Supes set GPU schedule

It’s time to “get ‘er done,” as they say.

The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors agreed Tuesday to the below schedule for reviewing the draft General Plan Update (which can be modified if necessary):

  • June 18 and 25 — Key Issue identification
  • July 16* — Setting/Governance and Land Use
  • July 23 — Building Communities
  • Aug. 13 — Building Communities (Circulation Telecomm, Infrastructure) and Resource Management
  • Aug. 20 — Resource Management and Health/Safety
  • Sept. 10 — Health/Safety
  • Sept. 17* — Land Use Classification

(*afternoon and evening meetings)

Supes were urged by a majority of public speakers to move forward with the General Plan Update process that is finally near completion after more than a decade of public meetings and workshops.

Developer and property rights groups renewed calls to stall the process after last week’s election of two new supervisors** who will be seated in January. One group — Rob Arkley’s Humboldt Economic and Land Plan (“HELP”) even suggested a United Nations mind control conspiracy was responsible for wording in the GPU.

Planning Commissioner Denver Nelson assured Supervisors at the beginning of the hearing that he was not employed by the U.N.

As for his years of Commission meetins on the GPU, Nelson said, “Public input means you can have your say, not have your way.”

Planning Commission Chairman Ralph Faust said the draft reflects the diversity of Humboldt County residents.

“None of us are completely happy,” he said. “This is not the document that any one of us would have brought as individuals.”

The review meetings will follow a “two on/two off” approach with meetings held two Mondays in a row, and then take two Mondays off before resuming again.


**Election results are not yet certified and a question still hangs over the 2nd district race.

  1. Anonymous
    June 12, 2012 at 8:13 pm

    This is a waste of time. We know anything they decide now will be thrown out when the new supes take office.

  2. June 12, 2012 at 8:51 pm

    Please explain how a General Plan once adopted can be “thrown out” in January.

  3. 713
    June 12, 2012 at 8:59 pm

    faulty EIR

  4. Eric Kirk
    June 12, 2012 at 9:00 pm

    I don’t think there’s anything preventing them from updating the GP at any time they want, or starting over. Nothing legally anyway.

    We know there will be lawsuits, no matter how it comes out.

  5. Anonymous
    June 12, 2012 at 9:17 pm

    Your tax dollars at work.

  6. Anonymous
    June 12, 2012 at 11:55 pm

    If the current board enacts stuff the next board doesn’t like, the next board can reverse it, even if that ‘stuff’ is the general plan.

  7. Gil Yule
    June 13, 2012 at 6:55 am

    Well, our development community is finally getting the Board of Supervisors that they have wanted (with the possible exception of that pesky Mark Lovelace) so I guess it’s a good time to put it all up for a final vote.

  8. just middle class
    June 13, 2012 at 7:10 am

    The EIR is a mess and they will never keep this schedule, just like the Housing Element don’t hold your breath. There are many shoes left to drop.

  9. get real (please?)
    June 13, 2012 at 8:42 am

    The EIR was prepared by arguably the most respected land use law firm in San Francisco – Shute, Mihaly. Before you call it a mess, you better read it. Afterward, when stating your specific criticisms of it and their bases, please also provide your credentials in regard to EIR drafting and (successful) challenging. Otherwise, perhaps consider S-ingTFU.

  10. Eric Kirk
    June 13, 2012 at 9:49 am

    Maybe so get real. But it’s not hard for opposition to drag things out under CEQA, which is a double-edged sword.

    There may be a political downside to undoing the GPU in January, so maybe this is the time for both sides (or all sides) to start dealing. The right wants to avoid the political awkwardness of reopening a ten year old process which has ended. The left wants to secure certain elements of the GPU, better than none. Not that I like it, but the election certainly showed that the majority of Humboldt County voters are very conservative on this issue. On the other hand, Ryan Sundberg barely slipped by his opponent to win the last election, and he won’t have Blue Lake in his district the next time around. And it seems like he’s in a good position to broker a deal.

