Latest

3/10/14
 
After nearly two hours of public testimony — most of it lambasting the recent activities of the Planning Commission — the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors today reached a rare and refreshing consensus on an issue pertaining to the general plan update: Sending part of it back to the Planning Commission was a bad idea.

“If I had to do it over, I wouldn’t have made that decision,” 5th District Supervisor Ryan Sundberg admitted.

On Jan. 13, the board voted 3-2 (with supervisors Mark Lovelace and Estelle Fennell dissenting) to send the entire Conservation and Open Space element back to the Planning Commission for a re-review. (A previous incarnation of the Planning Commission already reviewed that element in 2011 and submitted its recommendations to the board.)

In sending the element back for another look, the board gave planning commissioners 45 days to get through a “short list” of 13 goals and policies it felt needed reconsideration. However, the board also gave the commission leeway to delve into whichever other policies it saw fit.

By the time the 45-day window closed, the commission had only gotten through six of the 13 policies on the “short list,” and the public was riled up about the changes it did make — especially deleting language in support of a countywide trail system and reducing the size of wetland buffer zones.

“I truly thought it was going to be a quicker process, less controversial,” Sundberg continued this afternoon. “I watched some of the tapes of [Planning Commission meetings] and quickly realized that wasn’t going to happen.”

Fourth District Supervisor Virginia Bass chimed in next, saying she agreed with a public commenter who said the board should take responsibility for this phase of the general plan update. “I’m taking responsibility,” she said. “I thought it would work; it didn’t. It was a failed effort.”

With each special meeting costing between $900 and $928, according to staff, that failed effort cost close to $7,500 in scarce county funds.

Fennell, the county’s 2nd District supervisor, reminded folks that she didn’t want to send the element back in the first place, but she also defended the general plan work that the board has done thus far.

“I think we’ve done a very good job, in many instances reaching consensus and teasing things out to achieve the balance we’ve all been talking about,” Fennell said.

Fennell took some heat during the public comment period, with a number of speakers chastising her for appointing her former boss — and co-founder of property rights corporation HumCPR — Lee Ulansey Bob Morris to the Planning Commission. The other HumCPR co-founder, Bob Morris Lee Ulansey, also sits on the current Planning Commission, having been appointed by a majority of the board to an at-large position. Several speakers said both men should be removed.

Fennell wrapped up her comments by saying, “I think it’s important we take this plan back, take responsibility, do the job we were elected to do, and move forward.”

Lovelace chimed in next with a single word: “Agreed.” His brevity sparked appreciative laughter from the public.

“That’s basically what I was going to say,” added 1st District Supervisor Rex Bohn, who admitted that he, too, was wrong in voting to send the element back to the Planning Commission. “If I was 100 percent right I wouldn’t be sitting here; I’d be making sure you guys all got to keep your insurance,” he quipped. “But that’s not the way it works out.”

Before calling a 10-minute recess, Bohn waxed poetic, suggesting that for all the vitriol and controversy over this process, we noble Humboldtians aren’t so different after all. “All of us have little parcels of this earth we call home,” he said. He even went so far as to compliment some of his regular critics on their eloquence.

“The thing is, we agree on a lot of stuff,” Bohn declared. “The main thing [to keep] in mind is compassion for Humboldt and the respect for each other. I think we’re gonna do a lot better. You’ll look back 10 years from now, and we’re gonna be fine.”

And if something similar was said 10 years ago, the room was polite enough not to mention it.

The next Board of Supervisors hearing on the general plan is scheduled for March 24.

Read Original Article

3/8/14

Here on the North Coast of California, salmon and steelhead are an amazing renewable resource that have been integral to the social, spiritual and economic health of our region for thousands of years. Although most populations are currently listed as threatened or endangered species, there are still limited opportunities for tribal, commercial and sport fishers to enjoy the benefits of these fisheries.



Many other businesses that cater to the fishing industry also derive income and livelihoods.



After a century-plus legacy of watershed degradation and overfishing, concerted efforts by a diverse segment of our community have worked together to heal our watersheds in an attempt to restore salmon and steelhead fisheries. Restoration efforts have focused on reducing catch numbers and improving instream habitat.



These ongoing efforts require diligence and a long-term vision. If we are successful in restoring our fisheries, it is hard to exaggerate the ecological and economic benefits that future generations could enjoy.

