NCJ - What is a General Plan? Sept. 9, 2004

Planning Commission to choose growth model
County appears to shy away from sprawl
Planning Commission to choose growth model
County appears to shy away from sprawl

AFTER SEVERAL YEARS OF PREPARATION and months of lobbying from environmental and building interests, the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors is preparing to decide the shape of future development in unincorporated areas.

And despite heavy pressure from Humboldt Economic and Land Plan (HELP), a group made up of members of the building community, it appears that the county is moving away from the idea of significantly expanding residential construction into farmland or forests.

The board's upcoming choice among the county planning staff's "sketch plans" -- broad-stroke visions of the county's growth patterns over the coming 20 years -- will be a critical step in the county's general plan update. The choice will determine whether the county will focus on modest growth, largely confined to existing communities, or vast and rapid housing expansion designed for some 60,000 new residents.

At a meeting of the planning commission last Thursday, the county's Community Development Services director unveiled three new sketch plan options, all of which shied away from suburbanization of resource lands to one extent or another. Director Kirk Girard said that the public overwhelmingly endorses the idea that future growth should be accomplished through "infill" -- or denser development within already existing communities -- wherever possible.

"One of the major take-homes from this stage is that the alternatives that were on the table, which allowed for extension of water lines and rural residential subdivisions, were not supported by anybody," Girard said. "That finding was, in part, what led staff to overhaul the sketch plan alternatives."

The three new sketch plans, now called "A," "B," and "C" to distinguish them from their four numerical predecessors, all curtail the amount of development that can be done in rural regions. Plan A would essentially ban all residential building in areas not served by municipal water and sewer lines. It would likely involve "down-zoning" many properties in the outskirts of existing town, restricting existing landowners' rights to subdivide their parcels, while it would increase the allowable density of residences in already existing urban areas.

Sketch plan C meets one of HELP's goals in that it provides enough land to accommodate a growth rate of 2 percent per year -- 18,000 new homes over the next 20 years -- but it would tightly pack that large number of residences into a dense area in and around already existing communities. In short, it wouldn't seem to provide HELP advocates with anything close to the amount of raw land they have been demanding. (Plan B is a mid-point between the two extremes, but like plan A it is based on the state's official estimate of a 0.6 percent per year growth rate in Humboldt County.)

No members of HELP were available to comment on the new sketch plans when they were unveiled. The group's spokesperson, insurance agent Mike Harvey, was attending the Republican National Convention at the time. On Monday, Harvey said that the group would be meeting to discuss the new options over the coming days.

"We're in the process of regrouping a little bit with these things," he said, noting his preliminary approval of the fact that the county took HELP's preferred growth rate into consideration when developing the new sketch plan C. "We asked for a new sketch plan, which I guess they've kind of done."

In recent months, HELP has given public presentations, printed up full-color brochures and launched a Web site to present its message -- that the county needs to foster a friendlier business environment, and that the quickly rising cost of homes in the county can be tempered by opening up additional opportunities for residential development. In addition, the group commissioned a Portland, Ore., firm to conduct a poll of residents' attitudes toward development. The group says that the poll results back up their message.

Despite their apparent success in advocating infill, the Healthy Humboldt Coalition -- an organization comprised of the Humboldt Watershed Council, the local chapter of the Sierra Club and the Northcoast Environmental Center, along with support from allied groups such as the Alliance for Ethical Business -- is carefully watching the remainder of the process.

At last week's meeting of the Planning Commission, Mark Lovelace of the Humboldt Watershed Council expressed concern that the county would consider any expansion outside the boundaries of towns, which Healthy Humboldt believes is the most expensive, as well as the most environmentally unfriendly, option.

"We need to look at the fact that we can accommodate lots more within our existing areas," Lovelace told the commission. "Let's keep looking within our communities."

Healthy Humboldt's apparent success may be in part due to the fact that some groups not traditionally allied with the environmental movement -- the Humboldt County Farm Bureau, for example -- have also championed infill over expansion.

John LeBoyteaux, Farm Bureau vice president, told commissioners that agricultural interests believed in protecting agricultural lands from suburban-style development. He said new growth should be focused in areas that have municipal water and sewage systems available.

"The Farm Bureau has long advocated providing growth focused within and adjacent to existing serviced areas," he said.

Much work will still need to be done to flesh out the complete general plan after the supervisors pick a sketch plan alternative. It will likely take more than a year for county staff to finish the complete plan, develop a zoning ordinance to codify regulations envisioned by the plan and write and circulate and environmental impact report, which is required by law.

The Planning Commission is expected to pick its favorite among the new sketch plans at its regular meeting tonight (Sept. 9). The commission also is likely to make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors on additional "policy options" in the new general plan -- new regulations developed in tandem with the new general plan and designed to promote affordable housing, protect agricultural and timber land, support the Port of Humboldt Bay and address the export of county water, among other things.

The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to hear the Planning Commission's recommendations and take further public comment at a special session Monday night. It may decide on the plan that evening or at a later meeting.

But both HELP and Healthy Humboldt are promising to stick around and follow the general planning process meticulously, even after the winning sketch plan is chosen.

Their mutually antagonistic advocacy may make mincemeat of Planning Commissioner Bruce Emad's hopeful words at the conclusion of last week's meeting.

"What we will come up with, at best, will disturb and make everyone unhappy -- within reason," Emad said. "Everyone will walk away and say `This is not what I want, this is not exactly what I had in mind.' But they won't be disturbed enough to come in here with pitchforks and throw tomatoes at the board."

Upcoming general plan hearings
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Thursday, Sept. 9, 2004, 6 p.m.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING
Monday, Sept. 13, 2004, 6 p.m.
Both meetings will take place in the Supervisors' Chambers of the Humboldt County Courthouse, 825 5th St., Eureka.

What is a general plan?

One of the most important powers of cities and counties in California is broad control over land use within their jurisdictions. A general plan, often called a "constitution for development," is a state-mandated document, rewritten approximately every 20 years, in which local governments lay out their visions for their communities' future.

Humboldt County's general plan, which was last updated in 1984, covers all the land under county jurisdiction -- in other words, outside the limits of the county's seven incorporated cities, each of which has its own general plan. A little over half the county's population lives outside the cities, including residents of McKinleyville, Cutten, Willow Creek, Westhaven, Orick and Garberville/Redway.

General plans must address many issues in determining how to meet future needs of residents, including transportation, public safety, open space and even noise levels. Each of these topics, along with others that governments may wish to address, is covered by a separate chapter (or "element") in the plan.

The most important elements of a general plan, though -- the ones that set the pace for all other issues -- deal with land use and housing. The land use element of Humboldt County's plan defines what sorts of activities will be permitted on each parcel of land in the county's jurisdiction. Any piece of land may be designated for housing, industry, timber production or agriculture, for example, and owners of that parcel are subject to restrictions on what sort of development they may undertake on their properties. The land use element of the general plan is implemented through the county's zoning ordinance, which spells out those restrictions in detail.

The housing element of the general plan is subject to greater oversight by the state government than other elements of the plan and must be rewritten at least every five years. Local jurisdictions must demonstrate to the state government that they are adequately prepared for population growth.

If this test is not met, the state may reject a jurisdiction's housing element and send it back to the drawing board. The land use element of the general plan must set aside enough land for construction to meet the needs projected in the housing element. Humboldt County's last housing element update was passed in December of last year.

by HANK SIMS
© Copyright 2004, North Coast Journal, Inc.

The TPZ disconnect

The TPZ disconnect
J Warren Hockaday Executive Director, Eureka Chamber of Commerce

Years ago at a bargaining table far away, a negotiator on the other side was caught in a lie. It was a whopper. It was no matter of interpretation or poor recollection. It was documented. There was no way around it. It was a plain, unvarnished lie. It only takes one such dented piece of integrity to irreparably compromise personal and organizational credibility.