    Just a thought.

  11. Pitchfork
    June 13, 2012 at 10:05 am

    “the election certainly showed that the majority of Humboldt County voters are very conservative on this issue.”
    Eric, respectfully, this election was not about the general plan, sure most of the money raise was from from developers who want their way. The voters were oblivious to the GPU, door to door canvassers say that less than 10% even mentioned the GPU.
    Cliff lost partly because of his Arcata campaign manger and there was no stopping Rex.

  12. June 13, 2012 at 10:16 am

    I have to agree with Pitchfork. The majority of Humboldt County voters didn’t bother to vote and most couldn’t care less about the GPU.

  13. Eric Kirk
    June 13, 2012 at 11:03 am

    Either way, I think it’s time to broker a deal or live with Plan D with maybe some loss of political capital on the part of the majority (very little if you’re right about the voters).

  14. If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.
    June 13, 2012 at 12:11 pm

    The EIR is a mess. The EIR is a mess. The EIR is a mess. The EIR is a mess. The EIR is a mess.

  15. just middle class
    June 13, 2012 at 12:37 pm

    I have read the EIR and I have read many EIR’s, and this one is a mess.

  16. If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.
    June 13, 2012 at 12:38 pm

    The EIR is a mess. The EIR is a mess. The EIR is a mess. The EIR is a mess. The EIR is a mess.

  17. just middle class
    June 13, 2012 at 12:39 pm

    Thank you for agreening.

  18. tra
    June 13, 2012 at 1:45 pm

    “The majority of Humboldt County voters didn’t bother to vote and most couldn’t care less about the GPU.”

    Hark! Tis the plaintive battle cry of the Lame Duck Princes and their stalwart band of True Believers as they retreat to the Low Road for their Glorious Last Stand.

  19. June 13, 2012 at 1:47 pm

    True believer of what?

  20. Just Watchin
    June 13, 2012 at 1:56 pm

    I’m just curious……..if it’s been ten years in the making, is this something that ever has an end, or a process where you wind up having meetings so that you can schedule the next meeting?

  21. Anonymous
    June 13, 2012 at 2:33 pm

    The problem with your analysis, tra, is that it has no relation to the history of federal, state or local politics in the entire American experience. It’s more reflective of your own opinion, especially your opinion of the General Plan Update, which in one of your first posts on a preceding thread you characterized as “a fiasco.” (go back and check). Correspondingly, I think it’s a bit disingenuous of you to insist that the lame ducks on the Board of Supervisors should adopt the political positions of their successors automatically, starting the day after the election. That has no precedent in American history and is more than a little unrealistic. Can’t you just come out and say that you don’t agree with the opinions of the lame ducks on the Board regarding the GPU, instead of couching it in some high-and-holy “honorable thing to do” argument? It would be more honest, IMHO. And BTW, this is coming from someone who usually agrees with you.

  22. Smart 5th Grader
    June 13, 2012 at 3:14 pm

    just middle class said: June 13, 2012 at 12:39 pm
    “Thank you for agreening.”


  23. just middle class
    June 13, 2012 at 3:17 pm

    My fingers and my brain are not always on the same page!

  24. tra
    June 13, 2012 at 3:54 pm

    “The problem with your analysis, tra, is that it has no relation to the history of federal, state or local politics in the entire American experience.”

    I’m not sure what you mean, since there’s plenty of history of lame ducks being criticized for the way they tried to get in their “last licks” on the way out the door. Just as one example, I recall that there was a lot of (in my opinion well-justified) angst and anger about some of the executive orders signed by George W. Bush in the waning days of the Bush administration.

    “It’s more reflective of your own opinion, especially your opinion of the General Plan Update, which in one of your first posts on a preceding thread you characterized as “a fiasco.” (go back and check).

    I don’t have to “go back and check,” as I remember well that I — and plenty of others — have labeled the GPU process a “fiasco,” and I’m more than happy to stand by that characterization. Just the Housing Element alone has been a fiasco — or maybe more properly a series of fiascos.

