Daniel Mintz, The Independent 4/20/2010

Homebuilding on Timber Production Zone (TPZ) parcels is one of the most argued-about aspects of the General Plan Update (GPU) and a majority of the county’s Planning Commission supports allowing one residence per parcel as an unconditional right.

The Commission reviewed the policies of the draft GPU’s Forest Resources chapter and debated whether allowing a residence on a TPZ parcel should be based on a connection to logging operations. Four of the five commissioners at the meeting said they think a single TPZ residence should be allowed through a ministerial permit – one that doesn’t require conditions – and that second units should be similarly allowed on parcels bigger than 160 acres.

That will disappoint those who view small-scale residential development of timberlands as a slippery slope toward conversion. But those who support it say that it maintains property rights and land value.

The issue was discussed extensively during the meeting’s public comment session, where various people suggested that a public uproar and litigation will happen if residential development is restricted.

Kevin Dreyer, the president of the Humboldt Association of Realtors (HAR), said that a house is defined in state law as being a “compatible use” with timberlands. He warned that requiring it to be conditionally permitted would devalue land and spark protests similar to the ones that ensued when the Board of Supervisors placed a temporary moratorium on TPZ development.

“You’re taking away the livelihood of members of your constituency,” Dreyer continued. “Taking away that right … is going to hugely affect a lot of people.”

The debate boiled down to the use of a small word in state law. State statute says that compatible uses in TPZ include “a residence or other structure necessary for the management of land zoned as timberland production.” Eureka Attorney Bill Barnum told commissioners that the use of the word “or” is disjunctive and the timber management requirement refers to the “other structure,” not the residence.

Barnum said that if a staff recommendation to require residences to be related to timber management is adopted, it will contradict state law and the county will be sued.

Julie Williams of the Northern California Association of Home Builders gave a similar warning. “No matter what staff is telling you, you’re taking people’s property rights and that’s going to cause litigation and a lot of problems for the county – and we can’t afford it,” she said.

The current county ordinance allows one residence per every 40 acre TPZ parcel, which has been described as a motivator for splitting up larger parcels. And Jennifer Kalt of the Healthy Humboldt Coalition said 35,000 acres of TPZ land has been “broken down into smaller parcels” in the last 12 years. Proposals from Barnum Timber and Southern Humboldt’s Hilltop Ranch would add 12,000 acres and 50,000 acres respectively to that, she continued.

Commissioner Ralph Faust, a former attorney for the state’s Coastal Commission, referenced Barnum’s interpretation of state law and disagreed with it. He said the rest of the state law talks about preventing timberland conversion to urban uses and discouraging the expansion of urban services into timberland. “How can a legislature that says that is the purpose of its law then go on to say that any parcel zoned TPZ gets a residence? How does that limit urban expansion into timberlands? It does precisely the opposite,” he said.

Faust added that allowing the homebuilding “makes perfect sense if you want to maximize the residential economic value of your parcels – but that’s not what the legislature had in mind.”
Commission Chairman Jeffrey C. Smith disagreed. “When you look at these parcel sizes that we’re talking about in TPZ, they’re very large,” he said. “And I don’t think allowing one house on a TPZ parcel is converting it to an urban use.”

Commissioner Dennis Mayo said he agrees with Barnum’s read of the law. “I can tell you that my sixth grade teacher, Mrs. Orrin, would roll over in her grave if I didn’t know that the ‘disjunctive or’ always goes to the right, not the left, in a sentence – that’s pretty clear,” he continued.

Mayo added that if residential development is conditioned on timber management, “We’re not only going to throw the baby out with the bathwater, we’re going to destroy our economy and any hope of keeping a timber base here.”

Faust was the only commissioner who disagreed with allowing one house per TPZ parcel as an unconditional right. Commissioner Mel Kreb was absent. The hearing was continued to the commission’s April 22 meeting.

Cristina Bauss, The Independent 12/22/2009

A strong contingent of Southern Humboldt residents braved the elements to attend a special hearing held by the Humboldt County Planning Commission on Thursday, Dec. 17 at Redway School. About 200 people filled the school’s gym, including Second District Supervisor Clif Clendenen, HumCPR founder Lee Ulansey and executive director Estelle Fennell, and a divergent group of locals who spoke primarily on the issues of property rights, water conservation, and providing incentives – rather than meting out punishment – to people who have chosen rural lifestyles.