In the feeble attempt to salvage an unsalvageable situation, he squared himself up and proclaimed, “But, I lied in good faith.”
Once the laughter subsided, his side called a caucus. When the talks resumed, our good faith liar was not among those who returned.

In disputes, discussions and negotiations it is hardly ever that clear cut. In the effort to resolve a disagreement or argue a case, it only takes only the perception of dishonesty or creative truth-telling, to irrevocably hobble credibility. That's when the dialogue ends and the debate usually devolves to motives and personalities.

And that is where we find ourselves today. The recent, cantankerous debate over residential development in Timberland Production Zones or the now infamous TPZ has taken on a life of its own. It has grown to become a political and ideological chasm of monumental proportions. In a move to prove a point, County Supervisors imposed a short-lived moratorium stopping building permits on privately owned timberlands.

The response became a firestorm of angst. Property and home owners, business people, generational landholders, developers, builders, realtors, farmers, ranchers, back-country entrepreneurs, off the grid individualists and cash crop agriculturalists, rose up against this assault on private property rights. As a result, the moratorium was rescinded. But the damage had been done.

The TPZ debacle was and still is a natural extension of a gathering disconnect between business interests of all kinds and policy-makers, in a sometimes real and sometimes perceived class conflict. But, the point is that the Rubicon has been crossed. There really is no going back from here. The upshot is that a whole lot of people have become engaged in land use, zoning, planning and the overarching conundrum of growth, smart growth, or no growth policies. TPZ became the boulder that broke the camel's back. It is the tipping point that exposed a longstanding culture of distrust.

The fundamental question has become 'Just who works for whom?

In ordinary times, a hearing on planning issues is hardly more interesting than watching paint dry. The government-speak of allowable densities, infrastructure enhancements, deliberative dialogues, stakeholder input, tax increment financing, negative declarations and inclusionary zoning was once incomprehensible to all but the initiated few. No more. Today's discussions on such arcane elements have far-reaching implications for the future prosperity of our community. That notion is no longer lost on the rank and file of property owners and businesses. The people who have paid the price, taken the risks and have assumed ever more burdensome regulatory loads, have been awakened. They are paying close attention now and the Disconnect is plain to see.

This crisis of confidence puts any pathway to resolution on a certain collision course in a divisive conflict between private property rights and public policy-making. The opportunity for balance is diminished and in the end, becomes a contest.

What this business comes down to is a fundamental conflict of will, vision and ideology. In a culture of distrust, it becomes a profound Disconnect between the community and those whom we trust to manage the affairs that we cannot or choose not to manage for ourselves.

Blame will be assigned to someone or the someones. Some are spinning the truth, some are pushing an agenda and some are struggling with trying to do the right thing. But the paradigm has shifted over this TPZ, land use action and reaction. It was a defining moment. In the end somebody will have to be right and somebody will have to be wrong. To repair the Disconnect and restore trust will require uncommon leadership. It will necessarily involve difficult and painful decisions.

Something important here has failed. When we see ourselves as victims of a process and that the Disconnect is a product of failure, it just does not matter anymore who is right and who is wrong or which side 'wins'.

The solution, if there is a solution, begins with the reality that even if the failure comes in good faith, it is a failure nonetheless.

Times-Standard
Article Launched: 03/30/2008 01:37:48 AM PDT

ER - Candidate seeks balance between growth, quality of life

Terrible interview, given all the controversy and the questions that should be asked of Mark Lovelace. This is a typical puff piece interview, that you can expect to see of all the candidates. No tough questions, no examination of the issues, no challenges. A big disappointment.

Candidate seeks balance between growth, quality of life

By CERENA JOHNSON, The Eureka Reporter
Published: Mar 25 2008, 10:46 PM

Third District Supervisor candidate Mark Lovelace said he is focused on balancing a need for economic development and growth with quality of life.

Lovelace, who has lived in the area for 20 years, is president of the Humboldt Watershed Council and is involved with the Healthy Humboldt Coalition, a cooperative effort through the council geared at protecting the environment and strengthening the local economy through the Humboldt County General Plan.

Lovelace has also served with various community organizations, including Citizens for Real Economic Growth, and established a consulting business working with small manufacturers, and has worked on property issues, affordable housing, alternative transportation and land use issues.

Lovelace also notes work in 2000 on the Sunny Brae forest project, through which 175 acres were added to the city of Arcata’s community forest management plan.

Lovelace said his public and private sector involvement will help him to recognize the connection between all of the different projects facing the county.

In confronting challenges that lie ahead, Lovelace said a dialogue about the future of Humboldt County and what it should look like is necessary.

“People live here for the quality of life,” he said, including scenic beauty and a natural environment. “We need to build upon that.”

Lovelace said in focusing on economic development, it is important to look at growing businesses locally that are also able to compete outside of the community, providing good paying jobs and utilizing local talent.

“There are some amazing young people coming out of this area,” he said.

He described the third district as a “magnet” for innovative businesses.

Having worked in manufacturing and being Web based, Lovelace also stressed the area’s need for infrastructure.

“As supervisor, I would want to work with those kinds of businesses and see that they have the tools they need,” he said.

The Third District stretches from Arcata and Manila to Freshwater and Kneeland.

Lovelace is running against Arcata City Councilmember Paul Pitino and Bryan Plumley, a financial adviser.

A new face for the 3rd District

A new face for the 3rd District

Jessie Faulkner Staff Writer
Article Launched: 03/12/2008 01:25:56 AM PDT

The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors race is on, with three of the five seats up for election, starting with the June primary.
The top vote-getters in races with more than two candidates will vie for the seats in November unless one hopeful receives more than 50 percent of the vote.
With 3rd District Supervisor John Woolley's recent announcement that he will not be seeking another term, the field is wide open -- and it remains so. Potential representatives have until the close of business today to file.
So far, three candidates are running: Humboldt Watershed Council President Mark Lovelace, Arcata City Councilman Paul Pitino and Environmental Systems Engineer Mike Wilson.
Second District incumbent Roger Rodoni faces former KMUD news director Estelle Fennell and Clendenen's Cider Works owner Clif Clendenen while 1st District Supervisor Jimmy Smith faces Ferndale dairyman John Vevoda.
This is the third story in a three-part series. Today's focus is on the 3rd District.
Mark Lovelace
Mark Lovelace said he debated whether he would be more effective at the podium or at the dais before deciding to run for the 3rd District supervisor.
After moving to the area in 1989, Lovelace said his activism began with an effort to establish the Sunny Brae Forest in 2000 -- an undertaking that resulted in adding 175 acres to the Arcata Community Forest -- and meant more than 2,000 hours of volunteer time.
The Humboldt Watershed
Advertisement

