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.

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