Planning Commission- Redway

The sole purpose of the hearing was to receive public comment about the Land Use Element of the county’s contentious General Plan Update. Before commencing, commission chairman Jeffrey Smith acknowledged that the “lack of understanding” regarding the difference between General Plan designations and zoning designations – such as TPZ – “creates concern” among commissioners. In short, GP land-use designations determine “where timber should predominate, where agricultural use should predominate, and where rural residential should predominate,” Supervising Planner Tom Hofweber explained. “Every property has both designations” – one generalized, per the plan, and one that’s much more specific. Some TPZ designations, for example, have been made by the state, others have been made by the county, and some even exist within agricultural lands.

Opposition to Plan A

While the opinion of many speakers was that no major changes should be made to the General Plan, there was particularly vehement opposition to Plan A, which has been touted by some as the most environmentally friendly. For several people, including Fennell, the proposed merging of properties is a major concern: “In almost all cases, mergers result in loss of value,” she asserted. “They should be voluntary only.” “A, B, and C are not updates, but extensive rewrites,” Steve Dazey said. “[Plan A] would be very bad economically for the citizens and the government. For example, two of the three properties I currently own, totaling 87 acres, would be reduced from their current market value by about $1 million… This process is being driven by ideology, not the facts or values existing in rural areas – ideologies about open space, housing, water, timber, agriculture, and economic development are significantly clashing with each other.”

Michael Torbert, an organic farmer who has long served on the Sanctuary Forest board, explained that he owns five contiguous parcels, one of which has a conservation easement. “I plan to put easements on the others, but if you make me merge my parcels, I obviously can’t do that.” “It’s a myth that Plan A is the ‘environmental’ plan,” Del McCain said. “But when you pretty much insist that there be THP’s done on all TPZ lands, that pretty much means that they need to get logged. And the county has done very restrictive readings of the Williamson Act, most particularly on the Tooby Ranch. I know someone who’s got a huge vineyard there, and wants nothing better than to do large-scale agriculture, but he was told he has to do agriculture on every acre. I don’t know how you do that without doing cattle. Logging and cattle grazing I don’t find to be particularly environmentally sound enterprises.”

Syd Lehman, president of the Garberville-Redway Chamber of Commerce, presented a letter from the Chamber stating that “the approval of Plan A would be disastrous to Southern Humboldt and most of the unincorporated areas in Humboldt County,” because “it’s too restrictive to areas with limited sewer and water” infrastructure. Lehman further explained that only a handful of residential lots exist in Garberville and Redway, and most cannot be developed at this time because of a building moratorium in Garberville; furthermore, the Planning Department’s information about the number of buildable lots in Shelter Cove is not only erroneous, but the department has failed to consider that Shelter Cove has virtually no services such as schools and healthcare. “To purport that these lots are available for expanding residential living is ridiculous and misleading,” Lehman said. “You need to represent the entire county, and this plan fails in this regard.”

Speakers Describe Errors in County’s Data

On the issue of TPZ, Lehman added, “Instead of this huge fight about building on TPZ land, why not let people with small TPZ parcels opt out… instead of doing the ten-year buyout?” Currently, a property owner can ease out of TPZ by paying progressively higher taxes over a ten-year period; he or she can also submit an application for rezoning, but the process is expensive, arduous, and requires the approval of four county supervisors. To add insult to injury, the current system is rife with inconsistencies: according to Dazey, one of his parcels is zoned three different ways under the three different plans, while another one is rezoned as TPZ – even though the timber is too close to the riverbar to harvest. “When I bought my property 17 years ago, I was told it was TPZ,” Chris Westin said. “None of the maps show that. I live on several hundred acres. I’ve not sold my property; I’ve not subdivided it. I don’t understand how I have a certain zone, and it’s not even shown there… I have six AP [Assessor’s Parcel] numbers. I hear that you can have AP numbers that are considered illegal. Now how the hell did they get illegal?”

