Eureka, CA. ..As a follow-up to HumCPR’s August public information request letter -(pdf file) for the Humboldt County Planning Department to release a list of land parcels considered to have questionable legal status (shaded parcels); HumCPR is now asking the County to release additional information regarding how the State of California views many of these parcels.

HumCPR is aware of communication, going back at least 7 years, between the California Department of Transportation (Cal-Trans) and County officials over the County’s position of classifying remnant parcels created by State acquisition in the furtherance of road improvements projects, as “shaded parcels.” In a 2011 letter the State asserts that “a continuation of this practice might create certain implications for the State, and can also expose the County to claims by property owners …”

A February 2004 letter from the State expressed opposition to how the County was handling remnant parcels created by State highway acquisitions. The State cited several Code Sections and court decisions exempting the State from local governmental control over State acquisition activities. These exemptions ranged from “impairing the State’s sovereign powers” to a State Supreme Court decision which states that “municipal governments –which are created by the State – cannot have superior power over the State …”

“The classification of parcels as ‘shaded’ at the new interchange at Alton, as well as various improvement spots along Highway 36, are just some examples of what HumCPR feels is bureaucratic overreach by the Planning Department and the County Counsel’s office,” said HumCPR President Lee Ulansey.

Local title company officials have also voiced their concerns for the process that the County has outlined to address the nearly 2000 “shaded parcels” currently in existence. They believe that the process the County has outlined to address this problem may “lead to a false sense of security, which may have drastic results…” They go on to say that, with respect to the innocent purchasers of bonafide illegal parcels, “due to the length of time that the County has ignored its responsibility … many responsible parties can no longer be held accountable …“.

Mr. Ulansey further stated that the most distressing revelation in this ongoing fiasco is found in the February 2011 letter, when the State says, “we were under the impression that this issue had been resolved when we did not receive a response to our 2004 letter.”

Is it proper for County officials to ignore, and fail to respond to, issues affecting the property rights of hundreds of County citizens?

It is our hope that the release of this information will help answer the following questions:
1) Why is Humboldt County the only county in the State taking this position on “shaded parcels” and 2) Why is the Humboldt County Counsel’s Office always uniquely interpreting so many sections of the law in a manner much different than the rest of the State, and almost always detrimental to the interests of Humboldt County property owners?

HumCPR will make the results of this information request available to the public when received.

HumCPR is dedicated to preserving the rural lifestyle that has been the historic tradition of Humboldt County. We will aggressively pursue the right to allow all members of our community a broad choice of alternatives for living, working and recreating. HumCPR will actively monitor and oppose actions that erode property rights or diminish the economic viability of our community.

October public information request letter – links to a pdf file

HumCPR Press Release_CPRA – pdf file for this post

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.