Council was next and has been his employer from 2003 to present. Most recently, he has focused on Healthy Humboldt -- a project of the watershed council that has brought together a coalition of agencies to advocate for the protection of working land and open space in the county's ongoing general plan update.
Citing his professional accomplishments, Lovelace points to his efforts with the Sunny Brae forest. His mother, he said, is particularly proud of his selection as the Arcata Eye's 2002 Citizen of the Year.
Lovelace suggested an alternative approach to the much-needed economic development on the North Coast.
”We're approaching economic development as if our only strategy is a 'Hail Mary' pass,” he said. “We tend to focus on the idea that we need a large employer bringing in 300 jobs.”
Instead, the area is rich in small businesses doing great things. A preferable approach is to encourage establishment of those smaller enterprises, Lovelace said.
Lovelace also stressed the importance of looking at the whole picture -- instead of compartmentalizing issues.
As to skills, other than his interest and attention to the county issues, is a calmness and clarity in how he works.
”I really don't like making any kind of decision if I don't have my knowledge base,” Lovelace said.
That knowledge base, he said, comes not only from a dedication to doing his homework to listening to many constituents.
The truth is usually not at the extremes, Lovelace said, it's likely to be in the middle. The key is to the ability to be patient and discuss issues, particularly the divisive ones.
The biggest issue facing the 3rd District and all of Humboldt County, Lovelace said, is determining what we want the area to look like.
”We've done a good job on what we don't want,” Lovelace said. “We need to be equally clear on what we do want to see.”
With the 10 fastest growing counties in the state being rural counties -- not unlike Humboldt County -- there's the possibility of being overwhelmed, he said. The solution is being proactive.
Lovelace, a resident of Sunny Brae, has been married to Valorie for 15 years. They have a 14-year-old daughter, Abbey.
Paul Pitino
Arcata City Councilman Paul Pitino, an Arcata resident since 1993 and the father of three grown sons, has held a number of careers over the years from teaching children Spanish to designing control centers for high-rise buildings.
He's also made money as a millwright, factory worker, deli worker and currently works as a landscaper. His interest in politics may have started as a small child when he helped his father, the president of the postal union, hand out fliers.
As an adult, Pitino sampled the political waters while living in Ukiah and was a member of the city of Ukiah's solar access committee. He also worked on Dan Hamburg's anti-recall committee, when opponents tried to oust the former Mendocino County supervisor. Later on, after moving to the North Coast, Pitino was one of four people spearheading opposition to a 900-unit subdivision in the Arcata Bottom. He worked on another council candidate's campaign followed by his own successful effort to join elected body in 2004.
One of the accomplishments as a council member, he said, is bringing a balance to Arcata City Council in the form of a working class, lower-income perspective.
Pitino also said he tends to be a personable, approachable person with a good rapport with others of all economic classes from the homeless to business owners.
The candidate is opposed to campaign advertisements and endorsements. He is, however, spending a fair amount of time knocking on doors and talking with district residents.
Winning is a byproduct, what's really, really important is how you run the campaign, he said.
If that effort is successful, Pitino said one of his goals is to work to make the county a kinder, friendlier place -- in part by modeling such behavior whether it's opening doors for others, saying “hi” or picking up trash.
He's also adamant about improving public bus service -- specifically offering such service on Sundays. Doing that and improving the service overall, Pitino said, would be a shot in the arm for those at the bottom of the economic pyramid and, by association, everyone. It's an area in which Pitino said he has developed some familiarity with as the city of Arcata's representative to the Humboldt Transit Authority board of directors.
The ongoing issue of homelessness remains a challenge for the 3rd District, he said. Pitino said he's been studying how Portland, Ore. and Ukiah work with their homeless populations.
”If we can make life a little less of a hassle for the economic bottom part of society, it's good for everybody,” he said.
Mike Wilson
A native of southern Humboldt County, Mike Wilson has been a resident of Arcata since 1984 with a temporary move to San Francisco a few years later to finish his bachelor's degree in engineering at San Francisco State University. Following graduation, he worked for Bay Area-based international engineering firms before moving back to the North Coast to earn his master's degree in environmental systems engineering from Humboldt State University. That led to establishment of Wilson and his wife Laura's business, Humboldt Water Resources, an engineering consulting firm based in Arcata. Among their projects was United Indian Health Service's Potawot Village. Wilson also works part-time managing marketing for Carlson Wireless.
In the political realm, he's represented the 3rd District on the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District for slightly more than two years.
Wilson is currently the vice president of the Friends of the Dunes board of directors and serves on the building committee for the organization's new nature center.
”I'm very excited about that,” he said.
As the 3rd District supervisor, Wilson said he would bring a fresh perspective -- adopting a practical approach to government. Part of that approach is bringing Humboldt County into the 21st Century in terms of infrastructure and, in particular, Internet redundancy. For the short term, he said, the preference is a microwave link while working to establish a second fiber optic link.
Wilson said he also wants to focus on connecting the area's existing skilled workforce to available employment. Humboldt State University is working in that direction, he said, and the county should support that effort.
As a parent of two young daughters, 1 and 7, Wilson said he is intimately aware of the importance of services to support families whether it's childcare or health insurance. The Board of Supervisors, he said, is responsible for making sure county programs and workers have the tools needed to deliver services.
Improving public transportation, focusing on affordable housing and getting the county general plan update done are all priorities, Wilson said. He also said it's important for the county to look into wind and wave energy opportunities as well as expanding solar programs.
Wilson said he was prompted to run for the 3rd District seat, in part, because of a positive experience as a representative on the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District. He said he's looking forward to putting his public service skill set and his professional skills to work for the district. He also noted his abilities as a problem-solver, and an understanding of small business concerns.
”With some fresh ideas and perspectives, there's a lot that can be moved forward,” he said.
Wilson said advocates for the establishing a regional trail system -- a benefit not only for current North Coast residents, but a powerful lure for those considering moving to the area.
”I believe the 3rd District can be the backbone of that system,” he said, with trails to Eureka, Blue Lake and out to the beach.
”It's going to take strong county support to make that happen,” Wilson said.
But, he said that won't be the limit of his efforts: Daycare needs, affordable housing, the general plan, the impacts of development in Arcata's sphere of influence will all get his attention if he's elected.
At a glance: The 3rd District: The 3rd District includes Arcata and Manila but also stretches inland to the Kneeland area and south -- roughly to a line running east from Fortuna.
Jessie Faulkner can be reached at 441-0517 or jfaulkner@times-standard.com.

HHC to Planning

Page 1
The Healthy Humboldt Coalition
P.O. Box 1301,
Eureka CA 95502
707.822.1166
www.healthyhumboldt.org
mail@healthyhumboldt.org

May 10, 2007

Planning Commission
Community Development Department
3015 H Street
Eureka, CA 95503

