Research performed by HELP revealed the following findings :

A. General

1. HELP supports numerous County policies and practices, such as:

• Anti-sprawl
• Protection of Natural Resource
• Open spaces / greenbelts between communities
• Each community should have its own distinct identity -Advantage of small community lifestyle
• Less traffic than in urban areas of the state
• One on one contact with government agencies
• Natural beauty
• Responsible growth

2. According to Humboldt County Economic & Demographic Profile Series 2004 by the Center for Economic Development by California State University Chico, County employment sectors have suffered in recent years.

3. The County’s 25-year projected growth rate of 0.5% is extremely conservative and does not anticipate realistic growth for the County’s future.

4. The County uses a 1.194% growth rate over an 8-year period for purposes of responding to State Fair Share Housing mandates versus .5% for the 20-year General Plan projection.

5. Even a conservative growth rate, 2% per year, will limit changes from today’s conditions. There will be development mainly of small businesses and cottage industries. No large businesses will establish here unless major upgrades are made to infrastructure (roads and railroad). (Reference Appendix “B”)

6. Cost effective development requires reliable – manageable environmental risk and permitting processes in order to produce affordable housing and/or commercial/industrial facilities.

7. Humboldt State University anticipates incurring a 2 - 3 % per year growth rate over the next twenty years. With a current student population of 7,500, existing and future issues/challenges facing HSU include:

 

• Currently the cost of housing is a real problem. A new professor coming to the area cannot afford to buy a home in Arcata unless there is a second income earner in the family.
• Currently 20% of the students live on-campus.........the master plan calls for 30% on campus in future years -- 70% offsite.
• Public Transportation, in terms of more bus service to the campus is urgently needed.
• Expanded and more timely access to the area via air transportation, i.e., expansion of the Arcata/Eureka airport is critical to HSU’s future.
• The possibility of having an off-campus HSU Distance Learning Center, initially in the Eureka area and at a later date in the southern part of the County....perhaps Garberville, is a consideration.
• Increased opportunities for development and research in science, energy, and marine activities/innovations are essential to HSU operations.
• HSU needs a facility for visiting scientists........the lack of such a facility diminishes the University's chances of attracting research grant dollars.
• HSU has a goal to establish a Business Park for startup companies, with an emphasis on technology and science.

8. There is substantial influence coming from sectors of the County population which is anti-growth or favors substantially restricting growth of any kind, including a reduction of various service infrastructures.

9. The County has not implemented the presently adopted General Plan (Humboldt County General Plan Volume I Framework Plan). An example is the failure to complete the update of the Community Plans. With the exception of the Eureka Community Plan, the Avenues Plan, and the McKinleyville Community Plan, they have not been completed.

10. The County has not implemented the presently adopted General Plan (Humboldt County General Plan Volume I Framework Plan). An example is the failure to perform a timely review of the Plan and its implementation as circumstances changed within the County. Things have changed since the adoption of the current General Plan. The changes have included issues such as ‘big box’ retail/wholesalers, cell towers, off site signs, rural land divisions through the use of patent parcels and lot line adjustment procedures, etc.

B. Land Use

1. Given the declining availability of developable land, certain agricultural and timber lands which are contiguous to existing urbanized areas will have to be converted to residential uses.

2. The County’s processing of Lot Line Adjustment applications pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 497 is not consistent with the language found in the legislation. There is a need to review this issue given the County’s approach drives up applicant costs by virtue of duplicating processes and is otherwise unnecessarily restrictive. (Reference Appendix “C”)

3. There is a severe shortage of available land for current and future growth. Land available for development is dwindling. Given the dynamics of supply and demand, this results in higher land costs. Land is typically the single largest cost component in new construction and, therefore, has the largest influence on rising housing costs.

4. The Patent Parcel controversy needs to be resolved

5. HELP has identified a lack of ready-to-go commercial/industrial sites (permitted, environmentally approved, infrastructure in place)

6. The County has not implemented the presently adopted General Plan (Humboldt County General Plan Volume I Framework Plan). A major example of this is the absence of the implementation of the rural zoning program. The Framework Plan called for the implementation of the Plan’s provisions through zoning and provided directions as to where and how this was to be accomplished. This has not yet been done.

