Thursday, November 29, 2007

Compatible Use w/pdf docs

TPZ at county Planning Commission tonight

(NOVEMBER 29, 2007 6:00 p.m.
Board of Supervisors' Chamber County Courthouse, Eureka
There will be a break on or about 7:30 p.m.)

ER Humboldt County staff’s proposed revision of the timberland production zone is the only item on the Planning Commission’s agenda tonight. (agenda)


Humboldt County Deputy County Counsel Carolyn Ruth said she doesn’t expect to make a formal presentation during tonight’s meeting, but one of the issues, she said, for which commissioners might seek her opinion is a recent letter penned by Edgar B. Washburn of San Francisco law firm Morrison & Foerster LLP.

Through some research, The Eureka Reporter discovered Washburn’s firm as of Oct. 11 had served as special litigation and regulatory counsel to Pacific Lumber Co., Scotia Pacific Co. LLC and Salmon Creek LLC as is evidenced on a document that is part of the files for the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi.

The county’s TPZ revisions were sparked by PALCO’s bankruptcy reorganization plan.

It includes a proposed sale of six old-growth redwood groves totaling 6,600 acres for conservation purposes and an adjacent 21,800 acres of second-growth, commercial timberland for developing 136 residential parcels titled “Redwood Ranch Development Project.”

The planning commissioners held a public hearing on Nov. 15 for the purpose of considering staff’s proposed TPZ revisions. It continued the hearing to tonight at 6 p.m. in the Supervisors’ Chamber at the Humboldt County Courthouse in Eureka.

Staff maintains the current TPZ regulations fail to address a state law that a residence be “necessary for the management of land zoned as timberland production.”

Washburn’s letter stated, in his opinion, staff’s interpretation of California Government Code 51104 (h) is incorrect. Further, he stated, staff’s interpretation of No. 6 in that section is wrong.

This section describes what can be considered a compatible use on TPZ land, and it shouldn’t “significantly detract” from harvesting timber. No. 6 of the compatible uses reads “a residence or other structure necessary for the management of land zoned as timberland production.”

Washburn argues the intent of No. 6 was that residences were to be included and with them other structures necessary for management could be considered.

***
TS Commission takes on TPZ again
***
Morrison-Foerster on treatment of residences as compatible use within TPZ land. an 8-pg pdf document
***

21 comments:

  1. any updates?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Watching the planning commission meeting on Ch. 10.

    I missed the staff report but apparently they came in with an entirely new proposal, that no one had seen, so there are significant procedural issues.

    You've got the same old activists struggling to keep their message out there - Greg King, Virginia Graziani, Joyce King (Ken Miller's girlfriend) talking about special interests - that's rich. They seem a little fubared though.

    What's striking is the testimony from all the real people who are very much affected - intelligent, articulate, and awakened.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The meeting is continued - I didn't catch the date, but the commissioners generally agreed that they were not going to finish this up before the Board's Dec. 11 meeting. Presumably that means the Board will wait for them to conclude the process, but the commissioners didn't seem to feel very confident that that was the case. And given the speeding locomotive aspect of this whole fiasco, they may be right.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm gonna have to watch it again, but Bruce Emad said it just right at the end - to thunderous applause.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Just got back from this sham. I've seen speed freaks more honest than planning staff. Add the same old faces wringing their hands in support and the loons on the board of supervisors and you just want to puke. THe good news. Great people standing up to say hell no and Mr Emaud putting the fine point of clarity to a pure pile of shit.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I really admire how you've become so invovled in your community. It's people like you that prevent (or at least mitigate) the misuse of government power.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mark Lovelace11/30/2007 8:29 AM

    Actually, Rose, Emad demonstrated a profound lack of understanding of the process with his comments. The entire General Plan update, including the TPZ policies, will be subject to CEQA review.

    It was appalling to me that he could be this far into it and not understand that basic aspect of the process. Apparently you don't really understand this either.