Re:Chapter Group 4 PoliciesEconomic Development

Dear Commissioners and Staff,

We are writing to provide comments and specific recommendations regarding the recently releaseddraft policies for the Economic Development Element for the General Plan Update. While we aregenerally supportive of the direction established by the staff’s document, we do have some specificconcerns which we believe must be addressed to ensure the document’s consistency with otherelements and with the General Plan’s Guiding Principles, and to ensure the adequacy of theforthcoming EIR.The document lists draft policies for Alternative B, with occasional alternate policies for AlternativesA and C. There are a number of policies which are listed for Alternatives B and C which areexcluded for Alternative A. We understand that the purpose of this is to assure that eachalternative brings with it its own suite of policies. However, most of the omissions for Alternative Aappear to be arbitrary, and are inconsistent with the Guiding Principles for that alternative.The Staff’s document reads:“Plan Alternative A includes many of the components of Alternative B, but as anenvironmentally superior alternative, some wording and policy choices are presented thatare less robust toward economic development initiatives, particularly those that might behigh impact or growth inducing, such as road, rail, and airport expansions. Alternative Adoes not accommodate big box in the unincorporated area.”Staff’s presumption that a ‘robust’ economic development policy is somehow at odds with an‘environmentally superior’ General Plan is misleading and completely unsupported by any facts ordata. More to the point, this assertion is completely contradictory to the narrative in the staff’s owndocument.The policy document identifies nine base industry clusters, none of which are in any way at oddswith the focused-growth approach of Alternative A. In truth many, if not all, of these industrieswould likely benefit from the increased protections for resource lands, scenic beauty and quality oflife presented in Alternative A, making it quite likely the best and most robust alternative foreconomic development. Our comments in this letter are primarily an attempt to remedy thatinconsistency, so as to ensure that the policies ascribed to each alternative are consistent with thatalternative’s goals.There are numerous policy choices which are omitted from A for no apparent reason. Some ofthese omissions create the false impression that something in the nature of Alternative A wouldsomehow be at odds with the desire to create a strong and stable economy. We have providedour own recommendations below and in the attached table.
Page 2
The Healthy Humboldt CoalitionThe Healthy Humboldt CoalitionThe Healthy Humboldt CoalitionThe Healthy Humboldt Coalition The Healthy Humboldt CoalitionThe Healthy Humboldt CoalitionThe Healthy Humboldt CoalitionThe Healthy Humboldt Coalition P.O. Box 1301, Eureka CA 95502 707.822.1166www.healthyhumboldt.org mail@healthyhumboldt.org The version of policy ED-G1 which is listed for Alternatives B and C reads:ED-G1. Stable Economy. To enhance and maintain a diverse, stable, and growing localeconomy with an emphasis on base and emerging industries, innovation,entrepreneurship, and global competition.The version listed for Alternative A reads:ED-G1. Stable Economy. To maintain a diverse, stable local economy with an emphasison strengthening existing local industries.Again, this gives the false and unsupported impression that Alternative A would not fostereconomic growth, and would not support emerging industries, innovation, entrepreneurship orglobal competition. The reasoning for this is not given. We ask that staff reference the recent“Targets of Opportunity” report, which clearly shows the high premium placed on open space,environment, and quality of life by those business which are thriving locally. An accurate goal forAlternative A should include all of the goals listed in ED-G1, plus the reference to “strengtheningexisting local industries.”It is equally inconsistent to include Alternative C in policy goal ED-G1. As a ‘free-market’ approachto our future, the County should not be making any judgements about what kind of economicgrowth it will be supporting, and should allow the County’s economic fortunes to rise or fall uponthe whims of the market. There should be no presumption that a less-controlled market will be agood thing for us in Humboldt County.Goal ED-G4 is also improperly omitted from Alternative A, and equally improperly listed forAlternative C. If government is to ‘get out of the way’ of industry, then it should be making nopresumption as to the type of workers that will be needed by industry in the future, nor should ithave any obligation to provide for those industries.ED-G5 falsely assumes that clarity and specificity regarding land use is somehow at odds withtimely and efficient processing of permits. If anything, such clarity should make permittingsmoother. On the other hand, the lack of specificity in Alternative C should be assumed to be arecipe for permitting gridlock when it comes to implementation. G5 should apply to A, and not C.Alternative A should also be assumed to have the most efficient and best planned infrastructure fortransportation and wastewater, where C will be unplanned and inefficient. Thus, G6 should alsoapply to A and not C.We have provided these corrections in the attached table, shown in markup.Sincerely,Mark LovelaceHealthy Humboldt Coalition
Page 3
The Healthy Humboldt CoalitionThe Healthy Humboldt CoalitionThe Healthy Humboldt CoalitionThe Healthy Humboldt Coalition The Healthy Humboldt CoalitionThe Healthy Humboldt CoalitionThe Healthy Humboldt CoalitionThe Healthy Humboldt Coalition P.O. Box 1301, Eureka CA 95502 707.822.1166www.healthyhumboldt.org mail@healthyhumboldt.org Table 11-1. Plan Alternatives Comparison Chart PlanAlternativeGoalsStaff Remarks Vote:R,D,M B CED-G1. Stable Economy. To enhance and maintaina diverse, stable, and growing local economy with anemphasis on base and emerging industries, innovation,entrepreneurship, and global competition.See alternativewording belowAED-G1. Stable Economy. To enhance and maintain a diverse, stable, and growing local economy with anemphasis on base and emerging industries, innovation,entrepreneurship, global competition maintain adiverse, stable local economy with an emphasis on and strengthening existing local industries.Plan A alternativewording CED-G1. Que Sera Sera. Whatever happens happens,and we will live with it. A B CED-G2. Broadband Internet. To establish a reliablebroadband internet infrastructure that distributes achoice of economically accessible broadband servicesinto our most rural communities, and is not vulnerableto disruption. Integrate broadband service capabilityinto new buildings and developments. Providebroadband access in remote or rural communities.A BED-G3. Quality of Life. To attract and retain youngtalent by developing vibrant town centers thatincorporate a mix of employment, housing, and retailuses as well as access to child care, transportation, andcultural and natural amenities. A B C ED-G4. Skilled and Ready Workforce. To foster alocal workforce that is prepared to succeed in theindustries growing in Humboldt County, which valuesearly education, vocational training, and lifelonglearning. A B C ED-G5. Streamlining. To implement permitting andlicensing processes that are more responsive to theneeds and timelines of the marketplace, particularly formicroenterprises and home-based businesses. A B C ED-G6. Transportation Networks. To havetransportation facilities that allow freight mobility alongthe interstate highway system and provide connectivitybetween residential neighborhoods and employmentcenters.
Page 4
The Healthy Humboldt CoalitionThe Healthy Humboldt CoalitionThe Healthy Humboldt CoalitionThe Healthy Humboldt Coalition The Healthy Humboldt CoalitionThe Healthy Humboldt CoalitionThe Healthy Humboldt CoalitionThe Healthy Humboldt Coalition P.O. Box 1301, Eureka CA 95502 707.822.1166www.healthyhumboldt.org mail@healthyhumboldt.org Table 11-1. Plan Alternatives Comparison Chart A BED-G7. Public Water and Wastewater. To haveand maintain adequate public water and wastewaterfacilities to accommodate workforce housing andprovide opportunities for businesses to grow.A BED-G.8 Natural Resource Assets. To protectproductive agricultural, mineral resource, timber, andcoastal dependent lands.A BED-G9. Brownfields. To clean up and reusebrownfield sites.A BED-G10.Cooperation and Collaboration. To buildand maintain partnerships with cities, neighboringcounties, and the private sector that build and enhancecommon assets and resolve common obstacles.A BED-G11. Economic Development AssistancePrograms. To administer and support financial andtechnical assistance programs that support workers,businesses, and service providers.A BED- G12. Informed Public. To educate Countyresidents of economic trends, emerging markets,innovations and opportunities for entrepreneurshipthat benefit the region’s economic prosperity. C ED-G12. Public kept in the Dark. The public shallhave neither a role nor a voice in our economy. PlanAlternativeDevelopment PoliciesStaff Remarks Vote:R,D,M A BED-P1. Prime Employment Land Protection.Identify and protect prime employment lands fromconversion and encroachment of conflicting uses.B CED-P2. Airport Expansion. Support expansion ofthe airport to include service to major airport hubs andexpanded flight schedules.A BED-P3. Broadband Internet. Promote the provisionof broadband infrastructure in all communities.A BED-P4. Workforce Housing. Promote thedevelopment of workforce housing and mixed-usehousing around multi-modal transportation options.A BED-P5. Child Care. Promote the provision of childcare facilities within business, commercial andindustrial centers and housing developments.