The Humboldt County General Plan contains admirable goals which recognize the importance and economic value of healthy watersheds with abundant salmon and steelhead runs. A primary goal is to “maintain or restore biological resources for long-term public and economic benefits.” In regards to watershed protection, “riparian corridors will be protected from encroachment with development restrictions” with an “emphasis on the protection and restoration of endangered or threatened species.”



Sounds promising?



Unfortunately, in the past 45 days our Planning Commission moved to weaken the protection of fish-bearing streams in the General Plan Update. Within the plan’s conservation element, Standard BR-S5 defines a Streamside Management Area (SMA), or in lay terms a “streamside riparian buffer.” The SMA definition that the Planning Commission revised had been developed through an extensive review period and was based on current California Board of Forestry rules with the caveats that “the width of a SMA shall be expanded when supported by written evidence from the requesting referral agency” and “where Forest Practice Rules designate wider stream buffer areas, the widths of the SMA shall be expanded to be consistent with those regulations.”



Prior the Planning Commission’s revision of BR-S5, my main criticism of the SMA definition was the weaker standard placed on intermittent fish-bearing streams, a 50-foot buffer versus 150 feet. Seasonally, intermittent streams provide essential spawning and rearing habitat for coho salmon and steelhead. Given the current stressors of dry winters, a changing climate and un-permitted water extractions, many of our local streams that once flowed year-round are now intermittent. These streams need more protection, not less.



Based on the Planning Commission’s revisions to BR-S5 and a straw vote which approved these edits on Jan. 30, my additional concerns include: lack of compliance with Forest Practice Rules, a reduction of buffer widths on perennial streams, and a weakening of language regarding agency input (“shall” replaced with “may”). These changes rendered the General Plan’s SMA definition non­compliant with state and federal standards. If adopted, this definition of a SMA could jeopardize our fisheries and associated economic benefits.



I was pleasantly surprised when the Planning Commission reversed its straw vote and rejected the watered-down SMA definition at its Feb. 27 meeting. I sincerely would like to thank the three commissioners who voted to reject the revised SMA definition. At the same time, it’s discouraging to note that it took several meetings and diligent presentations by California Department of Fish and Wildlife scientist Gordon Leppig and others to convince several commissioners that reducing streamside protections would be unwise.



So what’s the next step? I suppose the SMA definition gets kicked back to the Board of Supervisors for them to decide its fate: maintain the current version or override the Planning Commission’s 3-3-1 vote and adopt the weakened, non-compliant version. This is where I would encourage you, the public, to voice your opinion. If you fish in the rivers or ocean for salmon and steelhead (as a tribal member, commercial fishermen, professional guide or sport-fisher) or run a business that derives income from the fishing industry, please let the Board of Supervisors know that you want adequate protection to streamside management areas in the General Plan. Let the supervisors know that they should take the necessary steps to foster salmon and steelhead recovery so that future generations of Humboldt County residents may also share in the benefits provided by viable fisheries.



Ross Taylor has worked locally as a fisheries biologist since 1986.

Read Original Article

3/7/14

Speaker after speaker spoke critically of the U.S. Navy's plan to train and test weapons along the North Coast, and expressed concerns over potential environmental impacts during a public meeting at the Red Lion Hotel in Eureka on Thursday.

”We want you to bring the message that we want no project, we want no testing. We want peace,” Northern Humboldt High School Trustee Dana Silvernale said.

During more than an hour of public comment, community members pleaded with the Navy to use simulations instead of active sonar testing, to consider the harm to marine life and to postpone the testing and training activities to explore other options. No one spoke in favor of the plan.

After each person -- including a woman dressed as a dolphin -- spoke, an audience of 120 applauded loudly and hollered cries of support. The Environmental Protection Information Center also circulated a petition.

One man, who served in the Navy for four years, said he fell in love with nature in the Navy when he heard mammals through the hull of a nuclear submarine.

”When we drove through schools of dolphins it sounded just like children playing in a school yard,” he said. “We cannot afford to lose .... dolphins and whales because boys want to play with their toys.”

Arcata resident Dave Meserve suggested the Navy use simulations instead.

”It's quite possible in this world of video games, in this world of advanced electronics, to do simulations,” Meserve said. “Why can't you simulate the active sonar and have them see exactly what would be going on, him or her, without putting the sound out there that's destroying or harassing marine life?”

During the five year-training, which is scheduled to begin in 2015, the Navy will test sonar technology, electromagnetic devices and explosives, and perform training exercises off the coasts of Northern California, Oregon, Washington and Alaska if the federal regulatory permits are renewed. Humboldt County is located at the tip of the training area.

