Latest

2/16/16

Humboldt County’s currently idle coastal properties along Humboldt Bay could be opened up to fresh set of industries under a new proposal.

Once reserved only for coastal-dependent industries like fishing, the proposal would allow anything from retail outlets to medical marijuana grows to utilize the coasts on a short-term basis.

Fourth District Supervisor Virginia Bass said the county has been assessing whether to change some coastal zones permanently due to the underutilization.

“In the meantime, are there interim uses that are appropriate?” she asked.

Currently, the county’s Humboldt Bay Area Plan only allows businesses or industries that rely on the coastal location — such as fishing or surface mining — to use these coastal-dependent lands.

“Planning for coastaldependent industrial uses was done in the 1970s, when demand for land to accommodate these types of uses was much higher than it is today,” a county Administrative Of f ice news release states.

The Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conser vation District’s 4th Division Commissioner Richard Marks said the district’s coastal property at the Samoa pulp mill site has been eyed by a variety of businesses including Chevron and a vineyard stake plant over the last few years. While Marks said that some of these projects never made it through due factors like funding, he said the coastal land use restrictions have also resulted in lost opportunities.

“A lot of the people were just tire kickers and once they see that there are any obstacles, they basically had stopped,” Marks said.

County Planning and Building Department staff were unavailable for comment on Monday due to the Presidents’ Day holiday.

Marks said the county oversees about 1,300 acres of land around Humboldt Bay that is currently zoned for coastal-dependent industrial uses. Unless a coastal-dependent business comes along in the near future, Marks said this land is virtually “unusable.”

The county is now considering whether to change its Humboldt Bay Area Plan in order to provide more flexibility for industry growth on these coastal lands. If implemented, other industrial uses such as warehousing, timber processing, research and retail services would be able to operate on these parcels.

The county is scheduled to hold a public workshop on Feb. 23 at the Wharfinger Building in Eureka to provide information on the proposed changes.

If the changes are adopted by the county board of supervisors, businesses would be able to apply for an interim permit, which if approved would be effective for five years, or up 10 years in some cases. Permits would not be extended, though applicants could reapply for a new permit, according to the county.

Marks said the harbor district is hoping the county will increase the longevity of the permits.

“We’re looking for a compromise,” Marks said. “Five years seems too soon for us.”

Any of the new uses would require a conditional use permit from the county, which in turn requires a public hearing before the county planning commission or zoning administrator. Applicants would also have to create a site restoration plan and would require approval by the California Coastal Commission, according to the county.

“Upon permit expiration, the site must be returned to its original condition, or to a condition that would preserve or enhance the project site for future coastal-dependent industrial use,” the county news release states.

While there had been some discussion last year of medical marijuana businesses eyeing the harbor district’s Samoa pulp mill site, Marks said that prospect is no longer looking like a possibility.

The harbor district is currently in the final stages of obtaining about $3 million of new market tax credits from the federal government to help renovate the aging buildings at the pulp mill.

But as the federal government classifies marijuana as a Schedule I narcotic under the Controlled Substances Act, using these federal dollars to help house marijuana would raise issues.

“The banks said, ‘Since you’re using this federal money, you can’t use it for projects with cannabis,’” Marks said. 

Read Original Article

What: Public Workshop to Consider Allowing Fleixble Uses in Coastal-Dependent Industrial Zone on the Samoa Peninsula

When: Feb. 23 at 6 pm

Where: Wharfinger Building, 1 Marina Way, Eureka

For more info: http://humboldtgov.org/civicalerts.aspx?AID=745

2/13/16

The California Coastal Commission, born as a result of a state ballot measure and granted permanent life by an act of its Legislature, ought to do its business in public.

Regardless of your views on property rights or the environment, we should all agree on at least that much. That one of the most powerful public bodies in the state should conduct as much of its business in the open seemed a no-brainer.

Yet the commission’s choice to cast a 7-5 vote in closed session on Wednesday to oust its executive director — an unprecedented move in its history — failed to meet that standard. Hundreds of people traveled to Morro Bay to speak on Wednesday in Charles Lester’s defense during a meeting that spanned seven hours; 95 percent of the commission’s roughly 160-member staff signed a letter in favor of keeping him on board. He’s led the commission since 2011 and served on it for nearly 20 years. According to the commission’s own chief counsel, since Lester chose to defend himself in a public hearing, his performance reviews were fair game for public discussion. His fate should have been decided in public.

Yet the commission still chose to hide behind process. By shielding their decision to purge Lester behind the confidentiality of his performance reviews, the majority of commissioners have cast themselves as backroom villains in a cheap political melodrama.