Page 5
The Healthy Humboldt CoalitionThe Healthy Humboldt CoalitionThe Healthy Humboldt CoalitionThe Healthy Humboldt Coalition The Healthy Humboldt CoalitionThe Healthy Humboldt CoalitionThe Healthy Humboldt CoalitionThe Healthy Humboldt Coalition P.O. Box 1301, Eureka CA 95502 707.822.1166www.healthyhumboldt.org mail@healthyhumboldt.org Table 11-1. Plan Alternatives Comparison Chart A BED-P6. Revitalization. Promote the revitalization ofunderutilized lands in communities in transition due tothe decline of resource-based industries.A BED-P7. Brownfields. Consider land use designationsfor brownfields to encourage cleanup and reuse.A BED-P8. Commercial and Industrial SitesDatabase. Maintain a commercial and industrial sitesdatabase and continue to improve accessibility toonline information on commercial and industrialproperty.AED-P9. Commercial Retail. Large format “big box”commercial uses shall not be located in theunincorporated area to avoid sprawl.Plan A alternativewordingBED-P9. Commercial Retail. Include standards fordiscretionary review of large format “big box”commercial uses to reduce their land use impact.Plan B alternativewordingCED-P9. Commercial Retail. Include standards fordiscretionary review of large format “big box”commercial uses.Plan C alternativewordingBED-P10. Industrial Parks. Where appropriate,promote development of well planned and designedindustrial parks catering to existing local, as well asoutside opportunities. Encourage masterenvironmental assessments for industrial parks in orderto streamline the subsequent development process.From FrameworkPlan AED-P10. Industrial Parks. Where appropriate,promote development of well planned and designedmultiple-use centers which include industrial,commercial, and residential development within acohesive, walkable area. PlanAlternativeInvestment PoliciesStaff Remarks Vote:R,D,M A BED-P11. Financial Resources. Acquire anddistribute financial resources for workforce training,economic research, infrastructure, and businessdevelopment.B CED-P12. Freight Mobility. Pursue financial andtechnical solutions to provide reliable interstate truckaccess on both U.S. 101 and State Highway 299.
Page 6
The Healthy Humboldt CoalitionThe Healthy Humboldt CoalitionThe Healthy Humboldt CoalitionThe Healthy Humboldt Coalition The Healthy Humboldt CoalitionThe Healthy Humboldt CoalitionThe Healthy Humboldt CoalitionThe Healthy Humboldt Coalition P.O. Box 1301, Eureka CA 95502 707.822.1166www.healthyhumboldt.org mail@healthyhumboldt.org Table 11-1. Plan Alternatives Comparison Chart B CED-P13. Broadband Internet. Support thedevelopment and management of a redundant fiberoptic line that connects to the fiber backbone runningalong the U.S. 5 corridor. Support the expansion anddelivery of broadband Internet in the rural or remotecommunities in the county through all appropriatetechnologies.See alternativewording belowAED-P13. Broadband Internet. Support the expansionand delivery of broadband Internet in the rural orremote communities in the county through allappropriate technologies.Plan A alternativewordingA BED-P14. Workforce Housing. Encourage productionof housing at a price commensurate with income levels,and a transportation system to provide efficientconnectivity between housing and places ofemployment to maintain satisfactory commute traveltimes and distances.A BED-P15. Public Infrastructure. Pursue anddistribute funding and technical assistance to upgradeand enhance the water and wastewater facilities ofcommunities.A BED-P16. Brownfields. Pursue and distribute fundingand technical assistance to assess, clean up, and reusebrownfields.PlanAlternativePartnership PoliciesStaff Remarks Vote:R,D,M A BED-P17. Job Growth. Collaborate with economicdevelopment entities in the region to promote jobgrowth, technical innovations, and entrepreneurship inbase and emerging industries.A BED-P18. Workforce. Work with the education andprivate sectors to promote education, vocationaltraining, professional development, and lifelonglearning.A BED-P19. Cities and Counties. Collaborate withcities and neighboring counties to identify andimplement regional economic initiatives that benefitbase and emerging industries.A BED-P20. Child Care. Foster private/publicpartnerships with child care service and informationproviders.
Page 7
The Healthy Humboldt CoalitionThe Healthy Humboldt CoalitionThe Healthy Humboldt CoalitionThe Healthy Humboldt Coalition The Healthy Humboldt CoalitionThe Healthy Humboldt CoalitionThe Healthy Humboldt CoalitionThe Healthy Humboldt Coalition P.O. Box 1301, Eureka CA 95502 707.822.1166www.healthyhumboldt.org mail@healthyhumboldt.org Table 11-1. Plan Alternatives Comparison Chart PlanAlternativeImplementation MeasuresStaff Remarks Vote:R,D,M A BED-IM1. Ordinances. Update ordinances related toeconomic development for consistency with the uses ofbase and emerging industries.A BED-IM2. Commercial and Industrial SitesDatabase Mapping. Update the Commercial andIndustrial Sites Database on a two-year cycle andprovide online maps of vacant industrial andcommercial properties using the County’s GeographicInformation System.A BED-IM3. Broadband Deployment. Revisesubdivision regulations to provide infrastructure forbroadband internet.A BED-IM4. Programs. Support technical and financialassistance programs, including delivering capital,technical expertise, and training to businesses startingup and expanding.B CED-IM5. Streamlining. Provide regular review andimprovement of ordinances and permit processes toincrease efficiency and reduce permit processing timesfor strategic targets such as, but not limited to,microenterprises, home based-businesses, andworkforce housing.A BED-IM6. Child Care. Investigate and supportfinancing tools that leverage public and private fundingto increase the establishment, rehabilitation, expansion,and viability of child care facilities.A BED-IM7. Informed Public. Conduct and publiceconomic research relating to emerging markets,innovations, and opportunities in which the region mayhave competitive advantages.PlanAlternativeExisting Framework PlanStaff Remarks Vote:R,D,M D 1. Promote economic development by coordination ofefforts with both local economic developmentorganizations and members of the private sector.Replaced by P16,P17. P18 and P19
Page 8
The Healthy Humboldt CoalitionThe Healthy Humboldt CoalitionThe Healthy Humboldt CoalitionThe Healthy Humboldt Coalition The Healthy Humboldt CoalitionThe Healthy Humboldt CoalitionThe Healthy Humboldt CoalitionThe Healthy Humboldt Coalition P.O. Box 1301, Eureka CA 95502 707.822.1166www.healthyhumboldt.org mail@healthyhumboldt.org Table 11-1. Plan Alternatives Comparison Chart D 2. Encourage a diverse range of commercial andindustrial development consistent with communitygoals and the level of services provided in each of thecities and communities.Replaced by G1, P1and P9D 3. Continue to provide for, through General Planamendments and zoning revisions as needed, anadequate supply of commercial and industrial land tomaximize opportunities for development.Replaced by P1, P7,P9, IM1, and IM2D 4. Prevent the loss of designated industrial lands toother uses requiring permanent facilities.Replaced by P1D 5. Ensure that industrial or commercial developmentwhich requires provision for public water, sewagedisposal, roads and other needed utilities and services isplaced in a suitable urbanized area.Replaced by P14D 6. Allow Resource Dependent Industrial uses outsideof urban areas when such uses are:• dependent upon close proximity to resourceproduction lands, and• not dependent on urban services.D 7. Where appropriate, promote development of wellplanned and designed industrial parks catering toexisting local, as well as outside opportunities.Encourage master environmental assessments forindustrial parks in order to streamline the subsequentdevelopment process.Included as P10D 8. Locate commercial development in appropriatecommunity centers that will assist and supplementexisting commercial activity.Replaced by P9D 9. Discourage strip commercial development, whereappropriate.D 10. Encourage the economic opportunities forproduction facilities that efficiently utilize all productsand by-products of forestry, fishery, or agriculturaluses.D 11. Maximize local energy opportunities from therenewable resources found in the County.D 12. Encourage innovative methods for pollutionreduction and waste product disposal and utilization.

