes do not receive an unfair tax advantage.

Residences Compatible and Necessary?

****Legal Opinion****

This is a link to a PDF file:

TPA – TPZ – Residences Compatible?

Existing Law and Ordinance Adequate

***Legal Opinion***

This is a link to a PDF file.

Use Permits for Residences In TPZ

Good Morning,

My name is Dennis Ryan. I reside in Carlotta. My wife and I purchased our Carlotta property approximately 3 years ago. The parcel is approximately 35 acres, almost equally split zoned Ag Exclusive and TPZ. The parcel is significantly impacted by an Alquist-Priolo Zone, which goes through the middle of the parcel. I would hope that we could all agree that neither a 20-acre Ag Exclusive, nor a 20-acre TPZ parcel are self-sustaining resource parcels. We currently reside in what we are told is an 80 to 100-year old cabin with a rotting floor and no foundation.

We bought our property with the dream of finding a way to build a home on the only portion of the property not adversely impacted by existing easements or the Alquist-Priolo zone. This is a small knoll in the back corner of the property within the TPZ portion of the property. My wife and I invested our life savings in our property with the full knowledge that there are existing rules regarding the use and enjoyment of the property. These rules are the General Plan and Zoning designations that have been adopted by the County. These rules represent a contract between the County and the property owners – most of which are residents and constituents of this County – which both agree to abide by. FURTHER – there is a contract – A COMMITMENT that if these rules are found to need change, there is an adopted process by which they will be revised – this being the General Plan amendment or Rezoning process. We bought our property trusting that there is integrity behind this commitment, and that these are the rules and the process by which we could use and enjoy our property.

I know there are many others in the county – similar to my wife and I, who have made good-faith decisions – LIFE ALTERING decisions, based upon the assumption that there is integrity behind the County’s commitment in the General Plan and Zoning documents.

I have followed the General Plan update process carefully – recognizing that the update could have a profound effect on the life-altering decisions that my wife and I have made to invest in our property. It is crystal clear to me that what we are now dealing with is a thinly veiled attempt to incrementally implement the Planning Department’s private political agenda regarding TPZ parcels within the County – while at the same time circumventing the General Plan amendment process. It is my opinion that Planning Staff recognizes that there is considerable opposition to these policies, and their agenda may not muster the General Plan update process. This agenda has been clear throughout the General Plan Update process, and I cannot find fault in the intentions – REGARDING THE PROTECTION OF VIABLE INDUSTRIAL TIMBER PRODUCTION PARCELS WITHIN THE COUNTY. The problem is that this agenda is being applied to all parcels zoned TPZ – even those that are NOT REMOTELY viable industrial resource parcels.

If, as has been represented, these actions are NEEDED on an emergency basis to protect the county from a conceptual, pie-in-the sky proposal from large timber holdings to subdivide large portions of TPZ lands, all I can say is the Planning Department must have absolutely NO FAITH in the current General Plan and Zoning documents, the Environmental Review process, and the their own land development review and appeal process which provides for comment and input which is to be considered in the DISCRETIONARY PERMIT PROCESS. This is why it is called a DISCRETIONARY process – there is supposed to be some discretion involved.

The General Plan and Zoning update processes are the proper venue for these revisions, because it allows for all of the impacts of the changes to be addressed, not incremental and piecemeal implementation of select policies. An example of this is that IF these changes are made, in conjunction with a General Plan Update process, parcels which are NOT viable resource parcels should be properly identified and recognized, and the General Plan and/or Zoning Designations on these parcels changed to realistically reflect their potential. Adopting the changes requested by Staff in a piecemeal, emergency fashion – is a lazy way to implement their agenda. It completely ignores substantial collateral damage, and the profound impact to MANY tax-paying property owners in the county. People have made life-altering decisions based upon the commitments this County has made in their General Plan and Zoning documents and processes, and who are paying taxes based upon assessments that reflect the current rules and restrictions.

IN CONCLUSION:
Please preserve the integrity of the County’s General Plan and Zoning documents and processes by ensuring that these type of changes are made in the manner prescribed by law, and in conjunction with the commitments this County – which you as the Board of Supervisors represent – have made to the General Plan and Zoning documents and process.

And Second – if these changes are deemed necessary – consider the unintended collateral damage, and maintain the integrity of the process to address these damages by accurately reflecting General Plan and Zoning designations on parcels that are clearly not viable industrial resource parcels.

Thank you for your time and the opportunity to speak to you this morning.

Dennis Ryan Letter/Spoke to HC-BOS On General Plan & TPZ
October 23, 2007