7. Another example of the County not implementing the presently adopted General Plan.........Numerous land use and development issues remain outstanding and are in need of resolve in a timely fashion.

• Numerous Rural Areas are still not precisely zoned consistent with the directions of the existing Framework Plan, thus adding to the confusion with what may or may not be done with the property affected. This leads to applications that may be found to be consistent with the ‘existing unclassified’ zoning, however, not consistent with the adopted policies and standards of the adopted Plan. This results in a waste of private and public time and money and significant confusion as to what the County intends to promote for the rural areas of the County.

• For those lands within the Community Planning Areas that have yet to be updated, the ‘current’ land use Plan is typically dated in 1968. Things have changed since 1968 and the reliance on a document that has not been updated adds to the cost of processing applications in areas where the Framework Plan intended activities to be concentrated. The failure to update the Community Plans in a timely fashion is inconsistent with the County’s adopted Framework Plan.

• Precise zoning has generally not been applied to the areas in which the Community Plans have not been updated. The areas are often left to the vagaries of the ‘unclassified’ zone. While this zone provides a great deal of flexibility, it also provides a lot of potential for misdirection and consternation. Projects that would otherwise be consistent with the established land use pattern for a community, like a store, must first obtain a use permit and go through a discretionary review in order to expand. Other properties in which a business may want to locate, areas that have historically been used commercially, would also have to go through the use permit process. This results in time delays and expenses that would not otherwise be required had the Plan been updated and implemented through appropriate zoning.

11. Project for Public Spaces, How Transportation and Community Partnerships are Shaping America, 1999 found that zoning flexibility produces more viable communities. “When Portland, Oregon’s Tri-Met transit agency located a station on a new light rail line adjacent to a vacant 190-acre site owned by developer Pac-Trust, Tri-Met wanted to insure that the site be densely developed in a pedestrian-oriented pattern. To facilitate this, the city of Hillsboro established a special ‘overlay zoning’ district to allow for a mixture of residential and commercial uses on the site. What has emerged is a compact development that will include 400 single-family homes on small lots, 1400 apartments, and a lively central street that includes 80,000 square feet of retail uses with second floor residential lots and live-work townhouses, all within walking distance of the light rail station. The developer credits the ability to create a diverse mixed-use development to the city’s willingness to allow for innovations, such as setting homes closer to the street.

12. The County’s Housing Needs, Availability and Affordability in the Eureka and McKinleyville Community Planning Areas of the Unincorporated Areas of Humboldt County Report, dated May 2004, concludes that one of the reasons for escalating real estate prices is a shortage of new housing.

C Economic Development

Humboldt County Economic & Demographic Profile Series 2004 by the Center for Economic Development, California State University Chico, projects public and private sector employment to increase 27% between 1990 and 2010 (average of 1.35% per year)

Year Year Actual Year Projected Average 1990 2000 10-Year 2010 20-year Change

Change Change Per Year

Ag & Mining 3,202 3,822 19 % 4,200 31 % 1.55 %

Construction 3,544 3,616 2 % 3,900 10 % .5 %

Manufacturing 7,086 7,217 1.8 % 6,800 - 4 % - .2 %

Transportation /Pub.Utilt 2,888 2,458 -15 % 2,400 - 17 % - .85%

Wholesale Trade 2,070 n/a 1,900 - 8.2 % - .41%

Retail Trade 12,002 12,993 8 % 13,900 15.8 % .79%

Finance, Insurce, Real Est. 3,298 4,583 40 % 5,300 60.7 % 3 %

Services 16,681 21,340 28 % 25,900 55.3 % 2.77%

Gov & Pub Admin 10,606 11,784 11 % 13,600 28.2 % 1.4 %

TOTAL 61,377 77,900 27 % 1.35%

 

1. The existing Humboldt County General Plan does not include an “Economic / Fiscal Development” Element as recommended by the State of California.

