Community Informational Notice

Community Informational Notice RECOMMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 22, 2009 HUMBOLDT COUNTY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE At the October 15th, 2009 meeting, the Planning Commission continued their review of the Land Use Element (Chapter 4) of the draft Humboldt County General Plan to October 22, 2009. Staff recommends the following agenda for use by the Commission for the meeting of October 22, 2009: 1. Accept a brief staff review of the current merger ordinance and the proposed changes. 2. Resolve outstanding issues for Chapter 4, Sections 4.2 – Growth Planning and 4.3 –Urban Lands. 3. Continue review and straw vote on Chapter 4, Sections 4.4 – Rural Lands, 4.5 – Agricultural Resources, and 4.6 – Forest Resources. 4. Review and confirm proposed three month Planning Commission General Plan Update hearings schedule 5.

Continue the hearing to October 29th or other suitable date.

No public comment will be accepted at this meeting as the Commission will continue their deliberation on the policies of Land Use Element (Chapter 4) currently under review. For further information, or to be placed on the email list to receive information of the General Plan Update process and/or schedule, please contact Martha Spencer by email at [email protected] or by telephone at (707) 268-3704. Planning Division of the Humboldt County Community Development Services Dated: October 20, 2009 Martha Spencer Senior Planner Humboldt County Community Development Services 3015 H Street Eureka, CA 95501

(707) 268-3704 (direct) 445-7446 (fax) [email protected]

----------------------------160,000 Approximate number of undeveloped acres zoned “Rural Residential” in Humboldt County. The area includes 2,500-3,500 possible home sites according to Humboldt County Community Development Services. Planning commissioners debated at Thursday’s meeting whether to characterize the land as an “adequate supply” vs. defining a goal of “orderly development.” Some thought the word “adequate” had a negative connotation. Chairman Jeff Smith asked whether the Commission intended to “embrace” the rural lifestyle or “attack” it. But Commissioner Ralph Faust said the county was not rejecting a lifestyle. “There are more opportunites now [to build on large lots] than people willing to do it,” he said. ”We need to balance between that lifestyle and the social and environmental impacts.” Faust added that there’s no basis to stop applications for permits on those lots. “From planner’s perspective, we look at demand,” said Community Development director Kirk Girard. “We think there’s enough inventory for this particular land use.” The meeting was continued to November 12. http://humboldtherald.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/160000/

Property rights vs. General Plan; HumCPR Executive Director Estelle Fennell speaks at Rotary http://www.redwoodtimes.com/garbervillenews/ci_13609120 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.

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. (See story inside this edition) 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. REDWOOD TIMES PHOTO BY SUSAN GARDNER Garberville Rotary President Peter Connolly presents Estelle Fennell with a book to be donated to the Garberville Library in her name. Fennell, who is the Executive Director of Humboldt Coalition for Property Rights, was the guest speaker at last week’s Rotary

meeting held at the Humboldt House Inn in Garberville. Rotarian Seth Johannesen, right, introduced her. -------------------http://www.redwoodtimes.com/garbervillenews/ci_13609060

Commissioners hear overwhelming support for farming and forests Mary Anderson, Redwood Times Posted: 10/21/2009 09:39:04 AM PDT Humboldt County residents crowded into the Board of Supervisor’s chambers on Thursday night, October 15, to express their overwhelming support for Option A of the General Plan Update. Speaker after speaker spoke in favor of preserving all the remaining farm and grazing land and protecting forests from further fragmentation and development. The commission for this meeting was down to five, those five being Mel Kreb, Mary Gearheart, Bruce Emad, Scott Kelly and Chairman Jeff Smith. Commissioners Ralph Faust and Sef Murguia were absent. Staff present were Planning Director Kirk Girard, Senior Planner Martha Spencer, and Counsel Carolyn Ruth. Spencer gave a very brief staff presentation on the sections dealing with agricultural and forest lands, so that the commissioners could listen to over three hours of testimony and comments. Registered Professional Forester Greg Blomstrom led off with a plea to protect timber production land from further fragmentation. He had done his homework and said that in his analysis of the 1,700 timber TPZ owners in the county, half consisted of forest of less than 80 acres. ”Unless you’re managing for timber purposes,” he said, “you should be rolled out of TPZ so the taxpayers can stop subsidizing you.” Speaking on behalf of the Institute for Sustainable Forestry, Jim Lamport supported the two-tier system that will separate timber land into industrial and non-industrial. He also called for rolling out current TPZ parcels that are being used primarily for residential purposes. He said that ISF supports watershed zoning and restoration zoning and the development of strategies that will support maintenance of large TPZ property.