“How accurate do you believe the county’s data is so far?” real-estate appraiser and building contractor Blake Lehman asked. “And do you believe it’s wise to make decisions along that data?” Like others, Lehman told the commissioners he has found numerous errors in the existing data, and asserted that “there’s a need to update the General Plan” – including making corrections to the database – “not rewrite the whole thing.” He added, “Changing zoning to anything that has the word ‘rural’ is the kiss of death for most lenders. … With the challenges we have in the economy right now, do you really think it’s wise to throw up more roadblocks? One last comment: Why don’t the assessor’s office and the Planning Department work together? If we spent more time and effort getting the existing dwellings permitted, taxed, and counted in this inventory, our information would be more accurate, people could get a decent mortgage on their property, and we might even generate some money to spend on our schools.”

On that note, Chip Tittman, a green builder and Institute of Sustainable Forestry board member, was one of several people who strongly urged the commissioners to consider amnesty or a grandfather clause – similar to one being considered in Mendocino County – to protect the “thousands of property owners” who have been taxed for decades on unpermitted homes. “It’s absolutely critical to grandfather in existing parcels,” Del McCain added, “and have planning staff that really wants to help the public when they go in there. Right now, it’s really difficult… We’re spending all this money at a time when our infrastructure is at an all-time dismal low. Our schools are in trouble. Our roads are in trouble. Our libraries, our sheriff’s substation… Injustice breeds discontent, which prevents progress.”

A number of other people expressed dissatisfaction with the Planning and Building departments, including Dan Taranto and Walter Prince, who described a positive experience in the 1980’s, when a staff member assisted him with the electrical portion of his plan. “They were really helpful back then,” Prince said. “We didn’t have this adversarial fight. And the cost was reasonable.”

Some of the heartiest applause of the evening was reserved for Whitethorn landowner Bob McKee. “The General Plan is designed to be used by elected and appointed county officials on a daily basis,” he said. “It’s not designed for infrequent consultation, and failure to use the plan will quickly cause it to become out-of-date and irrelevant.” “That’s directly from the General Plan,” McKee explained. “And it’s my opinion that it’s sort of like the Bible in your house – you know, you don’t ever really pick it up and look at it. Chapter 2 says, ‘Humboldt County needs a complete housing-site inventory’… So, what’s the big problem with this housing-site inventory? You’re supposed to have it right now. You haven’t been doing it. … We have a decent General Plan that’s been on the shelf and irrelevant, only because it has not been used as intended.”

Water Concerns and Green Building

Environmental concerns, especially water, were at the forefront of many speakers’ minds. “I see trucks pumping water out of the river in Redway and Garberville, and that’s so people can be on land that doesn’t legitimately support a house,” Andrew Morris said, arguing that water usage must be the primary issue considered when permits are granted for both primary homes and secondary units. Several others argued that environmental stewardship should be rewarded, not penalized: currently, if a property owner installs a rainwater collection and storage system, he or she will not only get taxed on it, but the tax will increase with inflation – even though the value of the system and tank will decrease, and it will eventually need to be replaced. “Instead of trying to downzone us, not have us develop, why don’t you put some restrictions on it?” Torbert asked. “CDF requires 2,500 gallons, which is a joke; I have 30,000 gallons in storage, and that’s really not enough to get through the whole summer, when things get tight.”

“Years and years of work trying to save the salmon in this area are going to waste,” James Ficklin added. “We need incentives – tax breaks – for water storage, and there’s got to be some sensibility with planning regarding water. We have to live appropriately; we have to live within the means that nature sets. And the people who are trying hard to do that need to be rewarded, not punished.”

For others, such as Tittman, alternative building modes should be incorporated into the GPU, and current Health Department prohibitions against the use of composting toilets should be lifted. Addressing the crowd as much as the commissioners, Bob Froehlich said, “I don’t believe our rural lifestyle is in danger… or that the county government is conspiring to root out the back-to-the-landers and move them off their lands. But I will say that that impression was certainly aided by the mistakes made by the county while trying to aggressively enforce code violations, in a way that left the impression that Code Enforcement was a back-door way to bust pot growers.” Froehlich exhorted the commission to approve the use of alternative energy, water, and waste-disposal systems, and to “remove the roadblocks to make further permitted improvements on their land. … You’ll be helping many people who are not your enemies, who are some of the best caretakers of the environment, people with good values and great hearts.”

