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

The week beginning Monday, Feb. 14th will be a busy one for those interested in the proposed Multi Family rezone ordinance.

The County has scheduled three meetings that week culminating at a Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, 17th.

According to the county all three meetings are described as “community workshops” whose purpose is: ” to help explain the parcel selection process and to collect information from community members about the suitability of properties proposed to be rezoned to Residential Multifamily”.

The bottom line: This will deal with “ZONING CHANGES OF PARCELS TO MULTIFAMILY TO IMPLEMENT THE 2010 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE”.

The county’s public notice can be found online, however, it’s important to note that the correct dates for the community workshops are Monday, Feb 14, 6-8 PM, (McKinleyville) and Tuesday, Feb 15, 6-8 PM, (Eureka).

So far, the County has not announced any community workshop for Southern Humboldt.

When the county released the maps (earlier HumCPR report) there was a very strong reaction from throughout the targeted areas and HumCPR is aware of numerous concerns that are being raised by community members. ‘Though the press has focussed a lot of it’s coverage on McKinleyville residents’ concerns, we know that residents of Cutten, Pine Hill, Ridgewood and Redway, among others are very concerned about both the feasibility of the rezones and their impacts on county neighborhoods.

Please plan on attending these meetings if you can.

A much-anticipated Planning Commission hearing on the Forster-Gill Ridgewood Village application for a General Plan Amendment and Re-zone has been CANCELLED just days before the November 18th scheduled meeting.

According to the County “The meeting on Thursday was cancelled because the traffic mitigation report was not complete and the applicant’s consultant was not available.”

At the last meeting on this issue commissioners stated that they would be taking public comment on November 18th. We’ll keep you posted on when the issue comes up again.

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!