2. Jobs are leaving Humboldt County due partially to the County’s unfriendly business policies and practices. Companies considering bringing new jobs to the County are not relocating to Humboldt County partially due to less than friendly business policies and practices.

3. Nationwide, it is generally accepted that companies considering relocation, base their decision on “Significant Site Selection Factors”, including:

• Workforce availability and general skill level, as well as competitive wage/salary rates
• Availability of ready-to-go sites, ie., permits, environmental approved, infrastructure in place, etc.
• Transportation efficiency and access to major markets
• Ability of local jurisdiction to process inquiries, approvals, and/or permits efficiently and clearly and at times to expedite processing
• Ability to meet all housing needs from executive to low wage
• Access to statewide and local business incentives
• Seismic stability and protection from other natural threats
• Quality of life, including arts, culture, recreation, weather, etc.
• Reliability and cost of energy
• General business climate

4. In today’s environment, the hot issues which attract businesses to relocate are: affordable housing, incentives, availability of skilled employees, and “ready-to-go” sites.

5. The County endures a shortage of skilled trained labor force.

6. Regulations add to costs of doing business, adding to costs of construction and the overall costs of living. The “prevailing wages” issue contributes to higher costs.

7. The largest increases in demand for nonresidential land from 1985 to the present are in the Service related industries (Insurance and Real Estate, Finance (+69%), Services (+65.4%), Retail (+32.9%). These users do not need 40 acres of industrial land. They need commercial properties close to services. As an example Willis & Disiere has been working for two years to find a suitable location for Redwood Harley in and around Eureka.

8. Nonresidential users need: clean ground, zoned for commercial uses and infrastructure close to existing services.

9. The primary reasons for business leaving the County are transportation constraints, lack of capital for growth and buildings available for expansion. The Leadership Roundtable in cooperation with Humboldt Area Foundation did numerous surveys and each indicated the same reasons for relocation out of the area.

10 Parking requirements for nonresidential users are out dated

11 There is a tremendous need for cottage and in-home business to be afforded better zoning provisions.

12 Most employers who move here, and/or want to move here, are attracted to Humboldt County's quality of life.

13. There are existing County policies and ordinances which are not being followed / administered. Some of these policies / ordinances if implemented would help provide a “level playing field” and reduce numerous unknowns / risks to the business and development community.

14. Predictability in the process equates to less risk and more cost-effective development, i.e., affordable housing and increased economic development activities.

15. Local people, including members of the Building Trades Union, and others are forced to commute weekly to the San Francisco Bay Area to work. They have to spend money in the Bay Area while living there during work days which should / could be kept “at home” and circulated within the Humboldt County economy, if the situation here were healthier.

D. Housing

1. There is a shortage of all types of housing, including market rate affordable housing (reference Glossary, Appendix D). There are only 250 homes currently on the market..

2. Residential permits issued by the County Building Division during the past several years have decreased significantly:

Single Family Permits Issued:

• 1990-445
• 1994-294
• 1998-233
• 2003-262

This decline in Single family units has contributed to higher priced housing.

Multi-Family Permits Issued:

• 1990-11
• 1994-15
• 1998-1
• 2003-3

The decline in Multi-Family units has resulted in higher rents.

3. Housing continues to become less affordable. In fact the median-priced home has almost doubled in the past 4 years. Humboldt Association of Realtors Multiple Listing Service shows that in:

• 1999: 47% of the population could afford the median-price home ($123,500)
• 2003: 29% of the population could afford the median-price home ($206,500)
• (May 2004 median-price home = $239,500)

4 There has also been a slow but steady decline in another important index in the County. Courtesy of the County Assessor’s office, the Home Ownership Index is:

• 1994 68.8 %
• 1998 67.7 %
• 2002 66.5 %
• 2003 66.2 %

5. Home buyers have experienced record low interest rates during recent years/months, however as interest rates increase......and they will.......even fewer people will be in a position to afford to own a home.

