9/25/12
After hearing three hours of public comment from 45 speakers, the Humboldt County board of supervisors agreed unanimously to continue their review of the General Plan Update with a revised schedule and new staff reports intended to help the supervisors better understand what proposed changes to the current (1984) Framework General Plan mean.
Board chair and fourth district supervisor Virginia Bass began the hearing by explaining to the standing-room-only crowd that comments made by supervisors at the previous hearing were "mischaracterized" in the media to suggest that the board was about to scrap the GPU and start the process over.
A change that extreme would have to come before the board as a separate agenda item, and it has not been agendized, Bass said.
Fifth district supervisor Ryan Sundberg, whose comments at the Sept. 10 hearing triggered the misunderstanding, apologized.
"I was angry and upset last week and I didn't articulate clearly," Sundberg said. "I don't want to kill the plan and start over ... My intention was just to ask a question about how to see it more clearly."
Third district supervisor Mark Lovelace, who had sharply criticized Sundberg's Sept. 10 statements, apologized in turn to Sundberg and thanked him for his clarification. "Last week was not the high point of the year," Lovelace said.
At the end of the hearing held last Monday, Sept. 17, the supervisors unanimously agreed to resume review of the GPU on Monday, Oct. 1.
In the meantime, county planning staff will prepare the first of their new reports on Chapter 5, the Community Services and Infrastructure Element, and Chapter 6, the Telecommunications Element.
First reports will include a description of the legal basis for the element, the key issues, a comparison of how the issues were addressed in the existing Framework Plan and how they are addressed in the current GPU draft, which was approved by the county planning commission in May 2012.
The report will also include reasons for the changes - such as state requirements, public comment, and planning commission recommendations, as well listing the board's options.
After the supervisors cast their straw votes, staff will compile a second report that will include a "strikethrough" version of the draft element showing how the straw votes changed the wording.
The second report will also provide the corresponding section of the Framework Plan, a description of the differences, and a chart that shows how these changes, if adopted, will affect landowners, and the estimated cost of implementing the changes.
The supervisors agreed to postpone further deliberations on Chapter 4, the Land Use Element, which began in July. This element, which defines land use designations that in turn determine zoning on individual parcels, contains the most difficult issues, particularly regarding residential uses on agriculture and timber lands.
Environmental advocates urged the supervisors to proceed with the draft GPU rather than go back to the Framework Plan.
Scott Greacen, executive director of Friends of the Eel River, said current property owners as well as wildlife and future generations need the complete GPU, not just a "tweaking" of the Framework Plan, so that they can have a clear picture of what they can and cannot do.
If there are no guidelines, resource advocates will have no choice but to challenge property owners "project by project," Greacen said.
At the same time he admitted that there is a lot in the GPU he doesn't like but he's willing to go ahead with the existing document rather than face the chaos that would follow abandonment of the process.
Hezekiah Allen concurred, stating, "The Framework Plan has been the guiding document for nearly 30 years marked by unplanned, unregulated, and unpermitted development in rural communities. The greatest achievement of the Framework Plan was to solidify the irrelevance of the planning and building department to the everyday lives of rural residents...
"I am frustrated that the time, energy, and resources that have been invested into this plan over the last 12 years, investments made by thousands of individuals, hundreds of organizations, and the public - as represented by the county - now seem threatened by the search for a simple answer," Allen continued.
"We need a collaborative relationship built on trust... This General Plan Update process is simply the starting point to realizing our future; the work is yet to come," he concluded.
Jeff Smith, former chairman of the planning commission, assured the supervisors, "No matter what direction you go, the work done in the past is not in vain...
"None of you were on the board when the ship set sail, and I don't know if anyone could foresee what the GPU is today. No matter whether you've been on the board 15 years or 15 minutes, it's going to be your plan."
Jennifer Kalt, one of the last speakers, told the board, "If you don't [complete the GPU], you'll be remembered as the board that kept us in 1984."
The supervisors, however, seemed to agree informally to continue with the GPU. When every member of the public who wanted to speak had spoken, the supervisors' discussion centered on scheduling, particularly whether to continue working on the Land Use Element or to proceed with some of the less difficult elements.
The next GPU hearing is scheduled for Monday, Oct. 1, beginning at 1:30 p.m. in the supervisors' chambers at the county courthouse in Eureka. The agenda will include setting a revised hearing schedule and review of Chapters 5 and 6, the Infrastructure and Community Services Element and the Telecommunications Element. Oral public comment on these elements will be taken at the hearing.
To make written comments, which may be of any length, write to Kathy Hayes, Clerk of the Board, 825 Fifth St, Eureka 95501 or email her at
For more information, go to the GPU website, www.planupdate.org, or call the planning department at 445-7541.