    There was the rejected-time-after-time-after-time-after-embarrassing-time-by-the-state fiasco, the pretending-unbuildable-Shelter-Cove-hillside-lots-are-buildable fiasco, the trying-to-re-zone-numerous-parcels-as-multifamily-against-the-wishes-of-the-owners-of-those-parcels-and-then-having-to-go-back-and-do-the- whole-multifamly-re-zoning-process-all-over-again fiasco, the Housing-For-All-lawsuit fiasco, and on and on.

  25. Anonymous
    June 13, 2012 at 4:26 pm

    tra, now you’re pulling individual elements of the GPU (or at least Housing Element compliance with state mandates) out in isolation to make a case for throwing the whole baby out with the bathwater, or at least to overgeneralize the entire twelve-year process as “a fiasco.” Rather unbecoming for a nuanced thinker like yourself. I think this is where we must conceptually part ways. To most observers of the process that involved 78 separate public meetings over twelve years, it has been remarkably inclusive and collaborative, one resulting (to paraphrase what Ralph Faust said in the paper this morning) “in a plan no individual would present, but one that reflected admirable compromise and group collaboration.”

  26. Dan
    June 13, 2012 at 4:30 pm

    “Just the Housing Element alone has been a fiasco — or maybe more properly a series of fiascos.” Tra

    Tra you have an amazing ability to see only what you want to
    see. Try reading the GPU.

    With 140 miles of coastline tell us about the coastal plans

    ” Bay, estuary, and coastal beach protections can be found in the coastal plans.” GPU

    Appendix E: Coastal Plans.
    There is no there there.

  27. tra
    June 13, 2012 at 5:07 pm

    Well, 4:26, you’re welcome to your opinion, and Faust to his. But the bottom line is that a majority of those who turned out to vote in the 1st and 2nd districts in the recent election actually voted for candidates who were quite critical of the GPU process.

    In the case of the 1st district, Seidner was quite clear that she supported getting the GPU passed ASAP, and then “fixing it” if necessary, later, but she lost in a massive 2:1 landslide.

    In the case of the 2nd district, Clendenen strongly defended the process, saying that it was one of his proudest accomplishments, and saying that moving the GPU forward to completion ASAP was one of his biggest priorities, but (assuming the late-arriving absentee ballots do not skew massively in his favor) he lost, too.

    The lame ducks certainly have the legal authority to ignore all that and go ahead and cast the deciding votes on some version of a GPU on their way out the door if they want to — and it looks like maybe they do want to. In my previous comments I shared my opinon that doing so would be a mistake, both politically, and policy-wise, but they may feel differently — or maybe they just don’t care about the possible political backlash of doing so, and maybe they don’t really care if some of their decisions just get reversed when the new Board comes in and the messy regulatory see-saw situation this may create for the staff who have to administer the new rules, and then the new-new rules.

    I’m actually kind of warming up to the idea that the lame-duck Board might be able to play a constructive role in shaping a potential “compromise” plan — one that gets all the non-controversial stuff out of the way, and puts each of the existing Supervisors — including the lame ducks — on record about their preferences on some of the more controversial stuff.

    But I do think the voters’ choices ought to be respected to the degree that any final decisions should be made by those most recently elected by the voters. Yes, it’s a matter of principle, and not one that’s really all that hard to understand — unless you’re desperate to avoid the obvious, which apparently some folks are.

  28. steak n eggs
    June 13, 2012 at 7:02 pm

    H, your a fool if you think that the voters “…couldn’t care less about the GPU.” Just another example of how the progs are out of touch with the majority (moderates).

    I do hope that the GPU moves forward as planned above, but there are sure to be some stall tactics by the right.

  29. June 13, 2012 at 9:29 pm

    H, your a fool if you think that the voters “…couldn’t care less about the GPU.” Just another example of how the progs are out of touch with the majority (moderates).