The training is necessary to “protect the United States from its enemies, protect and defend the rights of the United States and its allies to move freely on the oceans, and provide humanitarian assistance and disaster relief to failed states,” according to the introduction of a draft environmental impact statement.

Public comment on the 2,000-page draft, which reviews the potential for environmental factors, including marine life, natural habitats and air quality, is due by March 25. The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors voted to send a letter to the Navy last week asking for the comment period to be extended.

The Navy is also seeking authorization from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Marine Fisheries Service to perform training exercises and tests which may potentially kill, harass or harm marine mammals.

A final environmental impact statement is scheduled to be released to the public in the summer of 2015.

Read Original Article

3/2/14

In January, the Board of Supervisors sent the Conservation and Open Space Element of the draft General Plan back to the Planning Commission for review and recommendations, asking them to focus on a “short list” of 13 goals and policies that had not received unanimous support of the old commission.

The Planning Commission has mostly ignored the short list. Instead, they tried to reduce setbacks for streamside management, until after lots of public comment at the Feb. 27 meeting, when they reversed that straw vote. They eliminated the goal of a “countywide trail system that meets future recreational and non-motorized transportation demands,” and gutted language supporting and protecting conservation and open space lands through development review.

Watching recent Planning Commission meetings is downright spooky. The pro-development majority seems to have put Chapter 10 through a word processor, searching for all of those progressive, environmentalist, big government words, like “open space,” “streamside setback,” “development review,” “conservation,” and “trails.”

Then, they have crafted language removing the offending words from the goals and policies. It seems less like a “review” of the element, and more like aggressive advancement of a rigid agenda that essentially rewrites it. Their changes have invariably served the perceived interests of wealthy and powerful developers and real estate agents, who want less county oversight of projects.

In fact, they are acting against their own self interest by weakening these elements. Why are home values rising here? Why are people buying? It's because they want open space, unobstructed views, healthy streams and good trails. If this area gets developed like all the other formerly rural counties, it will no longer be a magnet for those seeking to escape urban and suburban areas. If open space standards are weakened, long-term developer and real estate profits will decline.

Language protecting streams and open space and supporting trails was included because hundreds of local residents, who participated in creating the original draft of the plan, want to protect our natural world from irresponsible development and provide residents with transportation and recreation opportunities that are essential to healthy communities.

Open space preservation not only makes our community more attractive; it is mandated by state law. However the commission tweaks the goals, planning review will continue to be legally required for projects where open space policies apply.

Commissioner Lee Ulansey worried that countywide trails might involve prescriptive easements or the seizing of private property, and even when staff clearly stated that none of that is likely, he led the majority in weakening the goal of a trail system.

The Planning Commission is charged with making the General Plan internally consistent. However, by removing the goal of a “countywide trail system” they have made it inconsistent with the Circulation Element, which “Support[s] efforts to establish and connect a regional trails system.” Consistency between elements is essential and helps to secure outside funding for trails.

As a building contractor, I have argued on behalf of clients before the Planning Commission, trying to get the commission to drop requirements to build the first sidewalk in their neighborhood, because planning called for sidewalks on their street, and the project was of sufficient scope to trigger the rule. I argued that it was absurd to build an isolated stretch of sidewalk, and that it was an unfair burden to require them to pay for it. I lost that argument. The project was put on hold. I was annoyed not to get the job.

In retrospect, it makes good sense, for the community as a whole, to have sidewalks in a residential neighborhood on a busy street, and the only way they will be built is to require those who wish to develop their property to do their share of the sidewalk building. For the long-term greater good it is okay to have requirements that may seem burdensome to contractors and landowners in the short-term.

Government, in general, limits some of our personal freedoms in order to support the greater good. We must register our cars, follow traffic rules, not pollute streams, vaccinate our kids, send them to school, not litter, and generally respect our fellow humans and our environment.

A majority, consisting of recently appointed commission members, have taken it upon themselves to weaken language that they consider to be a burden on developers or a threat to private property rights. They seem to lack respect for the community consensus supporting quality of life and environmental values, which was central to the creation of the draft plan.

The Board of Supervisors should save a lot of time and money by stopping the circus of Planning Commission re-review of the Open Space Element. Then, they can move forward to approve the draft General Plan Update that already exists. On Feb. 27, responding to public comment, the commission voted to ask the board to “review the work completed and give us further instructions.” That is a good start.

Dave Meserve is a former Arcata city councilman.

Read Original Article