This Thursday, June 11th, at 5:30 p.m. the Humboldt County Planning Commission will hold a special Open Forum "Town Hall" style meeting at the College of the Redwoods Forum Theater just south of Eureka. The meeting will address the Land Use Element of the General Plan Update (GPU) and is in response to calls from the Humboldt Coalition for Property Rights, among others, for a more open dialog between those who will ultimately decide the path Humboldt County will take into the next couple of decades and those who will walk that path.

Though the update has been in the works for years, it is only recently that we have seen much discussion of the restrictions that are being proposed, especially for rural lands. Clearly the initial outreach efforts were not comprehensive enough or somewhere along the line the focus changed.

Estelle Fennell - Executive Director HumCPR

For many rural landowners the situation suddenly became clear with the county’s reaction to the former Pacific Lumber Company’s bankruptcy-related pie-in-the-sky proposal for an upscale subdivision in the Yager Creek area. The county responded by proposing an ordinance that would take away the ministerial right of any property owner to build a home on land zoned for timber production anywhere in the county. (Even though the ill-fated plan would have been subject to the Subdivision Map Act).

Essentially, for fear of the plans of a few, the county was willing to destroy the dreams of many. In the face of strong public outcry those plans were withdrawn, but it now appears they may just have been put on hold. So here we go again!

One particularly significant goal of the current update is to protect resource lands. This is surely a goal on which we can all agree. But problems arise when we get to the policies that will lead to implementation of that goal.

Sprinkled throughout the current proposals are statements that will concern you if you currently own rural property in Humboldt County or plan to do so some day.

For instance, when it comes to property in areas zoned for timber production, one proposal (Plan A) states "Residential use shall be limited to individuals employed on the premises for lands planned Industrial Timber (IT) or necessary for the management of timberlands on lands planned Timber Production (T)."

That is a slippery slope that might, for instance, make it impossible for someone who owns timberland to live on his or her own property because he or she has to work elsewhere to make ends meet. And what’s the problem with living on timberland in the first place?

Back when this update was first being put together, the planning department took input from people throughout the county and a set of guiding principles was hashed out. The No. 1 guiding principle became preserving the county’s unique character and quality of life and preserving the existing rural and natural character of our communities. I think we need to reflect again on what that means because in my mind some of the more prominent proposals fly in the face of that principle.

Take, for instance, the proposal in the rural lands segment of the land use element to "Decrease inventory of Rural Residential lands" (RL-IMx). How do you go about that while preserving the existing rural character of our communities?

We must not limit our vision to added restrictions as a path to preserving our unique Humboldt character.
Why not look at encouraging good stewardship as a way to protecting our resources?
Why not take the view that those who are stewards of the land are best suited to knowing what’s best for it?
Why not incentivize good water management and sustainable agriculture?
Why not make a good thing better before creating a whole new character for rural Humboldt that takes people out of the equation and emphasizes urban areas as the ideal for residential use?

In a county as diverse as ours, there is no one answer and planning should allow for different lifestyles. Let’s keep the choice open for those who desire and are suited to our rigorous and healthy lifestyle and who cherish the spiritual and invigorating power of nature.

There is one other requirement of the General Plan Update (GPU) that bears repeating at this point in the discussion: "Regulations that restrict the use of private property need to be justified based on a rational relationship to public interests."

Let’s keep these principles in mind when we discuss our views with the Planning Commission Thursday evening. If you value your rural property rights and our Humboldt quality of life, don’t miss this rare opportunity to speak directly with commissioners. Under the Open Forum format you will be able to ask questions of the commissioners and staff and you can expect some real-time discussion of your concerns. At the April 30th meeting commissioners seemed very interested in hearing firsthand from concerned community members. They wanted to hear more. Let’s be sure they do. Hope to see you there.

Estelle Fennell is the executive director of the Humboldt Coalition for Property Rights.

Estelle Fennell/For The Times-Standard
Posted: 06/09/2009 09:36:10 PM PDT

The Eureka City Council and city staff seem none too pleased with the way Humboldt County’s general plan update is unfolding.

