(Eureka, CA) The Humboldt Coalition for Property Rights (HumCPR) announced today that it has filed a lawsuit against the County of Humboldt to compel them to stop the practice of arbitrarily and unjustifiably declaring over a thousand parcels of privately-owned land effectively “illegal.” The County refers to this land as “shaded parcels.” The act of “shading a parcel” puts a cloud on the legal status of the parcel, with no legal notification of this act to the landowner. This “shading of parcels” has been practiced by the County for over 20 years and is not authorized by any law.

“This practice requires a landowner, once they become aware of their status, to pay money to the County and prove their land entitlements are in order,” HumCPR President Lee Ulansey explained. “In other words, Humboldt families have been declared ‘guilty’ by the County in many cases, without the County having performed any research or analysis to justify the ‘shading.’ By doing so, the County has declared you guilty and you must pay the County to prove yourself innocent. Anyplace else this might be called extortion, but in Humboldt our County Counsel has blessed the process.”

Typically, when a county legitimately becomes aware that an illegal division of land has occurred it is required by law to follow a specific process. This process is designed to notify and protect the public, especially future purchasers of such land where there is a justified question regarding the legal status of the parcel. The law requires the County to notify the owner that the parcel was illegally created and then give them an opportunity to prove otherwise.

Our Planning Department, instead of timely notification to property owners (or potential purchasers of these parcels), only informs affected people when someone applies for a permit. Then the planners unveil their map and make the “shaded” status of the parcel publicly known. When the property owner becomes aware of this determination by the County, it is the landowner who must undertake a process to prove their parcel is legal (no matter who, when or how the parcel may have been created). In most cases the County doesn’t even have a record of why or when the parcel was shaded or even who did the shading.

“Most of us believe a person is innocent in this country until proven guilty,” said Ulansey. “Unfortunately not all of our County officials got the word. Even worse, they have been told by our County Counsel that this is acceptable. We wholeheartedly disagree”

“We believe that hundreds of property owners have had the value of their property placed in jeopardy and potentially have been harmed through this illegal process,” said Petitioner’s Attorney Timothy Needham, from the law firm of Janssen, Malloy LLP, and Co-Counsel with William Barnum of Barnum Law Office. Both firms have stepped forward to represent HumCPR in a concerted effort to force the county into legal compliance and uphold the property rights of Humboldt County landowners.

“It is unfortunate that it is necessary for a lawsuit to be filed in order to get the county to follow the law,” continued Needham. “We would hope that this will encourage collaborative efforts by the county to resolve the problems that this practice has created.”

“What a shame that private citizens must spend their hard-earned money to force the County to stop this unauthorized practice,” Ulansey said. “There is a process outlined in law to handle situations like these and the County needs to follow the law just like all the rest of us.”

Related Links
HumCPR Seeks Answers for Humboldt County Property Owners

Shaded Parcels – “Sub-Holes” of a Very Deep Hole by Charley Custer

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

The Humboldt County Community Development Department’s handling of Forster Gill Development – As seen Through the Eyes of the Humboldt Grand Jury – Tina Christensen

In response to numerous complaints, the Humboldt County Grand Jury (Jury) investigated the activities of the Humboldt County Community Development Services Department (CDS) in support of a particular project. While most landowners do not find much support for their projects in the CDS, the Forster/Gill (F/G) project is one that the CDS has promoted with a favorable bias. F/G is a development proposed on 386 acres in the Ridgewood area, just outside the limits of the City of Eureka. F/G proposes to build 1442 residences and over 325,000 square feet of commercial space in 7 phases over the next 10-25 years.

Based on complaints from the public, the Jury interviewed residents, Planning Commissioners and representatives of the City of Eureka, Cal/Trans, Humboldt County Fire District#1, Department of Fish and Game and the Humboldt County Public Works Department as well as the CDS.

The Planning Commissioners stated that they were deprived of information needed to properly consider the merits and impacts of the development in a variety of ways. They testified that they were not given proper notice of meetings, were quite often not given a meeting agenda or staff report until minutes before some meetings, making it impossible to be prepared for the meeting. More than once, their requests to CDS Staff for information was met with the response “You don’t need this as it is not relevant.” The Jury cited Government Code section 54950: “The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good to know”

After the applicant contested a negative Planning Commission decision on the project, the Commissioners sought an opportunity to present their rejection reasons to the Board of Supervisors during the appeal hearing. Their request was denied by the CDS Staff, with the acquiescence of the Board, because “This is the way it’s always been done”-only the applicant, the Director and the staff of the Department are allowed to speak to or answer questions from the Supervisors.

