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.

This Thursday, July 8th, the Planning Commission will continue its’ discussion of Land Use Classifications. According to staff “The Commission intends to conclude the ongoing discussion of the draft Land Use Element, in particular, Section 4.8 Land Use Classifications (which include the text of the plan, not the proposed mapping changes) and begin review of the remainder of Part 2, which includes Chapter 5, Community Infrastructure and Services Element, Chapter 6, Telecommunications, Chapter 7, Circulation Element and Chapter 9, Economic Development Element.”

It’s important to note that the remaining classifications to be discussed on Thursday include such key designations as Open Space (OS), Agricultural Exclusive (AE), Agriculture General (AG), Agriculture Ranchland (AGR), Timber (T) and Industrial Timber (TI).

Although the Commission seems to have moved away from the Alternative “A” – proposed “TI” designation, it is still in the charts and we must ensure that it is dropped in this chapter. “TI” calls for a density of one home per 600 acres.

Similarly, the proposed “AGR” classification remains in this chapter. It calls for a minimum density of 160 acres under Alternative “B” and again, one home per 600 acres under Alternative “A”.

If the Commission concludes its’ discussion of Chapter 4.8, it will then move to Chapter 5 (Community Infrastructure and Service). This section will deal with such issues as the Adequacy of Infrastructure to meet discretionary development needs and the fiscal impact of those developments. It will also address On-site Sewage disposal and Expanded Fire Protection Services.

On June 10th the Planning Commission almost completed their review of Section 4.6 (Forest Resources) of the GPU. In the process they cast some important votes regarding TPZ landowners’ property rights.

The issue of a two-tiered approach to TPZ land regulation came up under Forest Standard FR-S4; Commissioners voted 4-1(Smith, Emad, Nelson and Kreb) in favor of Alternative B and against the two tiered designation of Timberland (T/IT) that was contained in Alternative A.

The commission was split on the issue of the Merger Ordinance with the vote going 3-2 against full implementation; Commissioners Kreb and Gearhart voted for Alternative A which calls for full implementation. Commissioners Smith, Emad and Nelson voted for Alternative B which calls for a revision of the ordinance and would limit merger to TPZ parcels under Williamson Act Contract.

The commission also looked at rezoning “Substandard” TPZ parcels (FR-IMxx) and had a long discussion regarding their concerns about the size of parcels to be rezoned out of TPZ. The issue; “Substandard” would be any TPZ parcel under 160 acres. Some commissioners spoke of limiting the rezoning to parcels under 40 acres, others to parcels under 10 acres. The item was sent back for staff to try a re-write for consideration at the next meeting, Thursday June 17th.

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.

In a stunning reversal of recent trends, the Humboldt County Planning Commission voted 4-1 in favor of language that would allow homes on land zoned TPZ at it’s GPU meeting in Eureka Thursday April 15th.

The vote came at the end of a night filled with public testimony in favor of rural rights and after much wrangling over other language in the Forest Section (4.6) of the Land Use Element.

In fact, the issue of residential construction on timberlands was deemed so controversial that commissioners first thought it would have to be put over to the next meeting since there were only 10 minutes left on the clock by the time they got to that policy.

But it appears our voices were heard after all and a quick straw poll resulted in the 4-1 vote.

Specifically, the commissioners voted to adopt language provided by the Humboldt County Resource Lands Working Group which is comprised of The Buckeye Conservancy, the Humboldt County Farm Bureau, Humboldt Del Norte Cattlemen Association, Large Timberland Owners Group and the Forest Landowners of California (Humboldt Co. Representatives).

The language is very similar to that provided by the Forestry Review Committee and we at HumCPR have been very vocal in our support.

The Policy As Approved:

“Residential Construction on TPZ Zoned Parcels: Recognize the right to construct a residence under a ministerial permitting process subject to physical standards set by the County. Second units; may be allowed on TPZ parcels greater than 160 acres; And, may be allowed on TPZ parcels less than 160 acres as a conditional use only in the area already converted, intended to be converted, or that does not meet the definition of timberlands. Second units may be allowed on TPZ parcels less than 40 acres within Community Planning Areas.”

[To underline the significance of this vote it's worth taking a look at the policy proposed under Alternative A, which language had just been revised. It read as follows: "FR-P9. Residential Construction on TPZ Zoned Parcels: Preserve continued viability of timber production on TPZ zoned parcels by requiring demonstration of active management for timber production prior to issuance on new residential permits and by mitigating the impacts of residences on water resources, biological resources, wildland fire potential and public services. . Residential uses shall be limited to individuals employed on the premises for lands planned Industrial Timber (IT) or necessary for the management of timberlands on lands planned Timber Production (T)". ]

This is a clear victory for rural rights and it’s important to note that we must continue to speak out! There is still a lot to be discussed and clarified. And it will be the Supervisors who decide in the end!

A Big Thanks to all who showed up at the meetings so far! Let’s keep up the good work!