"The General Plan process has ignored the City Council’s expressed input regarding potential significant impacts to the City of Eureka," read the first of five talking points prepared for the council by city staff for Tuesday’s meeting.

The council voted unanimously Tuesday night to approve a letter outlining the city’s comments on the plan, and to appoint councilmen Larry Glass and Jeff Leonard to conduct one-on-one meetings with county officials to discuss the matter further.

The city’s concerns mostly surround the county’s proposed plan to build housing developments on areas within the city’s sphere of influence. These developments, the city contends, would have sizable impacts on the city’s waste water infrastructure and traffic.

Adding fuel to the frustration, City Manager David Tyson said, is that the city initially notified the county of similar concerns back in 2005.

"While other cities were throwing rocks at the county, we took a different approach," Tyson said, adding the city tried to be supportive of the process while making its concerns known.

Now, Tyson said it is time to elevate those discussions by speaking individually with each of the county supervisors.

The primary concern among city staff seemed to be the effects the additional cars coming through Eureka to and from these developments would have on city streets, which already have high accident rates.

During the public comment period, Mark Lovelace, speaking on behalf of the Healthy Humboldt Coalition, said the city’s comments and general stance on the issue fail to look at the big picture. He said the city has a concentration of retail and commercial businesses, which draw a lot of employees and customers from surrounding areas.

Consequently, Lovelace said, those businesses generate a lot of sales tax dollars for city coffers. He went on to say that the implication in the city’s comments that the added traffic from new developments would solely be a liability misses the larger picture.

In other matters, the council received a proposed master plan for the development of a community dog park, which Assistant City Manager Michael Knight said would be a mixed-use park, complete with areas for non-dog related activities.

The council also voted unanimously Tuesday to form an ad hoc committee to meet with Eureka City Schools to discuss the city’s immediate concerns about the district’s plans for its old school buildings, as well as to forge better communication between the two entities in future.

The council appointed councilmembers Polly Endert and Chris Kerrigan to the committee, which will meet with Eureka City Schools Superintendent Gregg Haulk and school board members before reporting back to the council at a later date.

Thadeus Greenson can be reached at 441-0509 or tgreenson@times-standard.com

Thadeus Greenson/ The Times-Standard
Posted: 02/06/2008 01:24:21 AM PST

http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_8182895

Third District Supervisor John Woolley opposed the motion.

Just prior to the afternoon session, a contingent of about 30 TPZ supporters rallied outside the courthouse with a forest of protest signs: "Where’s Our Due Process," "Save Rural Life," "I want my TPZ," and more.

The debate inside began early in the afternoon when 5th District Supervisor Jill Geist questioned the lack of planning staff’s consultation with the state Board of Forestry on the entire issue. Geist recounted her own conversations with state staff indicating that The Pacific Lumber Co.’s plans for dividing timber land could not be accomplished under the Forest Practices Act, hence the board’s temporary moratorium on building on TPZ lands wasn’t needed.

The incomplete assessment, she said, prompted the board to give direction to the Planning Commission that was not proper.

The supervisor’s final vote came hours later after about 30 residents commented on the controversial issue.

Many spoke of a growing distrust of the planning staff, others called for a focus on protecting wildlife habitat and some urged the supervisors to keep their hand in the TPZ debate. Still others urged the board to halt the entire general plan process.

First District Supervisor Jimmy Smith spoke in favor of slowing the process down.

Confusion, an expedited process and bad information prompted many people to feel they haven’t been included, he said.

"My sense is the process has been expedited and now, because of all the questions and new audiences, it is time to slow this process down," he said.

Geist agreed, but noted that the TPZ considerations won’t be abandoned.

"It’s not a win-lose," she said. "We’re simply putting ourselves back on track and putting it back in the general plan process."

Jessie Faulkner can be reached at 441-0517 or jfaulkner@times-standard.com

Jessie Faulkner The Times-Standard
Posted: 12/12/2007 01:21:14 AM PST

http://www.times-standard.com//ci_7698781