Planning and County Counsel Manipulation of the GPU Process

admin — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 02:04:34 +0000

HumCPR
P.O. Box 47
Eureka, CA 95502
(707) 268-8773
Fax (707) 268-8773
Email: HumCPR@gmail.com
Website: www.humcpr.org

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:

"Pursuant to section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Division, as lead agency, has determined that the ordinance addressing conditions required for building permits in lands zoned for timber production (TPZ) is not subject to CEQA because:

The activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects, which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment; and

There will not be a direct or foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment due to the ordinance revisions; and
The activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines.

The report and proposed ordinance continues, saying:

"Section 15378(a)(1) specifically states: "Project" means the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change to the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable direct physical change in the environment".

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):

"Project" means the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change to the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable direct physical change in the environment, and this is any of the following:

(1) An activity directly undertaken by any public agency including but not limited to public works construction and related activities clearing or grading of land, improvement to existing public structures, enactment and amending of zoning ordinances, and amendment of local General Plans or elements thereof pursuant to Government Code Sections 65100-65700..

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.

Economic Development Element

admin — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 23:27:01 +0000

General Plan Update

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

HumCPR.org » HCPC

Planning and County Counsel Manipulation of the GPU Process

ISSUE: Planning and County Counsel Manipulation of the General Plan Update Process

Economic Development Element

General Plan Update

Chapter 11 Economic Development Element