There was widespread support for preservation of existing agricultural land and the importance of agriculture to the future of the county. ”The nation that destroys its soil, destroys itself,” said Marissa St. John, quoting Franklin Roosevelt. A speaker talked about the importance of low-lying farmland to shore birds and migrating birds. ”Ag lands enhance bird habitat,” she said. She also called for more protection for upland agricultural land because as the sea level rises a lot of current low-lying agricultural land will be submerged and the county needs to maintain a good supply of food producing land. Climate change was very much on the minds of many of the speakers. Fyre Phoenix said that “food production won’t continue as it is” because of climate change and that it’s important for Humboldt County residents that we maintain enough farmland to feed ourselves. Pat Higgins also spoke in favor of the developing organic industry in the county and said he thought it is an economic benefit to the county to support this form of agriculture. ”We’re running out of water and bleeding dirt to beat the band,” he said. Several speakers decried the proposed logging of the McKay forest tract on the outskirts of Eureka. There was a consensus that the only way to achieve the “no net loss” of agricultural and forest land is to simply prohibit any development of these properties for other purposes. Scott Graecen was among those environmental representatives endorsing the two-tiered set-up for timber lands and separating industrial timber lands from general timber lands. ”We haven’t learned to turn a subdivision into a forest,” he said, referring to the proposed logging of the McKay forest. Watershed associations throughout the county were well represented at the hearing. Bill Thorington of the Humboldt Watershed Council urged the commissioners to “reclaim the option to tailor Timber Harvest Plans for impaired watersheds.” He said that the existing timber harvest plans have led to less fish, more sedimentation and unhealthy rivers. Sal Steinberg of Friends of the Van Duzen said that the population of coho salmon in that watercourse had dropped from a high of 5,000 to 500 in 2009.

Elizabeth Conner noted that between 2001 and 2005, 53,000 acres of agricultural land were developed for other uses. Speaker after speaker reminded the commissioners that once the farmland is taken out of production and diverted to housing, it is lost forever. A young woman earned praise from Commissioner Gearheart for her comments. She had done some tabling to find out what the “average citizen” knew about the General Plan Update and found that those she had spoken to recognized that the survival of the community was dependent on the survival of the ecosystem. She presented a sheaf of papers containing the comments of the 60 people she had interviewed in her tabling efforts. Virginia Graziani corrected some misinformation that had been given out regarding the Rural Residential zoning. She noted that the RR designation includes agriculture and timber uses for that zone. Commissioner Scott Kelly took Realtor Bob Higgons to task for misinformation contained in a “Humboldt Future” flyer endorsed by the Realtors. The flyer charged that the Planning Department was pushing a minimum parcel size of 160 acres and Option A. Kelly pointed out that this is not true and cautioned against spreading misinformation. A handful of Hum CPR members were present and spoke. Humboldt CPR Executive Director Estelle Fennell said that she was representing their membership of “four thousand who couldn’t be here today” and said her organization thought the GPU philosophy was “at odds with conditions on the ground.” She called for a separate GPU for Southern Humboldt and said that the environment could be best protected by incentives for good management and public education. Rod Silva said that the real value of timber land is in the carbon credits and that timber will be replaced by other innovations as a building material. He and his partner build water storage tanks and he didn’t want to see any restrictions on when and where people could build. Mark Hilovsky of Hilovsky Construction said he worried about what will happen to all the unpermitted structures in Southern Humboldt. Former Realtor Del McCain said he was less worried about the future than about “what we already have.” He accused the planning staff of not processing paperwork of people in Southern Humboldt and called for amnesty for people getting out of TPZ so they wouldn’t have to pay their back taxes. HumCPR board member Rick Poe said that water catchment systems work well to take care of drought situations. He also objected to the mandatory merger ordinance. Lily Macy said that hill people know how to live on the land. She also supported a separate GPU for her neighborhood.

Tom Grover charged that Southern Humboldt “gets no respect” at the planning commission meetings and that they were “ticked off about the loss of freedom.” The commission will next meet on Thursday, October 22. This will be a working meeting for the commissioners and they will not be taking public testimony, but will be discussing among themselves issues remaining from the urban and rural lands sections of the GPU. ------------------------HWC Discussion: Thanks everyone for coming to the Planning Commission Hearing. Excellent turn out, testimonies, and responses from Planning staff. We got some feedback that the turnout from the progressive community was impressive, that the level of eloquence and sophistication in testimonies was high, that the breadth of knowledge and specificity of policy proposals were appreciated . Of 51 speakers, 33 were in favor of Alternative A policies. Only17 spoke in favor of the less protective alternatives, in spite of HumCPR running ads in KINS, and sending out 4000 letters to TPZ landowners urging them to come & defend private property rights. Anyone hear what anything else? or have ideas how to refine future comments? Biological, Mineral, and Water Resources are coming up in the next couple of months. Please let me know if you can testifty for any of those sections or know anyone who might be willing. Again, thanks! Joyce King PS - please consider sending written versions of your comments to Martha Spencer [email protected] You can see other comments on General Plan website at http://co.humboldt.ca.us/gpu/documentsDraftPlanPC.aspx. Letters to the Editor are also encouraged. Times-Standard P.O. Box 3580, Eureka, CA 95502 [email protected] (250 words or less) I wasn't able to make it last week, although Chuck did. I understood that the item was to be continued to tomorrow-- THurs the 22. Is that correct? I am planning to comment then. Who on this list could address my questions and concerns about HWC recommendations re. TPZ phase-outs, what would be considered a