And that, sadly, has overshadowed any questions about both Lester’s performance and the larger, far more important debate about the role of the California Coastal Commission itself. Is the commission a sclerotic bureaucracy? Could it do a far, far better job of balancing the rights of the many with the interests of the few? Thanks to the commissioners’ decision to duck out of public view, that’s no longer the conversation.

Read Original Article

2/11/16

MORRO BAY -- Defying a hostile crowd, the California Coastal Commission voted Wednesday night to fire Executive Director Charles Lester, a decision that environmentalists fear could weaken the agency's strict posture on development of the state's precious coastline.

The commission made the vote in closed session at the conclusion of a marathon meeting in Morro Bay attended by hundreds of sign-waving Lester supporters. Commissioners rejected the notion that Lester's dismissal would damage coastal protection, and several lashed out at the media for portraying Lester's ouster as a struggle between pro- and anti-development forces.

"Some of you now are convinced that we are behind a sinister plot to betray everything we've sworn to protect," said Commissioner Mark Vargas. "This is not a decision we come to rashly or suddenly, but after years of review with the executive director."

So many people addressed the 12 voting commissioners that the public comment period stretched past six hours.

Many speakers scolded the commission for a lack of transparency. The commissioners said little in the weeks leading up to the meeting about the reasons for the hearing to dismiss Lester, a fact that some commissioners attributed Wednesday to Lester's refusal to waive his right to keep his personnel evaluations confidential.

"From the outside, it certainly appears that what is underway at the California Coastal Commission represents politics over public service, special interests over the good of the people, and backroom maneuvers over public transparency," said Lynda Hopkins, who lives in Sonoma County.

But commissioners insisted Lester's removal was based solely on his job performance.

Commissioners criticized Lester and his staff on several grounds. Some said the staff lacked ethnic diversity. Others claimed the staff did a poor job communicating with coastal development applicants and sharing information with commissioners.

"We're not a rubber stamp," said Commissioner Dayna Bochco, who voted to retain Lester. "We need to know what we're deciding and why we're deciding."

Lester delivered an impassioned defense of his job Wednesday morning, but it was not enough to sway a majority of the commission.

"I understand how this organization works, bottom to top," said Lester, who headed an agency that regulates development along 1,100 miles of the California coast. "The work of the commission speaks to who I am and who I strive to be."

Public support for Lester was almost universal after the commission announced in late January it would consider removing him. Myriad environmental groups and more than 10 members of Congress, 18 state legislators and 35 former coastal commissioners lobbied the commission to retain the executive director, who took the post in 2011.

About 95 percent of the agency's staff signed a letter praising Lester as "an exceptional and dedicated" leader.

Even Pebble Beach Co. defended Lester. A company executive read a letter from CEO William Perocchi that credited Lester for helping to establish a cooperate and respectful relationship between the commission and the luxury golf resorts. Perocchi called Lester "fair, pragmatic, creative, open and reasonable."

During his presentation Wednesday morning, Lester pledged to improve staff diversity and communication between the agency's staff, developers, stakeholders and commissioners. But he stressed the importance of preserving the staff's independence.

"Over the years some have criticized the culture of the staff, arguing that it needs to change, perhaps be less independent and more user-friendly," said Lester. "I think it is important to distinguish between independence and engagement. The role of an independent staff has always been central to the success of the commission's program."

The votes to dismiss Lester came from commissioners Wendy Mitchell, Martha McClure, Effie Turnbull-Sanders, Mark Vargas, Erik Howell, Robert Uranga and Olga Diaz, an alternate replacing Gregory Cox, who did not attend the meeting. Commission Chairman Steve Kinsey and commissioners Carole Groom, Mary Shallenberger, Dayna Bochco and Mary Luévano voted to retain him.

Howell, McClure, Mitchell, Uranga, Vargas, Diaz and Bochco rejected a motion by Groom to hash out Lester's fate in private but vote in public.

Billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer, who appeared at a rally before the hearing, issued a statement late Wednesday criticizing the backroom vote.

"Behind closed doors, the Coastal Commission defied the will of the people and acted to weaken the protection of California's iconic beaches," Steyer said. "This is a wake-up call for all who care about preserving California's majestic coastline for future generations."

Urango and other commissioners claimed their hands were tied in discussing Lester's performance by the executive director's decision not to open up his records to public scrutiny. But Christopher Pederson, chief counsel for the commission, told commissioners they could discuss "their own current thoughts regarding the executive director and management of the agency" so long as they didn't delve into the specifics of past evaluations.

One commissioner who remained notably silent Wednesday was Wendy Mitchell, whom environmentalists have pointed to as the leader of the anti-Lester movement.

Mitchell, a political consultant, was tapped by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2010 during his final days in office.

Some speakers Wednesday accused commissioners of seeking to undermine the independence of the commission's 163-person staff to benefit coastal developers.