The Healthy Humboldt Coalition

To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:kISPSGZnK5oJ:co.humboldt.ca.us/planning/gp/PrelimHearingDraft/GeneralComments/1-22-07HealthyHumboldt.pdf+Mark+Lovelace,+Healthy+Humboldt&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us&client=safari

Page 1
The Healthy Humboldt Coalition
P.O. Box 1301,
Eureka CA 95502
707.822.1166
www.healthyhumboldt.org
mail@healthyhumboldt.org
January 22, 2007

All County Supervisors
825 5th Street
Eureka, CA 95502
Re: Request for 60-day review period for General Plan Update documents

Dear Supervisors and Staff,I am writing to request that your Community Development staff provide a 60-day public review period forthe draft chapters of the General Plan, EIR, and ordinances, rather than the 30-day period currently beingprovided.

We believe that this extended review period will provide greater opportunity for public input, willimprove the quality of that input, and will ultimately result in greater public understanding of, andconfidence in, the final General Plan.The December 5 th , 2005 General Plan Update: Status Report and Proposed Work Plan states:The Department will publish hearing drafts of the Plan, EIR and ordinances at least thirtydays prior to Planning Commission and Board review. Updated versions, revised throughpublic hearings, will be published at least ten days prior to Planning Commission andBoard review, unless your Board or the Planning Commission modifies the public reviewtime period.From the December 5 th , 2005 Schedule for the General Plan Update it appears that the revised drafts willtypically be made available at the same time that the initial draft documents for the next group are beingreleased. Similarly, there will likely be some overlap between the hearings on the initial draft documentsfor a given group and the hearings on the revised drafts for the prior group. Both staff and the public willthus have to juggle initial and revised draft documents for two different groups within an overlapping 30-day window. This is simply not enough time for the public’s input to be meaningful, and will likely lead toincreased confusion and decreased confidence in both the process and the product.These grouped chapters for the General Plan are likely to be lengthy and complex, and will requiresignificant time for public review. For organizations such as Healthy Humboldt, we will need time toreview and discuss these documents before we can provide informed and meaningful input in the way ofsuggestions or recommendations. Additionally, time will be needed for us to gather input from oursupporters and from the broader community. We believe that a 60-day review period for the initial draftdocuments will improve the public’s understanding of these documents, provide greater opportunity formeaningful input, and increase the public’s confidence in the resulting General Plan.We are aware that initial hearings on the first two Chapter Groups are already being scheduled, and thatthis 60-day review period simply could not be accommodated for these groups without creating asignificant delay. Due to this, we believe that it would be prudent and reasonable to accept the 30-dayreview period for these first two groups and move towards the 60-day review period beginning with Group3 or, if that cannot be accommodated, Group 4.We thank you for considering these comments.

Sincerely,Mark LovelaceHealthy Humboldt Coalition

It is interesting to read this now - knowing now that Mark Lovelace was being paid to be Healthy Humboldt, though he only lists his usual title, the "president" of "Humboldt Watershed Council." Now he has stated that "Healthy Humboldt" is a "project of "Humboldt Watershed Council." And that the $125,000 grant that paid his salary to attend meetings, and lobby extensively for changes to the General Plan Update came from the Resources Defense Fun Foundation. The grant, however was paid to Humboldt Watershed Council, a 501(c)(3), forbidden to actively seek to change public policy. So in funneling the money into "Healthy Humboldt" you could say he was effectively cheating the tax system.

The Healthy Humboldt Coalition
P.O. Box 1301, Eureka CA 95502 707.822.1166
www.healthyhumboldt.org mail@healthyhumboldt.org
Op Ed By Mark Lovelace
Our Future is at Stake
The County General Plan Update is an opportunity for us to define our vision for Humboldt County’s
future. Do we want to preserve our unique local character and quality of life, or do we want to grow into
something else? This is not merely a discussion about where new homes will go, but of how much
population growth we want to invite. It is a reciprocal process, where the amount of growth we plan for
will largely dictate the amount of growth we receive. If we carve out room for 63,000 more people, they
will come. In a fast growing state, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, and the stakes for Humboldt County
couldn’t be higher.

The County has produced 4 'sketch plans', outlining different concepts for future growth. These include a continuance of the County's existing 1984 Framework General Plan, an ‘Expanded Growth’ plan which converts more of our resource lands and natural areas to subdivisions, a 'Focused Growth' plan, which protects these open space lands by promoting higher development potential within our existing communities, and a 'Mixed Growth' plan. This last plan offers some improvements over the existing plan, but it would ultimately allow the largest overall increase in population growth.

Recently, a proposal was introduced by a group calling itself HELP (Humboldt Economic and Land Plan), which is backed by real estate and development interests. At the core of the HELP proposal is a fourfold increase in the rate of population growth. The County has projected a growth rate of .5 percent (half of one percent) per year for the next 20 years. HELP wants the County to plan on growth of 2% per year, fully four times as much. Compounded, this calculates out to a population increase of almost 50% in just 20 years, from 130,000 to 193,173. That's over 63,000 more people.

The HELP plan would mean as many as 32,000 new homes added to our landscape (versus the County’s current projection of 5,900). The County also projects that only 5,095 of those new homes could be accommodated in our existing cities and sewered areas, leaving nearly 27,000 new homes that would have to be built in rural areas. Using the County’s average of 5 acres per dwelling unit in rural areas, the HELP plan would consume 135,000 acres of working open space and resource lands.
Healthy Humboldt has a different vision for our future. Healthy Humboldt is a coalition of individuals, business owners, and community and environmental organizations. Our vision centers around preserving Humboldt’s unique quality of life, protecting our environment, and strengthening our local economy. Our coalition seeks to maintain Humboldt’s rural, ‘small town’ character, with separate and distinct communities. We seek to preserve the wild and working open spaces which provide both an important part of our economic base and the scenic backdrop for our communities. We envision creating a truly
sustainable relationship between our natural environment and our economy.

Healthy Humboldt is working for a County General Plan that will focus new growth into our existing communities, preserve open space, reduce County infrastructure costs, provide certainty and predictability for builders, and maintain our small-town character. This community-centered approach will enhance our neighborhoods, strengthen our local economy, and protect the County’s bays, rivers, streams, and natural landscapes.

The Healthy Humboldt Coalition
P.O. Box 1301, Eureka CA 95502 707.822.1166
www.healthyhumboldt.org mail@healthyhumboldt.org
Healthy Humboldt’s Guiding Principles are:
Maintain separate and distinct ‘small town’ communities with a variety of cultural and recreational
amenities, surrounded by wild and working open spaces.
Restore a sustainable relationship with our natural environment to provide for clean water, fish
and wildlife, scenic beauty, and natural resources.
Promote housing, education and health care to meet community needs throughout the County.
Reduce County infrastructure costs by channeling new growth to existing cities and communities
currently served by water and sewer.
Support locally-based businesses and industries.
Ensure a locally sustainable energy future.
Provide clear and concise County land-use policies for the public.
There is a fundamental difference between planning and reacting. Healthy Humboldt’s careful planning
approach is to look at the road ahead and ask ourselves “What’s our destination, and how do we get
there?” The reactionary approach looks at the road ahead and simply asks “How many lanes do we
need?”

We can build a future of our own design, but it will take the help and support of Humboldt County’s
residents. If you share our vision, please join us in working toward a healthy Humboldt County.
Mark Lovelace is the President of the Humboldt Watershed Council. For more information, please check
the Healthy Humboldt website at www.healthyhumboldt.org.

One-on-one with Mark Lovelace

One-on-one with Mark Lovelace
by Glenn Franco Simmons

The Eureka Reporter

(Editor’s note: In last week’s Eureka Reporter, there was a story about
The Pacific Lumber Co. that featured an interview with PALCO President
and Chief Executive Officer Robert Manne. This week’s story features an
interview with Mark Lovelace of the Humboldt Watershed Council.)

