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.

Chapter 11 Economic Development Element

June 21, 2007

Humboldt County Planning Commission

My comments tonight are on the Economic Development Element. I was relieved to see the draft acknowledge that federal, state and local regulatory policies and codes have a significant effect on the local economy. I hoped that I would see policies and goals, which would encourage and reward economic development that would create large numbers of jobs which pay well and provide good benefits and security and stability.
Unfortunately I did not find any encouragement for such projects.

Small businesses and home based businesses are vital to every economy, and I am glad to see them encouraged, but it is very difficult for small business to pay high salaries or provide great benefits to their employees. They cannot support Humboldt County’s economy alone.
On page 11-9 is an estimate that 244 acres would be required to meet anticipated future development needs for industrial and other employment-related uses. Of this, 15 acres would be needed for retail space, 181 acres for office and business park space, and a whopping 48 acres for industrial purposes. Talk about thinking small. A general plan which plans for so little growth in these sectors discourages any new business from considering Humboldt County as a place to locate. It demonstrates an anti-business and anti-development mentality.

Section ED-P9 relates to Commercial Retail. The version recommended in Alternative A would clearly prohibit big box development in the unincorporated area. Alternative B says “Include standards for discretionary review of large format “big box” commercial uses to reduce their land use impact.” I agree with Mr. Emad’s comment last month that this is “OK”. Then I read Staff’s analysis which states “Consistent with the direction for developing Alternative B, policy (ED-P9) directs inclusion of development standards which discourage big box retail uses in the unincorporated area.” So while the text reads “reduce their land use impacts” staff interprets this to “discourage big box retail uses”. Is this the way staff will interpret all of the general plan? It is obvious that the language in the general plan needs to be very specific, not subject to interpretation.

Once again this element proposes to implement permitting and licensing processes that are more responsive to the needs and timelines of the marketplace (ED-G5) and to provide regular review and improvement of ordinances and permit processes to increase efficiency and reduce permitting processing times (ED-IM5) however these are not intended for all permit applications, but only for strategic targets such as
microenterprises, home based business and workforce housing. As I have said before, an efficient, and timely permitting process should be required for ALL projects and applications, not just those which are “politically correct”.

The goals of this element are discriminatory. They target opportunities for “young talent” and “workforce” housing. We also need to attract and retain “older” and more experienced talent as well and to provide housing for their needs. I heard the other day of six doctors and two attorneys who are now leaving Humboldt County. I have heard from several developers that they are focusing on projects in other locations, and a couple of long-time builders have told me that they will never do another subdivision in Humboldt County. Others have left already for greener pastures. We need to encourage these people to stay and allow them to thrive in Humboldt County.

I ask again that you keep in mind the importance of property rights. The landowners in this County have invested their lives in their property and their rights should be respected.

Debbie Provolt
P.O. Box 876
Eureka, CA 95501