substandard parcel, could that sort of phase-outs actually allow more subdivision as parcel sizes can be smaller for non-TPZ lands, etc? Many thanks to Joyce and everyone who has put so much focus and thought into this process. Liz Finger ------------------Good job Liz....you put your finger on half of it! The other half is that Spencer's plan is to require substandard parcel to get a NTMP that they cannot afford. That NTMP will force harvest at frequent intervals. The NTMP will also be designed to require that all logs go to the mill before logs get to be 36 inches. Thus assuring that neither old growth supporting habitat nor maximum sustained production of high quality timber products are ever achieved. Jesse

Jesse, I strongly think you should expand what you have written here and send it to Martha Spencer, voicing your opposition to this undesirable part of the plan. This is important information and needs to be communicated to the planning commission. The NTMP (Nonindustrial Timber Management Plan) may have some flaws. Thanks. Paul

Hey Liz, Jesse and all, Below you will find the e-mail notification from the County re: the hearing tonight. As stated there will not be opportunity for public comment. However, there will be more opportunity for oral testimony in the near future and, of course, written comments are encouraged anytime. Speaking to the issue of removal of TPZ status for "substandard lots": At this point the definition for substandard lots is based on current land use of the parcel (i.e. is it being managed for timber production or is it primarily residential). It is my own opinion and the position of Healthy Humboldt that TPZ status should apply to land managed for timber production and/or ecosystem values. Incorporating this language would allow relief for landowners who are involved in restoration projects who may or may not be involved in timber harvest on their property. It seems a more simple mechanism to achieve "restoration zoning", from my understanding anyway. It also achieves maintaining smaller existing TPZ parcels without necessitating a NTMP. For the lots that are truly not viable as TPZ where the parcel is being utilized for residetial use, removal makes sense. The concern that Liz brought up is a good one: being that

residentially zoned parcels can allow for more development per acreage. As with many things the devil is in the details. In the GPU: "Rural Residential (RR) This designation applies to large lot residential uses that typically rely upon on-site water and wastewater systems. Varying densities are reflective of land capabilities and/or compatibility issues. RR5-20 and RR20 are rural residential designations for lands with slopes generally less than 30% and served by individual water and wastewater systems and good road access. RR40, RR60, and RR160 designations are applied to more remote, steep and high hazard areas or where appropriate to ensure compatibility with adjacent resource production and open space uses." That being said, it might be advantageous to recommend that where substandard TPZ conversion occurs, the same density should be maintained as if it were zoned TPZ. (e.g. A 20 acre TPZ parcel being utilized solely as a rural estate could be rezoned as RR20 to reflect its residential use and allow one residence per 20 acres.) Also, for those that don't know, the county has posted online maps denoting the current and proposed alternatives zoning. It is a pretty good tool to check out the differences in all of the plans for a given area or parcel. Zoom in on Elk River (or any area) and compare. Wheee. http://gis.co.humboldt.ca.us/ http://gis.co.humboldt.ca.us/Freeance/Client/PublicAccess1/index.html?appconfig=gpu And, Jesse, I do think it is a good idea to explain the pitfalls of the NTMP process and how it affects small landowners. I think any constructive information you put forth would be helpful to the commission and staff (and the rest of us reading as well). Cheers to all, Dan Ehresman -----------Jesse, Re: substandard TPZ parcels, I don't see that they would be required to get an NTMP, since they would be able to rollout of TPZ zoning. The proposal is for substandard TPZ parcels to be rolled out of TPZ if the primary use is residential. My understanding is that this would come up when there was a building permit application, so wouldn't apply to people who already have houses (unless they are non-permitted and they apply to get a permit?). Of course this would mean paying higher property taxes. Healthy Humboldt is advocating that smaller timberland owners should be able to remain in TPZ if they are managing for either forest ecosystem or commercial timber production. This could require a simpler forest mgmt plan with recommendations for restoration, fuels and sediment reduction, thinning, etc., or an NTMP/THP.