"This hearing is not about Charles' performance -- it's about yours," said Stefanie Sekich-Quinn, coastal preservation manager for the Surfrider Foundation. "This hearing is about your priorities for the coast and what the direction of this commission looks like."

Supporters gave Lester a rousing standing ovation once the commission's decision was announced around 9:20 p.m. Lester thanked the members of the public for their support.

"It's been a privilege to serve the commission as executive director for the last 4 1/2 years," said Lester. "I worked hard, I accomplished a lot, and hopefully that work will continue on into the future."

Read Original Article

3/26/16

The city of Eureka issued a request for proposals Friday on how to relocate the nearly 200 people living in Palco Marsh encampments by the newly set May 2 deadline, with the California Coastal Commission slated to hear an application for a temporary camp within the city’s local coastal zone as early as April, officials said.

The move comes nearly one year after a police raid of the area resulted in more than 20 arrests and as the city prepares to begin construction on a section of the Waterfront Trail running behind the Bayshore Mall slated to start mid-May. The city cited the construction, a lawsuit, safety issues and environmental concerns as reasons for setting the new deadline.

“We’ve been working in this direction really since last fall,” Eureka City Manager Greg Sparks said.

Interested parties and nonprofit or religious organizations can submit an “exit strategy” for a 30-day period that started Friday. Plans must be limited to a six-month window and not require city funding or resources.

Sparks said the Eureka City Council is split on allowing city property to be used for the temporary relocation effort.

“That still remains to be determined by the council,” he said.

The city previously shelved plans to establish one or more temporary homeless campgrounds but the move received new momentum earlier this month with Mayor Frank Jager calling on the council to approve a temporary homeless camp so the people living in Palco Marsh have somewhere to go when trail construction starts.

Sparks said the city hasn’t designated a site for a temporary camp. “We’re leaving that open in the RFP for proposers to propose it on city property or private property,” he said.

State Sen. Mike McGuire said he attended a meeting Tuesday with local and state officials, including elected officials and representatives from a number of agencies, to discuss the issue.

The application that would go before the coastal commission would be for “the temporary use of a temporary homeless camp” within a local coastal zone, if that’s the direction the city decides to go, McGuire said. One of the concerns about previously discussed sites — the most recent was a city-owned parking lot Washington and Koster streets — was receiving permission for sites within a coastal zone from the commission.

Affordable Homeless Housing Alternatives — or AHHA — unveiled its sanctuary camp proposal two weeks ago and has submitted the plans to Sparks, AHHA board member Edie Jessup said.

“Our vision for how the sanctuary camp would work is on the table,” she said.

As presented, the AHHA camp doesn’t fit into the sixmonth time frame set by the city. Jessup said she and the rest of AHHA will see if they’ll submit a revised proposal to the city after looking at the wording of the request.

“It’s pretty vague, I’m not really sure what it means,” she said.

Sparks said that if the 30day period passes without a feasible plan being brought forward and approved by the council, the those camping in the area will still have to vacate.

“That responsibility rests with the individuals staying out there,” he said.

Sparks added that the city is concerned with the prospect of these people picking up and relocating to another encampment in a green belt or elsewhere.

“We would not encourage that type of thing to happen,” he said. St. Vincent de Paul and Eureka Rescue Mission facilities can provide beds for around 50 people, Sparks said.

Last year, the Eureka Police Department responded to 315 calls in the greenbelt area and documented 60 instances of crimes or reported crime. Aside from crime, the city has also recently faced litigation due to safety concerns behind the mall. Eureka paid $400,000 to Kathleen Anderson, who was injured in the concrete structures in the area are known as the “Drying Shed.”

“She took a fall and injured her shoulder as she was taking people back there to camp,” Sparks said. Now Eureka faces losing insurance coverage in the area if the structures aren’t removed by summer. The structures were already planned to be demolished and the concrete used as a base for the trail before the lawsuit, Sparks said.

McGuire said the California Coastal Conservancy will consider a $1 million grant application to tear down marsh structures in May. Sparks said the city is also looking into getting $300,000 from another source. The marsh and Humboldt Bay are unique ecosystems and have been strained by all the waste that ends up out there, according to Humboldt Baykeeper Executive Director Jennifer Kalt.

“The homeless camps do impact the environment and certainly do impact access to the coast there,” she said. “I’m really glad to see the city is going to start working on the trail there.”

Kalt said she is concerned that homeless campers will move to greenbelts or into the forest, which would lead to many of the same environmental issues now happening in the marsh.

“The city and the county really need to be working toward a longer term solution,” she said. “Certainly it’s a much bigger social problem that we have to address as a community.”

“Until we come up with a long-term solution to address the larger social issue,” Kalt added, “just moving people around isn’t going to help the bay.” 

Read Original Article