    Yes, the majority of voters care so much about the GPU (and whatever else) that they didn’t bother to vote.

  30. Anonymous
    June 14, 2012 at 7:33 am

    When you read the EIR don’t forget to read the studies in the appendix. The appendix are the studies and background information that form the chapters. In this case the information contained in the studies do not match the alternatives. It will be interesting to see if comments catch this fatal flaw and who does because that will tell you if the EIR will be sued. To successfully litigate against an EIR you must perfect your right through comment.

  31. Vegemite and toast
    June 14, 2012 at 8:14 am

    Expedite the government land grab! What are you waiting for!

  32. firesidechet
    June 14, 2012 at 8:33 am

    I don’t think either Cliff or Jimmy will leave on a controversial note.

  33. Anonymous
    June 14, 2012 at 8:52 am

    8:33 – I think you are 100% correct.

  34. Anonymous
    June 14, 2012 at 9:09 am

    tra: good to hear you could support a compromise plan. just to be clear on a few points, though. you cite the proposed “forced” multi-family rezone – Planning Dept staff canned this over a year ago due to the concerns of many – it is now voluntary. you mention the fight to restrict development on TPZ lands – due to much opposition, the Planning Commission put the kibosh on that, and tossed it out of the GPU draft. The contested shelter cove lots were scrapped as well due to public ire. What is included in the draft plan now are increased protections for watersheds, programs supporting trails and community forests, and transportation policies which allow for safer routes to schools and work – all of which were unanimously agreed upon. What the Planning Commission has put forward is indeed a compromise plan that promotes the interests of many, leaving most of the controversy behind. Read it for yourself.

  35. Nudge nudge
    June 14, 2012 at 1:01 pm

    But Tra the Infallible HATES to admit he may have ever been wrong! You’re asking for a lot here. He said it’s a fiasco, that’s his story, and he’s sticking to it!

  36. tra
    June 14, 2012 at 1:54 pm

    Actually,”Nudge nudge,” I’d love to be able to say “in the end, the GPU that actually passed, was NOT a fiasco.”

    We’ll see.

  37. Nudge nudge
    June 14, 2012 at 3:02 pm

    Like I said before, you seldom (if ever) admit you were wrong about something you previously stated, facts notwithstanding.

    If you’re married, I’ll bet your spouse has said the same thing to you. Most folks attribute such intransigence to having a big ego. Or is it just that you’re “always right”?

  38. tra
    June 14, 2012 at 3:14 pm

    Well, I disagree with your premise, “Nudge, nudge.”

    But feel free to offer some examples of where you think I have been wrong about facts, but unwilling to admit it. Be specific.

  39. Nudge nudge
    June 14, 2012 at 3:47 pm

    9:09 above gives a fairly detailed riposte to your characterization that the GPU update has been, in its totality, a fiasco. You have yet to concede that a great deal of the Draft GPU forwarded last week to the Supes reflects Planning Commission compromise and consensus, on issues like trails, watershed protection, transportation, etc. Instead, your comments simply echo those who would throw the baby out with the bathwater and take us back to Plan D (the 1984 plan)which I might add, is legally at odds with much of state law passed since that time. For a thinking guy like you, I consider that irresponsible. IMHO.

  40. tra
    June 14, 2012 at 4:27 pm

    In other words, you don’t have any cases to cite where I’ve been proven wrong on a factual issue, but have been unwilling to admit it.

    Instead, you continue to obsess over the use of the word “fiasco” and then veer off into attacking a Plan D Straw Man.

    Nowhere have I said, or even hinted, that I want the county to go with Plan D. So I think that “echo” you’re hearing is taking place between your own ears.

  41. Anonymous
    June 14, 2012 at 5:22 pm

    I hope I’m wrong, but it seems the “growth at any cost” contingent now has a potential majority on the Board with Jimmy stepping down. The Humboldt Association of Realtors, HELP, and the Homebuilders association are all attacking many of the measures that the Planning Commission unanimously supported that would promote better building practices in impaired watershed and programs for restoration. HELP got their way in relation to building on TPZ. Does it make sense for HELP and their minions to get their way when it comes to watershed protection?