HWC commented years ago that allowing rollout could force people to cut more timber to pay the taxes (as back in the pre-TPZ tax reduction days) but I have looked at the number of TPZ parcels under 80 acres to see what the impacts could be, and it is less than 15,000 acres in total (0.006% of the land area of the county, 0.019% of the TPZ acreage). Less than 10,000 are in 40 acres or less, so it seems like an ok compromise since these smaller parcels most likely should not have been designated TPZ in the first place, and are mostly already being used primarily for residential, so they are likely to be drawing on public services such as road maintenance, fire protection, etc. Healthy Humboldt is also advocating for the County to cover the administrative costs of the TPZ rollout. Presumably a small landowner with "substandard" TPZ (which I think would generally mean less than 40 acres, but could mean less than 80, or even less than 160 if they do away with the JTMP and go back to the state minimum parcel size of 160 acres for TPZ) could apply for a voluntary rollout. This is the Alternative A and B version of policy FR-P10, Substandard Lots: "The County shall seek removal of substandard lots from the TPZ designation when residential use becomes the primary use of the property and timber production cannot be sustained on a commercial basis." This I think was proposed in response to all the smaller TPZ owners who said their land should never have been zoned TPZ, but that it is very onerous to get out of TPZ once you are in. So the County said, ok we'll make it easy (and we'll start collecting the taxes you should be paying). Also, Healthy Humboldt advocates deleting the Alternative A version of policy FR-P5, Forest Improvement Programs, which says "Support continuance and funding of forest improvement programs for ranches and forest land owners with approved Non-Industrial Timber Management Plans." We support the Alternative B version of FR-P5, which says "Support continuance and funding of forest improvement and management programs for ranches and homesteads." There are many beneficial programs such as EQIP and CalFIP that protect water quality and forest health that shouldn?t be limited to lands with NTMPs. To us, it makes no sense for the county to restrict federal and state grants to lands with approved NTMPs. Jen Jen: Have you looked to see how many substandard parcel timberlands (<160 acres) there are? Does it really matter how many or how few there are? Is it OK to discriminate against old folks or minorities just because there aren't very many of them and those people might be managing for all species native forests?

Really, TPZ tax breaks should be regressive---and based on the degree to which the timber management achieves the theoretical maximum sustained yield of highest quality timber products, where timber products includes the benefits of clean water, a commercial fishery, and timber quality suitable for high quality mill work (3to5 times more jobs than fiber, chips and fence boards). This type of tax break will better support jobs than red-centered-white wood (green diamond's and HRC/MRC's primary product). As I understand it, Spencer says that any parcel less than 160 acres is substandard and will or can be required to have a NTMP demonstrating that the primary purpose of the ownership is to harvest timber pursuant to the NTMP. Thus, since about 1/2 of all patent parcels are slightly less than 160 acres (the other 1/2 being slightly greater than 160), owners with have to pay for a NTMP or JTMP and begin harvesting or "roll out" and pay punitive tax rates. Why circle the firing sqaud around the exemplary individual who may be maintaining the most diverse native forest islands left.....and force the NTMP type conversion to so called "fast-growing" young monoculture plantations? Second, the "commercial basis" definition is unacceptably discriminatory. Why should small landowners not be entitled to TPZ benefits if they are providing maximum sustained production of high quality timber products?.....especially if they are providing for a higher percentage of the theoretical maximum sustained production of high quality timber products than the industrial average? Why support a punitive tax policy that discriminates against small landowners who are, and have been, doing the right thing for a long time? As CDF's study in the 1980's demonstrated (Forest Resource and Rangeland Assessment P....), most late seral habitat and the highest levels of high quality timber are now found on small landownerships. Yes, the logs sizes (approaching old growth size) may be too big for today's industrial mills.....but not for some portable mills (mobile dimension sawmills for instance).

Jesse Jesse, It sounds to me like you are in favor of what supports, that TPZ tax status should apply to managing the land for either FOREST ECOSYSTEM production (currently it just says commercial

Healthy Humboldt and HWC small landowners that are VALUES or timber timber production).

A lot of small landowners stated at hearings that they don't want to be in TPZ and that it's really difficult to get out (required approval of the Supervisors, and I think it may even require a 4/5 vote). I think that is why the county added this easy rollout for the substandard parcels. HHC is advocating for the county to bear the cost of the rollout process. I would imagine that the rollout makes the most sense for <40 acre parcels, but HHC advocates for a more restoration-focused forest mgmt plan, road mgmt plan, or such to qualify instead of an NTMP or THP as

evidence that the land is being managed for ecosystem values. Small landowners often do have such a plan done by a forester or geologist or whatever to guide management other than timber harvest. When I asked Martha Spencer what would "substandard" mean for rollout of TPZ, and is there a specific parcel size that would apply to, she said that it could depend on the location--e.g. Site Class--and also on what the current surrounding land use and zoning is. That is something people should comment on if they have thoughts about the parcel size or other definition for substandard, since no decisions have been made yet. Jen