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.

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.

On Tuesday, November 10th Executive Director, Estelle Fennell presented the Humboldt County Supervisors with the statement below asking for General Plan Update (GPU) meetings to be held in rural areas. At the same meeting, Syd Lehman of the Redway – Garberville Chamber of Commerce and Bonnie Blackberry of the Civil Liberties monitoring Project also asked for regional Planning Commission Meetings.

Letter to Humboldt County Supervisors

RE: A request for Regional Meetings of the Planning Commission

Dear Chairman Smith and Supervisors,

Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment on the public participation aspect of the current General Plan Update (GPU).

As you are aware, your Planning Commission is currently reviewing and deliberating on several sections of the Land Use Element of the Plan, specifically, Rural Lands (4.4), Agricultural Lands (4.5) and Forest Lands (4.6). Upcoming sections include Public lands (4.7) and Land Use Classification (4.8). As their titles imply, these sections deal specifically with the rural areas of your districts.

As you may, or may not be aware, there have been numerous requests from rural residents that the Planning Commission hold meetings in the rural areas in order to give landowners an opportunity to both give input and observe deliberations by the Commission, in short, to participate in the process.

The staff Revised Annual Report on the status of the General Plan, which you received on October 20th, includes the 2008 Annual Progress Report which addresses this very issue under section 6. Public Involvement and Education:

6.5. The meetings of the Planning Commission, whenever practical, shall be held in the geographic areas under consideration, or where the meetings of the Commission concern countywide issues as addressed in the Framework Plan, such meetings shall be held in the regional centers most representative of the issues to be addressed.

Aside from the commitment to fair and due process this statement promises, it is also a sensible and desirable approach to achieving a better Plan, by including those whom the Plan will most affect in the deliberations. And in some small way, it makes up for the inequality of access currently experienced by those who live beyond the urban areas and the reach of Humboldt Access TV.

The report also states “The Planning Commission shall encourage public participation in the land use decision-making process” (6.6). We hold that the public would be encouraged to participate if the Commission would take this small step toward being more accessible.

We urge you to ensure a meaningful degree of access to your districts’ residents by requiring that the Commission hold well-publicized and timely meetings addressing the land Use and other Elements of the GPU in the regional centers of Southern, Northern, Eastern and Western Humboldt County.

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.