6. Home ownership is important to the stability of communities because homeowners frequently invest more in the community, maintain their property, and typically have lower crime rates. There are numerous roadblocks and obstacles to producing market rate affordable housing (reference Glossary, Appendix D). Developers of new housing are dissuaded from bringing in new projects because of excessive regulations and fees. Examination of government processes and procedures concerning housing development is needed to eliminate duplication and unnecessary, burdensome regulation because it thwarts market rate affordable housing.

7. There has not been a single tract development or opportunity to produce 300 - 500 homes in the past 5 years, and there is no threat of this happening. There are no out-of-County tract developers in Humboldt County – they are individually owned family businesses who build homes.

8. There are considerable roadblocks and obstacles to all development including the production of market rate affordable housing (Reference Glossary, Appendix D). There is an urgent need to examine County processes and procedures concerning all development activities and then eliminate duplication and unnecessary burdensome regulation.

9. What has been done in the past hasn’t worked thus far, and if it isn’t changed, the shortage will become more critical.

E. Circulation

1. Transportation systems and maintenance (ground, air, rail, telecommunication) is difficult due to the topography, water sheds, etc., which impedes economic development.

2. Expressway from downtown Eureka to Ridgewood Drive in Cutten is needed.

3. There is a lack of a meaningful transportation master plan and implementation of same.

F. Capital Improvements / Public Facilities

1. Due to the County’s lack of infrastructure planning, existing systems (water, sewer, drainage, roads, highways, bridges) are deteriorating, and there is a lack of funds to provide future maintenance and capital improvements.

2. New infrastructure to accommodate growth is not being planned or built.

3. Coordination of infrastructure between the County, Communities, and Special Districts is lacking. Although Humboldt County is not a purveyor of waste water or water services, the General Plan must accommodate for future growth and incorporate input from Service Providers in order to facilitate implementation.

4. County lacks a drainage and retention basin policy which is maintained and administered County-wide.

5. Some of the updated Community Plans are not supported by addressing inadequacy of infrastructure (sewer, water, drainage, roads).

6. Infrastructure planning and implementation have not been adequately addressed. As a result, substantial uncertainty and increased costs results..

7. Local government attempts to pass what have been traditionally public costs, directly to property owners and developers (e.g. adopted Permanent Road Division).

8. The County has not implemented the presently adopted General Plan (Humboldt County General Plan Volume I Framework Plan). One of the problems in the achievement of the more recent updates and the implementation of the results has been the inadequate treatment of the issue of infrastructure planning and implementation (especially financing). The Eureka Plan for example contains land use allowances that are considerable. The infrastructure support of the implementation of the plan is lacking, and there is no established mechanism or program to finance the improvements to the infrastructure. This infrastructure includes water and wastewater services, roads, and drainage. Absent the sufficient support, the Plan cannot be implemented. The County’s continuing reliance on individual developers to provide infrastructure improvements is no longer a reasonable basis for providing infrastructure improvements to the degree that it was in past decades. This is especially true when each developer is only proposing to add a fraction of the burden to be imposed by future users of the planned infrastructure. Future infrastructure planning and improvement costs must be born by the County, else market demand for future housing will not be met.

G Policies / Administrative

1. There is a lack of uniform ordinances dealing with such things as:

• County varies widely in its policy regarding “Percent of Coverage” on a given parcel.
• County does not apply the “solar shading” policy in a consistent manner.

2. Certain areas which could be responsibly developed, are being prohibited due to County policies and administrative practices.

3. County is inconsistent regarding what is required to build a subdivision.

4. There is a need for consistent policy interpretation and application of regulations for development projects.

5. The County has not effectively reviewed and maintained its General Plan (beyond not implementing it in a timely manner in the first place). The results of this are confusion in the permit process, inconsistent interpretation of policy, creation of policy short of the public processes, and a lot of time and money expended and delays incurred.

H Cooperation, Coordination, Collaboration, Communication, and Innovation

1. Although conditions are improving, there is a historical need for cooperation, coordination, collaboration, and communication between political jurisdictions within the County as well as with surrounding counties.

2. There is a lack of streamlining and coordination of bureaucracy and regulation within the County. There is a need for coordination among agencies to get project approvals through in reasonable time frames.