  42. Voter
    June 15, 2012 at 11:36 pm

    How long before Lee Ulansey gets his 5-acre parcels out of his 210 acres on Kneeland that the current Planning Commission rejected as part of the GPU? I’m sure that will be so good for the fish, the SoHum back-to-the-landers should be proud of their new “friends.” It’s a new era of cooperation, yay!

  43. Anonymous
    June 16, 2012 at 10:32 am

    I’m sure tra thinks that is “reasonable”.

  44. Anonymous
    June 16, 2012 at 10:36 am

    tra, your reply @ 4:27 is characteristic of somebody one would call a “douchebag”. Your “reasonable” approach to the comment made by another anonymous is anything but.

  45. Voter
    June 16, 2012 at 11:41 am

    of course! why not form a group that claims to be against subdivision while trying to subdivide your TPZ land into 40 parcels? No wonder Ulansey and Arkley are in cahoots.

    Wait til Arkley gets his 500-acre ranch in Loleta broken up into 40 parcels for McMansions. That’s what the anti-GPU crowd is fighting for, and why they wanted Kirk Girard gone. Imagine the commissions for realtors, the contracts for grading and building! But hey, that is apparently what the First and Second District voters want.

  46. just middle class
    June 16, 2012 at 1:04 pm

    You are making a fundamental error in your statement and conclusion that the 500 acre “ranch” is one 500 acre parcel, which is far from the truth. If you read the NCJ article you cited, it told that this land was aquired with many different purchases over a period of time, which means that it is composed of a number of seperate legal parcels. The process that is described in the article is to determine the status of the various pieces of the aquires parcels and to get certificates of compliance on them. The problem as I remember is that the County would not act on the requests for certificates of compliance, as is required by law.
    Unfortunately many people feel that large landholdings are one big pacel, when they are composed of many smaller legal individual parcels that can be sold at any time legally without a subdivision.
    If you own you home in town it is on a seperate legal parcel and you can sell it at will, just as an owner of a rural parcel may. Remember that these large holdings were accumulated over many generations by purchasing neighboring landholdings to achieve your desired size for that time. Now, if necessary, those individual parcels can be purchased by others.

  47. Anonymous
    June 16, 2012 at 1:20 pm

    Just because different chunks of land were purchased at different times does not mean they were ever legal parcels, especially if those transactions were before the Subdivision Map Act.

  48. just middle class
    June 16, 2012 at 3:59 pm

    You should specify which map act to which you refer. If you are talking about the 1929 act then if parcel was created prior to that and has been sold, etc. then it is a legal parcel. I got a certificate of compliance on a 1895 homestead, which was a legal parcel. If you have an old subdivision prior to 1929 and the parcels have been managed as combined parcels, then you have a problem.
    If we use your argument, then most of the parcels in Eureka and Arcata are not legal parcels, which would be a silly conclusion.
    When you determine the status of a parcel, even if it was created in 1870 and it has remained as the original boundries, then it is a legal parcel and can obtain a certificate of compliance, as is provided by State law. If someone purchases contiguous legal parcels, they remain individual legal parcels and can be sold without a subdivision, because a subdivision creates new legal parcels that are consistant with current law.

  49. Anonymous
    June 16, 2012 at 4:22 pm

    Does anybody else see the consistensies in arguments from “both sides”? Infrastructure construction…populated land ownership on a diminishing coast in the most forested county in california.