Several other speakers – including Cecelia Lanman and Richard Gienger, both of whom have worked with the Environmental Protection Information Center for more than thirty years – addressed the environmentally protective measures Southern Humboldt residents have undertaken on their own over the years. Gienger, Charley Custer, and Robie Tenorio all urged the commission to embrace the concept of “restoration zoning,” and Gienger highlighted the need for incentives that would encourage residents to engage in fuel-hazards reduction, road maintenance, timberland maintenance and accessibility, and fisheries restoration.

On behalf of EPIC, Lanman said the group “does support policies that prevent sprawl and development into forestlands, the most outrageous example being the PL/Hurwitz proposal to create ‘kingdom estates’ in the middle of the Headwaters Forest Reserve”. Speaking for herself, Lanman added that the county “has apparently abandoned the principles of community outreach” that governed its GP process in 1984, “in favor of stakeholder groups determining the platform for alternatives A, B, and C… The process has been flawed, and has resulted in a false polarization between environmental advocates and rural landowners.”

Keeping Landowners In The Loop

Others were concerned about the process of informing landowners about potential changes to their property designations. “I just recently got high-speed Internet,” Kathleen Creager said. “You may expect people to go online, but what about the thousands of people who are not conversant on the Internet?” “Anyone with changes will get a letter from our department,” Girard responded. “Once the Planning Commission says, ‘These are the changes we’re contemplating,’ a letter will be sent saying, ‘Your property is being considered for changes under the General Plan.’ … The bottom line is, anyone would get personal notice before it’s done.” That response was one of the few that resulted in a passionate response from the audience, with one man yelling, “That’s a lie!” Hofweber attempted to defuse the situation: “If you don’t have Internet connectivity,” he said, “feel free to give us a call, and we’ll respond to your questions and explain your current and proposed designations.”

“You would not have had the kind of public turnout and obvious disenchantment that the public has had here this evening,” Ulansey told the commission, “if they had been involved in the [planning] process for the last 14 years, at a cost of over $10 million of the public’s money. The public has not been involved. Your coming down here this evening is a first step. From my perspective, this is the first meeting of the General Plan process for the rural people of this county.” Girard took umbrage at some of Ulansey’s assertions: “It has not been a 14-year process that was initiated nine-and-a-half years ago,” he said in response, “and the cost, as of about four months ago, is $2.6 million. I don’t want to be defensive, but facts like how much the General Plan has cost and how long it has taken, and how many meetings we’ve had… Clearly, we have to be on the same page as far as facts that are easily verifiable.” Girard further acknowledged, “I know we haven’t done as good of a job as we’d like” in terms of presenting information more clearly.

While emotions did run high, the tone of the dialogue throughout most of the evening was respectful and informed. Custer, who has attended a number of county meetings where both Code Enforcement and the GPU have been discussed, thanked the commission “for the very unexpected pleasure” of responding to questions, and Tom Grover – who donated coffee from Signature Coffee Co. and brought locally grown olives from Persimmons Garden Gallery – told commissioners, “As much as people are uptight, they’re really glad you came, too.”

“You should know that you’re being heard,” Smith said before closing the hearing, “and the Planning Commission is a group of volunteers who don’t want to do anything other than make your time productive… Your comments are very well taken. We have had a lot of hearings on this, and when we come down here, this is a pretty homogeneous group in terms of your concerns. Most of you agree with each other. We have these in other parts of the county, where we get some pretty homogeneous groups that agree as well – but they don’t agree with you. And that needs to be recognized… Overall in the county, we’re not as homogeneous as we would like to be, and it does make it difficult to try to do the right thing.”

Other items addressed by speakers included the impact of large-scale music events on the Eel River; the potential difficulties of building on parcels smaller than 600 acres, per regulations that would go into effect under Plan A; and the challenges faced by ranching families that often depend on secondary-unit rental income.

County maps that were posted during the meeting are now posted at the Veterans’ Hall in Garberville. The meeting was aired in its entirety on KMUD, and is archived on www.kmud.org. More information about the General Plan Update is available from the county’s GPU site, www.planupdate.org.

Daniel Mintz, The Independent – 11/17/2009

Southern Humboldt residents have been asking for a local public hearing on the rural land use sections of the General Plan Update and they’re going to get one.

Persistent lobbying by SoHum residents Estelle Fennell of the Humboldt Coalition for Property Rights (HumCPR), Bonnie Blackberry of the Civil Liberties Monitoring Project (CLMP) and others has yielded results. Noting the demand for a SoHum public hearing at their Nov. 12 meeting, the county’s Planning Commission directed staff to set one up.

