The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors today voted to send a portion of the ongoing general plan update back to the county planning commission for review and clarification. In a 3-2 vote — with an odd couple of 3rd District Supervisor Mark Lovelace and 2nd District Supervisor Estelle Fennell dissenting — the board opted to remand the Conservation and Open Space elements back to the commission to make changes and clarify any inconsistencies in the document.

The move was endorsed in recent letters to the board from the Humboldt Builders Exchange, the Humboldt Association of Realtorsand, most recently, the planning commission itself. In the commission’s letter, which was facilitated via a 4-3 vote at last week’s commission meeting, Chair Robert Morris requests further review on behalf of the commission. As justification Morris cites “fundamental changes” made by the board along with “substantive errors and discrepancies” in the document.

The majority of public speakers at today’s meeting, including representatives of the Humboldt Association of Realtors, the Northern California Association of Homebuilders, the Humboldt Builders Exchange and the Humboldt Coalition for Property Rights, were also in support of returning portions of the update to the planning commission. 

Victoria Copeland, of the Humboldt Association of Realtors, said it’s not a matter of how long the update takes (it’s now in its 14th year) but rather of getting it “right.”

But Jen Kalt argued on behalf of environmental group Humboldt Baykeeper that it doesn’t make sense to send back a portion of the update that the board itself has yet to consider. “The Board of Supervisors is where the buck stops,” Kalt said. “The planning commission can tell you all day long what it wants. You make the decisions.”

In a rather surprising break from her usual political allies, Supervisor Fennell agreed. She cited the state government code that outlines the general plan update process (California Government Code 65356) and argued for staying the course.

“Interrupting that process would only make things more difficult in the long run,” Fennell said. “The buck stops here. The work has to be done here. This is where the final product has to be produced.”

Fifth District Supervisor Ryan Sundberg took a different view, saying, “As I understand, the planning commission is supposed to flush out controversial items and send us a product that’s pretty much done.” The board’s line-by-line analysis, he argued, has been unorthodox. “This process has been crazy,” Sundberg said.

In its report on the item, county staff recommended that the board finish reviewing the entire draft plan first and, rather than remanding any full elements to the planning commission, merely ask it for clarification on some disputed definitions of terms used in the document. Sending whole elements back, staff argued, could delay the update process further and divert staff resources, which, in turn could set back other priority programs such as the Housing Element and local coastal plan updates.

While 1st District Supervisor Rex Bohn agreed with Fennell about where the buck stops, he disagreed with her conclusion and argued in favor of remanding portions of the update back to the planning commission. 

Fennell took one more stab at arguing her point. “One planning commission gave us this draft,” she said. “Now we’re asking another planning commission to look at [an element] before we even see it. … I just have an issue with sending back an element we haven’t even looked at.”

Sundberg was not convinced. He argued that sending the element to the planning commission wouldn’t take up any extra time since the board can work on other things in the meantime. He made a motion to send the Conservation and Open Space elements back to the planning commission. Fourth District Supervisor Virginia Bass seconded the motion, and Bohn joined the pair to form a majority.