    ReplyDelete
  8. What everyone understands is that Mark is a paid insurgent. A weak excuse for a human too. Emaud is a class act all the way and it freaks the midget out.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mark is having a hard to because people are awake on this one. He's baffeling anyone with his bullshit on this issue. So what's his handlers real agenda?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Oh horse shit hit Mark. Quit being so damn condescending. I am appalled that you are this far into it and not understanding that basic aspect of the process. Apparently you don't really understand squat or CEQA. Emaud was on point. This was removed from the general plan update process. The general plan process is CEQA review you idiot. It was pulled out because planning’s little delusion was never gonna fly. An ordinance like this as a matter of law is subject to an EIR unless an exception is met. There are no appropriate exceptions to apply here.
    Additionally, had the PC taken action on the new “revised” staff report that was not produced until 5 minutes before the hearing the county would be defending another losing lawsuit.

    Now, if the BOS takes action on the 11th on this staff report irrespective of the FRC and the PC, all hell is going to break loose and rightly so. How much will they set aside to pay a lawyer from the bay area on this loser? Nobody on the county’s pay roll can do it. (Not even the new interim county counsel with three trials only under her belt - what a laugh!)

    And quit trying to spin this as “preferential tax treatment." This is not preferential, it is fairness which is the reason why and the premise for this on the state level when it was passed by the legislature in 1976. It was to create fairness in a system that wasn’t fair.

    So - if I may reshape this for all:

    TPZ - what it is is fairness.
    TPZ - what it is NOT is preferential.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Two things are very apparent. Mark - one is that you have decided that "preferential" taxation will be your soundbite - no matter the facts to the contrary.

    You may get away with it because easy soundbites will be easy for reporters to write a story around, whereas the knowledgeable people who spoke last night don't have the soundbite rap down. And things having to do with money, math, taxes, and the history of TPZ and the complications therein aren't so easy to report.

    Palco's unfortunate use of the word "kingdoms" not withstanding, your class warfare card sells when no one is paying attention - most of the TPZ owners however, are not wealthy princes and princesses, so that issue is being exposed as fallacious. And your, and your group's, lack of understanding of what the hard-working people who do work the land do, survive, and deal with was clearly called out by some of the speakers following you last night.

    In fact, the people who really do know the issue from the inside out are the ones who are speaking out and that cannot be ignored or glossed over.

    The second thing that is readily apparent is that the activist orgs, of which you are a major part, desperately want more regulation because it is the basis for your bread and butter, future contentious litigation and power and control over others.

    Emad was exactly right, this issue has been backwards from the beginning, and it will end up in court and will cost the county money it does not need to waste.

    Still no word from "Humboldt Watershed Council" on "the Vilica Mess?"

    ReplyDelete
  12. Tom sniffing his magic pile of midget mouse poop in his medicine bag and Martha with her Mary Poppins sugar sweet delivery thought they had broken Humpty Dumpty to pieces at last eves planning meeting on TPZ. They were wrong. Charging in on his mighty steed"Truth" Sir Emaud of Everyman put the pieces all together again. Hard to imagine that truth is harder to believe than a fairy tale. Our hats are off and we are bowed to your good grace Sir Emaud.

    ReplyDelete
  13. To cool for school 11:32 Rose keep'em on the ropes.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "What's his handlers real agend" Been giving that lots of thought. Could it be to simply lower the value of TPZ land? If so,why?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Consolidation to a few owners, easier to control. See Wildlands project.

    ReplyDelete
  16. here
    http://www.wildlandsprojectrevealed.org/

    pat higgins touched on this a little bit with his roads/square mile and grizzly bear speech.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Higgins is another embarrassment-to-Salzman waiting to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Plenty embarrassment to go around on this one. Looks like the 5th will never have a real rep like Pat Dorsey again.

    ReplyDelete
  19. So do you find it alarming that Higgins won by such a wide margin Rose?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Packaged and sold like a box of Corn Flakes. Question is, will they like the taste and will they buy again? We'll see how Gallegos does next time.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Not alarming at all. Disappointed in the low turn out. That's the only way a baffon like Higgins could win by any margin.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are open. Play nice.