A location in Garberville will be sought and Dec. 17 was named as a target date for the hearing, which will consist entirely of public comment.

Southern Humboldt residents have repeatedly asked both the Commission and the Board of Supervisors that the Update’s Rural Lands section be the subject of meetings in the areas of the county where it’s most relevant. Southern Humboldt is probably the place where such a meeting would have the most value.

Commissioners discussed whether a SoHum meeting would lead to requests for others in different out-of-the-way places, further complicating an already-delayed General Plan Update process. But commissioners identified the southern part of the county as the one where the demand is coming from.

Commissioner Mel Krebs’ district includes SoHum and he said that although there have been regional scoping sessions and workshops, “It keeps coming up so, I think we need to schedule a meeting in Southern Humboldt.”

“There’s a lot of feeling in Southern Humboldt with respect to the issues that are before us and maybe that’s an appropriate place to hold a meeting as opposed to Willow Creek or Orick or other outlying places,” said Commissioner Ralph Faust.

When Community Development Director Kirk Girard said other regions might want an equal opportunity, Commission Chairman Jeffrey C. Smith said he’d agree to that but added, “We’re just not getting a lot of input from other parts of the county, saying they’re having difficulty with access – Southern Humboldt is the toughest.”

The call for a local meeting hasn’t been limited to residents. During the Commission’s public comment session, Bob Higgons of the Humboldt Association of Realtors referred to a Nov. 9 his group sent to the Commission on holding a General Plan meeting “in a rural area, specifically in Southern Humboldt.”

Higgons said SoHum is the area where agricultural, timber and rural development issues are most relevant. Julie Williams of the Northern California Association of Homebuilders supported his suggestion.

The Board of Supervisors has also heard demands for a local hearing. At the Board’s Nov. 10 meeting, Fennell represented HumCPR and told supervisors that holding regional meetings “makes up for the inequality of access experienced by those who live beyond the urban areas and beyond the reach of Humboldt Access TV.”

Representing CLMP, Blackberry said that the Commission is missing out on Southern Humboldt’s contributions by holding meetings in Eureka. “I don’t see how you can get any representation of a community’s values if there’s no input from the community,” she said. “Since we are a rural county, I think that the Planning Commission needs to get out of Eureka.”

The Garberville/Redway Chamber of Commerce has sent a letter to supervisors asking them to direct the Commission to hold SoHum meetings. “There’s a misconception, apparently, in that it’s further from Garberville to Eureka than it is from Eureka to Garberville, but that’s not true,” said Chamber President Sid Lehmann.

Daniel Mintz, The Independent – 10/20/2009

The latest hearing on the county’s General Plan Update showed that environmental consciousness is split when it comes to land use standards for farm and timber lands.

The Update’s various policies on preventing conversion and restricting subdivision of resource lands were extensively debated at an Oct. 15 Planning Commission hearing.

Alternative A, the GPU’s most development-restrictive option, has become the focus of disagreement. Its policies set large minimum parcel size standards and increase restrictions on subdivision of farm and timber lands.

Although Alternative B, a less restrictive compromise option, is the one county planners recommend, Alternative A’s policies are feared by Realtors and developers because there’s an escalating surge of advocacy for them.

And in areas like Southern Humboldt, where homesteading is a respected tradition, the idea of preventing homebuilding on farm or timber land is equated to unnecessary loss of property rights by some.

Many Southern Humboldt speakers said they want to maintain the right to build on their land and can live on it without negatively affecting the environment.

“Most people who have bought TPZ (Timber Production Zone) land didn’t do it to shirk their taxes, they bought it because they had the dream of building a home and living on their property,” said a Miranda man. “Now a lot of them are facing what could potentially be punitive measures.”

A proposed requirement to have a Timber Management Plan in order to gain a homebuilding permit was cited as one obstacle to fulfillment of property rights. Another controversial policy proposal under Alternative A is requiring owners of contiguous resource land parcels to merge them into one large tract.

The concept of creating larger parcels of farm and timber land to prevent residential growth was challenged by several speakers.

Lily Macy, a resident of the Mattole Valley, said she and her husband have lived on a 40-acre parcel for 40 years. A 10-mile area once occupied by 10 families now has 55 families, with no ill effects, she told commissioners.