    Remove the “developers” from all “sides” of the argument…what remains of mutual importance? Permanent eradication of natural open space, permanent natural resource consumption, permanent financial resource consumption, permanent waste generation, permanent climate change over and within the immediate area surrounding the new infrastructure….the list goes on and on…

  50. just middle class
    June 16, 2012 at 5:16 pm

    A significant percentage of land in Humboldt County is in public ownership: Parks, Forest Service, etc. There will never be permanent eradication of open spaces and it is unacceptable to the vast majority of property owners and residents to consider “depopulating” rural Humboldt County. If I understand your concerns, Anonymous, the only way to achieve what you want is to have Humboldt County go back to the 1700’s, but it was populated at that time also. Please provide what you see as an answer.

  51. Dan
    June 16, 2012 at 10:11 pm

    Anon 4.22
    Land Use policy in Humboldt has been so politicized
    that eventually we will apply for American Society of Flood
    Plain Managers to handle our land-use decisions, our
    planners, Baykeepers, FODs, developers and Supervisors have screwed us completely- setting our coastal programs back 50 years
    The sooner we adopt ASFPM policies the better, the present process is destroying our
    shoreline’s resilience.
    This is what ASFPM looks like in Oregon. Good for them!

  52. Anonymous
    June 18, 2012 at 9:24 am

    “just middle class”, I have provided an answer…create incentive for rejuvinating natural space and/or downgrading dense infrastructure that outweighs landowners’ motives for eradicating the natural space to build infrastructure instead. Sorry I’m not going to write a 100 page dissertation on the subject, but it’s even more sorry that such incentives don’t exist…not even close.

    The significance of increasing Humboldt’s growth rate to a “mere” 2%+ (annually exponential!) is counterproductive to the pattern of dwindling natural and financial resources in Humboldt. How far down the line are they thinking? Not nearly far enough! We need to begin hearing from our representatives about their understanding of when “the future” begins. Growth mandates are just that: arbitrary numbers assigned by the federal government for their exclusive interests.

  53. just middle class
    June 19, 2012 at 6:58 am

    Please tell me what you mean when you say “rejuvinating natural space and downgrading dense infrastructure”. Does that mean tear down houses and remove roads and power?

  54. Fact Checker
    June 20, 2012 at 3:36 pm

    Brooks Wants Grand Jury To Investigate Lovelace For U.N. Conspiracy – Wednesday, June 20, 2012 Daniel Mintz

    Eye Correspondent

    “HUMBOLDT – The county’s General Plan Update has been criticized as the outcome of a global initiative that began in the United Nations and is now being manipulatively carried out in communities across the country.

    That argument has been advanced by Karen Brooks, the challenger in the recent Third District supervisors election and Kay Backer, the representative of the HELP developers group, who wrote a May 10 My Word editorial in the Times-Standard newspaper titled, “Look Out for Hand of the U.N. in County Planning Process.”

  55. Anonymous
    June 20, 2012 at 4:10 pm

    Re: 3:36 Considering the degree to which karen brooks is familiar with propaganda, I’m curious to hear her own words on the public relations techniques of herself and fellow likeminded politicos recently. How can Karen Brooks not see that Virginia Bass lied about her political affiliation to secure her $80k/year job? And likewise with Rex Bohn and others who currently govern our county? Karen is certainly sure of her own intentional flippance. “Everybody does it.

    But it’s a SNAFU of developmental proportions. (that would be a politically appropriate pun, but I don’t know even know what ‘developmental proportions’ would mean).

    Brooks is an intelligent woman, it goes to show everybody’s being duped in their own way by the same motive.

  56. What Now
    June 20, 2012 at 6:25 pm

    “Brooks Wants Grand Jury To Investigate Lovelace For U.N. Conspiracy”
    Apparently the local Developers are recruiting their “pitbulls” from the lockdown facility of the local psych ward.
    Absolutely absurd.
    At least Brooks will be outside the tent pissing in instead of inside the tent pissing out.

  57. Anonymous
    June 20, 2012 at 11:47 pm

    Who is Kay Backer anyway?

  58. Anonymous
    June 21, 2012 at 10:49 am

    “Who is Kay Backer anyway?”

    It’s telling who cares about whom and when regarding nom de plumes.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s