The Humboldt Watershed Council said it would like to support The Pacific
Lumber Co., but it finds itself unable to do that.

“We would love to see PL be a company that we could support and get
behind,” said watershed council President Mark Lovelace, “because timber
is an important part of our economy up here. Unfortunately, there are
some long-standing issues with Pacific Lumber Co. that make that an
uphill battle.”

Part of the problem, Lovelace said, is flooding in the Freshwater and
Elk River watersheds.

“The watershed council and residents of Elk River and Freshwater have
been dealing for years with the impacts (of logging),” he said. “There
have been the damages caused by flooding that these residents have been
suffering from. There are people in these watersheds who have boats who
only use them for getting around when it floods.”

Lovelace said it takes about 1.24 inches in a 24-hour period to flood
some areas of these watersheds — and, it causes significant problems for
some residents.

“It causes damage to people’s homes, their foundations, vehicles, septic
systems and wells,” he said. “When a septic tank is flooded and you have
a well on your property, then you have just got septic contamination in
your well. People have been told by the (county) Health Department that
any time it floods, they need to put on waders, rubber gloves and masks
and scrub their whole house out because they have septic contamination
in it.

“And there are people in these watersheds who have taken to keeping a
Sharpie around so that every time it floods, on their door jam they keep
track of the height of the flood.”

Lovelace said there is one house that is more than 100 years old that
has recordings of floods in it.

“It has markings from the whole 100-year history,” he said. “Almost all
the marks have been from the last 15 years, so it (flooding) is a real
serious problem.”

Lovelace said the cause of the flooding is overlogging.

“The watershed council and residents of Elk River and Freshwater have
been dealing for years with the impacts: the flooding and damages caused
by the flooding,” he said. “They first started noticing problems with
the river and Freshwater Creek in the early 1990s and formed a group
called the Friends of Freshwater.

“It wasn’t until 1996 that things really got to be too bad. At that
point, residents in both of these watersheds started forming, in
conjunction with some other people, what became the Humboldt Watershed
Council, in 1997.”

The organization started going to various agencies involved in the
timber harvest approval process.

“They started going to the Board of Forestry, with an emergency petition
that went no where,” Lovelace said. “They went to CDF, likewise, which
didn’t do anything about it (flooding). They really had a huge learning
curve about what these agencies will or won’t do. And they started going
to the regional water board.”

The water board began looking at watersheds in total and said there were
problems from cumulative logging that caused increased sedimentation
but it wasn’t only in Freshwater and Elk River watersheds, Lovelace
said.

“It was Freshwater, Elk River, and Bear, Stitz and Jordan creeks,” he
said. “They called them the five watersheds. Along with being impacted,
what these five watersheds have in common is that they are all owned in
the majority or completely by The Pacific Lumber Co.

“Flooding used to happen, on average, maybe twice a decade. It is now
happening as often as four or five times a year. Over all these years,
they have yet to get any relief from this flooding. The agencies have
studied the issue, they have looked at it for many years. The water
board has an appointed board that presides over the staff, and the board
has been convinced by PL and others that their (water board) staff was
out of line. Their staff was saying the problem was that there was too
much timber harvesting, and the board didn’t believe them for a long
time.

“It took years and years of research,” Lovelace said. “The board had
lots of independent studies done. They commissioned independent
scientific review panel reports and they tried to facilitate mediation
between the residents and PL, which failed because PL said they would
not allow any discussion of the rate-of-harvest issue. The rate of
harvest was just off-limits.”

The flooding, Lovelace said, can be traced back to when PALCO was first
acquired by MAXXAM.

“MAXXAM was an investment company,” he said. “They had no background in
timber. They knew nothing about timber harvesting, so one of the first
things they did after acquiring PL was to hire a consultant called
Pacific Meridian Resources to study what they had acquired and how they
should run the business.”

Lovelace said PALCO then became a company that would start liquidating
its timber resource with heavy logging and high employment. He claimed
PALCO knew that down the line, its rate of harvest would lead to less
logging and less employment, meaning mills would have to shutdown and
employees be laid off.

“After the 1985 takeover by MAXXAM, PL’s rate of harvest increased
dramatically,” according to a handout Lovelace gave The Eureka Reporter.
“By 1999, it had skyrocketed to 10 times PL’s historic average, and
three times PL’s previous highest rate ever.

“CDF later reduced that rate somewhat to the current 500- and 600-acre
caps in Freshwater and Elk River, respectively, but those rates are
still four times the historic average and 50 percent greater than PL’s
highest-ever pre-MAXXAM rate.”

The watershed council said the current timber harvest rate is high and
comes “on top of the devastation already caused by the even-higher rates
of the 1990s.”

“Effectively, CDF responded to the designation of these watersheds as
impaired by granting PL a rate of harvest that was higher than they had
ever been subjected to in the 135 years before MAXXAM took over,”
according to the handout. “This rate of harvest was driven by a plan to
maintain not pay off the debt that had been incurred through
MAXXAM’s leveraged buyout of the company.

“Since 1986, a steady ‘upstreaming’ of $100 million per year to MAXXAM
kept PL bordering on the brink of bankruptcy. The only significant
payment towards principal occurred when MAXXAM sold off PL’s cutting and
welding division and gutted the employee retirement plan, netting some
$431 million. Even then, the majority of this profit went straight to
MAXXAM.”

In 1993, the council said, MAXXAM refinanced its debt, taking hundreds
of millions of dollars out of the company while returning the debt to
its 1985 level.

“In 1998, MAXXAM refinanced again,” the handout stated. “This time they
mortgaged all of the company’s timberlands, leaving PL in as much debt
as ever, but minus its greatest asset.

“The significance of this arrangement is two-fold: First MAXXAM used its
increased rate of cut as a way to show a track record of growth before
making a public offering. At the same time, MAXXAM lobbied CDF that they
need a high rate of harvest to meet their outstanding financial
obligations.”

The council said PALCO is structured so that its profits flow to MAXXAM
“while (it) remains on the edge of bankruptcy.”

Lovelace said the net result is that MAXXAM has intentionally
manipulated PL into a precarious financial situation so as to guarantee
a steady income stream and to ensure that state regulatory agencies
won’t curtail PALCO’s rate of harvest, for fear of economic hardship.

“You’ve got a resource that is renewable but it only renews at a certain
rate,” he said. “Trees only grow so fast. If you log in excess of that,
you can’t sustain it. The more you log upfront, the more of a decline
you are going to have further down the line.”

Lovelace said PL is cutting too much by selectively logging an area and
then going in 15 years later and harvesting the rest of the lumber.

“When you are talking about trees that should have a lifecycle of around
600 years, the idea that a 15-year difference in age qualifies for
uneven-aged harvest (is incorrect),” Lovelace said.

He said the net effect of such logging “means there is little
harvestable timber” that PALCO is logging.

And it’s the cumulative impact of logging on multiple timber harvest
plans in single watersheds that has Lovelace and others concerned. He
said CDF looks at each harvest plan as an isolated plan, rather than
contributing to a cumulative effect in a watershed.

“They (CDF) keep approving each timber harvest plan based on one timber
harvest plan; meanwhile, their stack of plans to approve keeps growing
and they are not looking cumulatively at all of these timber harvest
plans having an impact. They claim to, but they simply don’t have a
mechanism to do that. CDF does not even have a desire to look at
cumulative impact.

“CDF is supposed to regulate the impact of timber harvesting and they
have to protect the public interest, but at the same time they are
supposed to be advocates for and facilitate timber harvest plans. You
can’t really do both, so they typically, consistently, opt for
facilitating and advocating for timber harvesting.”