Macy said people in the valley live on land that was once extensively logged and is now being restored. “The rural lifestyle in Southern Humboldt is not sprawl,” she continued.

But Redway resident Virginia Graziani highlighted “the effect on the market value of resource lands when small subdivisions and greater household density are permitted.” She said an obvious equation is “the more developable the land, the higher the price.”

Under that scenario, buyers of farm and timber lands can’t recover the prices they paid through farming, ranching or timber harvesting, Graziani continued, adding that building entitlements will have long-lasting effects.

Land value is an important aspect of the debate. Earlier in the meeting, Debbie Provolt of the Humboldt Association of Realtors was the first of many speakers who objected to Alternative A’s land merger policy.

Citing acreage values in Southern Humboldt as an example, Provolt said requiring owners of contiguous resource land parcels to merge them into one large tract would have “dire consequences for landowners” by cutting their property values by half in some cases.

One Southern Humboldt resident read a letter from Ettersberg rancher Sally French, who said she opposes ordinances that would “make it more difficult for large landowners” by increasing minimum parcel sizes. French said large landowners need to be able to sell smaller parcels occasionally “so they will be able to keep the rest.”

French said she also supports allowing second “mother-in-law” units on resource land parcels and opposes parcel mergers.

For some, land value isn’t measured in dollars. Many speakers talked about global warming, oil dependency and the value of having expansive tracts of open space. Several people described Humboldt County as one of the last fronts of resource preservation and the host of new conservation opportunities.

“We’re in a position to develop a post-carbon county,” said Mattole Valley resident Willow Rain.

The hearing was continued to October 22 but it’s expected to consist mostly of the completion of the review for urban and rural lands chapters. It will be a “working session” for the Commission, with no public comment.

Susan Gardner, Redwood Times – 10/21/2009

Estelle Fennell, Executive Director of the Humboldt Coalition for Property Rights (HumCPR), was the guest speaker at last week’s Garberville Rotary Club. The Humboldt House Inn graciously allowed Rotary to meet in their hospitality room due the need for a last minute location change. Rotary also thanks the board of Soroptimist International of the Redwoods for giving up the room that day.

Garberville Rotary President Peter Connolly presents Estelle Fennell with a book to be donated to the Garberville Library in her name. Fennell was the guest speaker at last week’s Rotary meeting held at the Humboldt House Inn in Garberville. Rotarian Seth Johannesen, right, introduced her. (Photo by Susan Gardner)

Joining Fennell was Tina Christianson from HumCPR and past president of the Humboldt County Board of Realtors. She has lived in Humboldt County for most of her life.

This past Thursday, October 15, the Humboldt County Planning Commission met in Eureka to discuss agricultural and forest lands in the unincorporated areas of the County. This is all part of the General Plan Update, which has been in process for a long time with a huge price tag to the County.
Fennell said, “We are no way near the kind of General Plan Update we would like to see happen. There is basically a bias in the General Plan in favor of urban development and against any building in rural areas. We have been pointing this out for a while, but it seems that people are just beginning to catch on. With the passing of the housing element, which favored the urbanization of Humboldt County, we now know what’s in store for the rural areas. The theory is that in order to protect the resource lands we should stop people from building in rural areas.”

Fennell said if the County goes with Alternative A on the General Fund and you own land that is zoned for industrial timber you will not be able to live on the land unless you are there specifically to manage the timber. If you own two contiguous properties of timber production land you may be forced to merge those properties.

Fennell said, “What the Humboldt Coalition for Property Rights is asking is that these very onerous restrictions be lifted. The General Plan can then move forward to address any particular issues we might have with resource protection without taking our rights away. Right now if the General Plan, as proposed under Alternative A and in most cases Alternative B, we will actually lose our property rights. I don’t believe it’s necessary for us to give up our property rights in order to make sure that our environment is a good environment.”

Fennell believes that most people who live in the rural areas of the county are good stewards of the land and care about being environmentally responsible. They want their heirs to inherit their property and they want to be able to build homes for their children on their land. She says that all of these things will come into question if Alternative A is passed as written. She said that if you live anywhere outside the urban areas this plan does not make any sense.