Projects requiring California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review are required to comply strictly with all of its guidelines, but in the case of F/G, the CDS decided that the rules did not necessarily apply to them. The developer and the CDS indicated to the public that the project was on hold due to economic restraints, while at the same time the CDS staff proceeded with the preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR). The DEIR was completed without involving many affected parties or agencies such as the City of Eureka, Cal/Trans, and Humboldt County, Fire District #1, the Department of Fish and Game and the Humboldt County Public Works Department.

The DEIR utilized outdated growth calculations developed in 1995 to determine the assessment value of each parcel for proportioning out the cost of the utilities infrastructure. These erroneous costs quite probably would have been discovered by one of the agencies not consulted in the DEIR process. Utilizing these outdated numbers would have resulted in having the taxpayers pay for development costs that should be the responsibility of the project. The DEIR led one to believe that the agencies listed above agreed with the DEIR, even though the CDS excluded their required participation.

The CDS did not form a Citizen’s Advisory Group, as provided for in CEQA, to address the concerns of the Community related to issues such as access, infrastructure, the Martin Slough ecosystem, endangered species, plants and animals, and a potential negative economic impact on the City of Eureka. All of these issues should have been meaningfully discussed and addressed in the DEIR.

An adjoining homeowner with threatened with the possible use of the Eminent Domain process to acquire a portion of the adjoining owners property for ingress and egress to the F/G project.

One important aspect of this abuse of power, which is not dealt with in the Jury’s report, is the involvement of the Humboldt County Counsel’s Office. Attorneys with that office work closely with the CDS in all that they do. County Counsel’s participation in the F/G project is unquestionable. They advised the CDS in all aspects of the project, including the preparation and appropriateness of the DEIR. They are required to advise each County department in the lawful performance of its duties, and to prevent this type of abuse. It seems in this case, they did the opposite.

The Jury charges the CDS with numerous violations of the Humboldt County General Plan, the Brown Act, CEQA, the Government Code, and the Public Resources Code.

Landowners who submit projects to the CDS for approval customarily encounter a process that is not friendly or lenient to their rights. The CDS has a record of putting roadblocks in the path of most development projects. These roadblocks consist of imposing a variety of expensive and time-consuming development standards, many of which are not required by State law or County codes and regulations. Changing requirements throughout the process and thus increasing the time and cost of the project is an oft-used method of frustrating the legitimate rights of many landowners.

If the Board of Supervisors do not hold the CDS Director and Staff involved in the irregularities evident in the F/G project, as well as the County Counsel Attorney, then they will only be emboldened to continue these practices upon additional landowners and citizens of Humboldt County. It is time for the Supervisors to do their job, and for these “public servants” to find out that the law applies to everyone. Demand this of your Supervisor today. Make them accountable and responsible for their oath of office and tell them to fix the abusive situation that has developed at the Humboldt County Community Development Services Department.

A full copy of the Grand Jury Report is here: Grand Jury:Ridgewood

At its March 1st meeting the Eureka City Council discussed its concerns related to how the General Plan Update (GPU) is being conducted, specifically with regard to public input as called for in the current plan.

Councilman Lance Madsen brought the matter forward along with a draft letter outlining the City’s concerns

After hearing comments from a wide range of local groups and individuals, including HumCPR, the council held a spirited discussion and the voted 4-1 in favor of sending the letter to the Board of Supervisors. The letter stated in part, “It is incumbent upon us as elected representatives of our communities, to ensure that the policies and measures in this document do not unfairly burden any segment of our communities. Therefore, we believe that Citizen Advisory Committees as provided for in section 1550 et seq. of the current General Plan are a necessity in making this process inclusive.”

It is unclear when or if the Supervisors will address this letter. We’ll keep you posted and will update our website as soon as we know.

In the meantime, you can find section 1500 of the General Plan by clicking here. (To see the section regarding Community Advisory Committees scroll down to Section 1550).

And here’s the letter that Eureka sent to the Board of Supervisors:

Eureka Letter GPU

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.