Visit us at http://www.ourhumboldt.org

This message came to you from the Alliance for Ethical Business. This list is intended to serve exclusively as an information and organizing tool for building a strong volunteer base to promote corporate and civic responsibility.

Larry Glass, Mark Lovelace and CREG

Interesting looking back at Larry Glass' involvement and statements about the Marina Center... and look, there's Mark Lovelace in a prominent position... it's all the usual suspects, "Baykeeper" too...

From: "Mark Lovelace" mailto:mail@healthyhumboldt.org
Date: March 22, 2006 9:47:02 AM PST
To: "Healthy Humboldt Coalition" mail@healthyhumboldt.org
Subject: Home Depot poses economic, cleanup concerns
Reply-To: "Mark Lovelace" mail@healthyhumboldt.org


Development poses economic, cleanup concerns, group says
Thadeus Greenson
March 22, 2006

EUREKA -- Members of the newly formed Citizens for Real Economic Growth expressed concerns about the environmental and economic impacts of the proposed Balloon Tract development Tuesday night during a presentation at the Humboldt County Democratic Central Committee (HCDCC) headquarters.

About 45 people attended the presentation and the following question and answer period, both of which were rushed along due to the time constraints of a following HCDCC business meeting.
Citing an array of economic studies, as well as city and county planning documents, Citizens for Real Economic Growth members Larry Glass and Mark Lovelace argued that the proposed Balloon Tract development goes against city and county plans for development and would irrevocably harm the local economy.

Security National owners Rob and Cherie Arkley are proposing to build a 400,000-square-foot development on the Balloon Tract that will include shops, restaurants, office space, a Home Depot, the Discovery Museum and lofts on an adjacent parcel. The Arkleys will be asking the city to change the site's zoning from public to commercial and industrial to pave the way for the project.

”Why are we pursuing this?” Lovelace asked rhetorically. “It goes against everything that's on paper about economic development in Humboldt County and the use of this property and it goes directly against the will of the voters.”

The will of the voters to which Lovelace referred, was a 1999 ballot measure in which Wal-Mart tried to obtain a similar zoning change that was rejected by a 61 percent margin.

Lovelace cited a number of economic studies regarding the impact of Home Depot stores on competing hardware businesses. He said not only would a Home Depot take major amounts of business away from some 200 local retailers, but it would siphon that money directly out of the local economy.

”There's a wealth of information on the Web, and I would really encourage people to go out there and seek it out,” Lovelace said. “Don't just take my word for it, go out and do your homework.”

During his portion of the presentation, Glass said he feels like the public is being left out of the Balloon Tract decision-making process and lambasted the city of Eureka for not aggressively pursuing the clean-up of the site that was left contaminated by Union Pacific Railroads.

Pete Nichols, director of Humboldt Bay Keeper, was in attendance and said major issues remain surrounding the contamination of the site that will be addressed either during negotiations with Union Pacific in the coming weeks or ultimately with a lawsuit.

Security National Senior Vice President Brian Morrissey attended the presentation and said afterward that, while he didn't agree with everything being said, he thinks these types of public information meetings are important. He added that Security National is confident that the majority of Eureka supports this project.

Security National will hold an open house today focusing on environmental issues. Panelists who have worked on the site or have brownfield expertise will be available to answer questions at the open house, which will be held from 6 to 9 p.m. at the Red Lion in Eureka.

asje been after Maxxam for some time

http://www.asje.org/
http://www.asje.org/nci.html
http://www.asje.org/bill.html

http://www.asje.org/houston.html

http://www.kswild.org/TimberSales/klamath

(links pulled down - came up in search of Andrea Davis, after she defended Salzman's lies)

Now asje is partnering with Mark Lovelace in his crocodile tears talks with Palco workers. He has all his bases covered, been planning this for a very long time.

HWC on PL Bankruptcy
Humboldt Watershed Council. P.O. Box 1301, Eureka CA 95502 707.822.1166 sheds@humboldt1.com ... Re: Humboldt Watershed Council reacts to Palco bankruptcy ...
www.asje.org/HWConPLBankruptcy.htm - 10k - Cached - Similar pages

PL_Bankruptcy
Download a copy of Humboldt Watershed Council's Bankruptcy 101 brochure from the workshop. ... Humboldt Watershed Council Reacts to Palco Bankruptcy ...
www.asje.org/PL_Bankruptcy.html - 67k - Cached - Similar pages

Mark Lovelace looking for warm bodies

Date:
Mon, 29 Aug 2005 19:39:24 -0700
To:
bach@lists.riseup.net
From:
"Bay Area Coalition for Headwaters"   Add to Address Book
Subject:
[bach] Water Board's Sept. hearing in Fortuna

><::><::><::><::><::><::><::><
Hearing Notice
from the Bay Area Coalition for Headwaters
August 29, 2005
><::><::><::><::><::><::><::><


>>Notice regarding the evidentiary hearing about the watershed-specific discharge requrirements being considered by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, taking place in Fortuna on Sept. 14

If you may be attending this hearing, read on. It will probably not be possible to sign up to speak at the hearing.

Any persons wishing to speak at the Regional Water Board's September 14th hearing on Palco's Watershed-wide Waste Discharge Requirements permits for Freshwater and Elk River need to contact the Regional Water Board as soon as possible to assure a time slot.

The Regional Water Board is making the final procedural arrangements for this evidentiary hearing, which will be held at the River Lodge in Fortuna. This hearing will likely last into the evening, if not into a second day. While there are still some details to be worked out, it is clear at this point that public comment or "policy statements" by the public will happen at the very beginning of the hearing. However, due to the large amount of persons believed to be planning to speak at the hearing, only two hours will be alloted, and the time will be granted first to persons making arrangements to speak in advance. 

The concern here is of course that a 'pro-PL' contingent will monopolize the time, as has happened at other meetings. Therefore it is urgent that anyone who even thinks they might wish to speak as a member of the public at this hearing should call or e-mail the Regional Water Board as soon as possible, preferably by the end of the day on Tuesday, August 30th. Yes, it's that urgent, as we expect a campaign by Palco to fill up the public comment time.

These kinds of statements by the public need not be lengthy, detailed, or technical, but rather express the public's desire to see water quality protected, and the public interest served. Simple messages reminding the RWB that the public has been waiting 8 years for some action in these two damaged watersheds would be a good reminder, especially for the new members of the Board. Some Board members are likely to be swayed by PL's assertions that there really is no problem here, or that water quality and flooding are improving, or that the solution to flooding is raising the roads. The public needs to help keep the RWB focused and on task, so as not to get distracted by non-issues raised by the other side.

Again, if there is any possibility at all that you may wish to speak at this hearing (and I would urge our supporters to do so!), then please contact the RWB as soon as possible. Please e-mail the Regional Water Board at the 3 addresses below (use all 3, to be safe), and please also cc the Humboldt Watershed Council.

Contact:

Catherine Kuhlman Ckuhlman@waterboards.ca.gov
Sheryl Schaffner  sschaffner@waterboards.ca.gov
Terri Korell  TKorell@waterboards.ca.gov

Thank you for your support.

BACH is forwarding this message sent by Mark Lovelace, Humboldt Watershed Council
sheds@humboldt1.com


2. Interested Persons

Interested persons may participate in the hearings with certain limitations. Interested persons may present non-evidentiary policy statements which will be heard first, prior to the presentation of evidence by the parties. Interested persons are not subject to cross-examination and may not cross-examine other parties. Interested persons will receive 3 minutes to make their policy statements.
--

Bay Area Coalition for Headwaters (BACH)

2530 San Pablo Ave.
Berkeley, CA 94702
phone: 510 548 3113
email: bach@headwaterspreserve.org

http://www.HeadwatersPreserve.org