She said, “It is very, very hard to get this through to a planning commission who thinks they are saving the world. They think global warming and climate change must take people out of the rural areas and concentrate them into the urban areas because living on rural property has an impact on the land. We say that what the General Plan should be focusing on is helping people to live better on the land and create incentives for them to do restoration, fire protection, whatever, but not to take their rights away. It’s better to have people living on the land with a mixture of large and small land management. That’s a sustainable kind of future for Humboldt County.”

She said that HumCPR feels there is a real movement to restrict rural living at the County level. She believes a conscious effort is being made by the County to have people live where infrastructure, such as roads and fire protection, is already in place.

She stated, “Our supervisors represent the unincorporated areas of the county, but it seems that government is representing more of the incorporated areas. We need to change that. The majority of the County is unincorporated and we need to keep that focus at the County level so that our issues are addressed. We need to let the County know that we are concerned about our future. The General Plan Update is supposed to balance property rights with the health and welfare of the community. But right now that balance is really tipped to one side.”

HumCPR says there is an issue with democracy. The General Plan is supposed to incorporate the community. It is their contention that the Planning Commission and the Planning Department have let us down in that regard. They have not reached out to the outlying areas. They have been asked to do meetings in Southern Humboldt and the closest they have come was to College of the Redwoods. HumCPR said they were hoping for a meeting at least in Fortuna at River Lodge. According to Fennell they aren’t going anywhere at all.

She said that Commissioner Bruce Emad told her that if they went down to Garberville they would probably hear from a lot of people. He said he wished they would come down and explain what is going to happen when they pass the General Plan Update. HumCPR has been asking the County to let people know the proposed plans’ effects on their properties.

HumCPR recently sent out literature to agriculture and timber zoned property owners. Fennell said they got such a great response that the board is going to continue to send out even more information so that people will at least know how their land will be affected.

She said, “We want the County to know that we are out here, we care, and we want to make sure that they understand that we want to protect our rights.”

Tina Christianson said, “We at HumCPR are for property rights. That’s why we are here. It is your rights that are being jeopardized. You’ve got to fight the fight. If you think that you can go on living the way you have for the past 40 years, and build what you want to build when you want, they are going to come after you in a different way, such as code enforcement.

”If you look at the housing opportunity zones you will see that they are in certain areas. If you are outside these areas, you are going to have a lot more regulations when you want to build. We are trying to retrieve our Humboldt County.”

She said this is America and you should have the right to live on your land. Forty percent of rural landowners in Humboldt County are in Southern Humboldt.

She also said that nothing has been done about code enforcement since it became a major issue. With all the recommendations made during all those meetings, nothing has been done. She said this has come back into the spotlight with Alternative A and more regulations will be implemented on small and large parcels.

Fennell seconded that by saying Alternative A is an extension of code enforcement and aimed at rural residents and it is not the way that they would like to go. There will be no building amnesties and you may not be able to rebuild structures if they are destroyed.

Local business owner and Rotarian Stephen Dazey commented by saying, “I have yet to figure out where the housing for any of Southern Humboldt’s growth is going to come from. It seems to me that Garberville is essentially built out. There are 100 units planned on Jim Johnson’s property above the industrial park, which would take care of about two or three years of this four-year plan.”

Fennell agreed and said that is why the County needs to recognize the rural landowners and their desire to build on their property. She also said there are new restrictions coming up with regard to roads and fire safety. Instead of making those user-friendly as we have for the longest time, they are going to be very regulated. If someone’s house burns down, there may be a question as to whether or not they are be allowed to rebuild.

She said that at a meeting at the Vets Hall in Garberville the planners said that if people don’t have a permit, these buildings don’t exist in their eyes.

She also said, “The County of course has been taking the taxes for the assessments of those improvements that they say don’t exist. This raises a real issue as to whether people will be allowed to rebuild. The underlying structure is a theory or premise that the county is better off without us. They may have to live with us that are already here, but they don’t want any more of us.”

Rotary President Peter Connolly asked, “How do we take back our rights that we’ve handed over to the County? We need to take them back and tell them what we want. They are in place to enforce the laws that we want to be there.”
Fennell and Christianson agreed that we may be looking at proposing some initiatives if we can’t get through to them. In the meantime, they asked that concerned landowners write letters and go to the meetings. “You don’t have to say anything publicly, just be there to show your support. Even if it seem like it’s useless, it does count. Stand up for your rights and be heard,” they concluded.