News

Spooky goings on with the county Planning Commission

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

Navy to hold Eureka meeting on training, weapons testing

2/15/14  

The U.S. Navy is scheduled hold a meeting in Eureka in early March to allow members of the public to comment on the potential environmental impacts of the Navy’s five-year training and weapons testing plans along the North Coast.

  During the training period — lasting from 2015 to 2020 — Navy personnel will conduct exercises and test a variety of weapons and equipment such as sonar technology, electromagnetic devices and explosives off the coasts of Alaska, Oregon, Washington and Northern California.

  The testing area extends to the tip of Humboldt County.

  The Navy’s northwest region public affairs specialist Liane Nakahara said the meeting in Eureka — one of eight along the West Coast — will be a combination of an open house and a public forum, during which visitors can speak with Navy representatives involved with the project.

  “What’s different about this meeting is that halfway through, at around 6:30 p.m., the project manager will also give an overview of the draft analysis and our findings,” Nakahara said.

  The project’s nearly 2,000page draft environmental impact statement reviews the potential consequences for air quality, marine life, natural habitats and other environmental factors, and is currently open for public comment until March 25. Nakahara said comments may also be submitted at the public meeting.

  “The most important things is to let the public know that they are able to comment,” Nakahara said. “It really helps us to make a stronger document.”

  The introduction of the draft environmental impact statement states 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.”

  The document also states that the training and testing periods “have the potential to impact the environment,” which former U.S. Department of Agriculture crop loss analyst and environmental activist Rosalind Peterson said is an understatement.

  “What I’m concerned about along our coast is the way that experimental weapon testing won’t stop during whale and salmon migrations,” Peterson said.

“I think it is imperative that we at least buy some time for the public comment period on this environmental impact statement.”

Peterson said she has submitted a letter to the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors and other county boards in Northern California urging them to take action to extend the public comment period and to replace the Navy’s open house with a formal meeting.

“We are requesting that the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors, in order to give residents time to file public comments, also contact our California senators and Congressman Jared Huffman, requesting them to work toward gaining an extension of time to file public comments,” she said.

Peterson said the Navy “already made up their mind” on its impact statement when it submitted a Dec. 18 letter to the National Marine Fisheries Service seeking authorization to potentially harm marine mammals.

The Marine Mammals Protection Act requires that the Navy receive permission from the National Marine Fisheries Service to conduct tests and training exercises which may potentially kill, harass or harm marine mammals. Peterson said the public comment period on the Navy’s request — which ends Feb. 28 — should also be extended. “Most people don’t know what’s happening,” she said.

Multiple phone calls to the National Marine Fisheries Service northwest region headquarters were not returned by deadline.

Read Original Article

Meeting on Samoa Pulp Mill's Future to be held Feb. 10

1/31/14

Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District and Humboldt State University representatives are holding an open house on Feb. 10 to discuss the vision for what the site of the old Samoa pulp mill could become.

Currently, there is a conceptual plan with some proposed options, including storage for logs and a filter for water treatment, on how to utilize the property, said Rhea Williamson, HSU's dean of research, economic and community development.

”It's a vision,” Williamson said. “There are certainly a lot of other options and ideas that might be integrated into the plan, and some may or may not work out.”

Jack Crider, the district's chief executive officer, said the open house is an opportunity to hear new ideas.

”It's exciting when folks come in and say, 'Oh, what about this?'” Crider said.

Attendees will be able to talk to those involved with the site. Topics such as existing assets like electricity and water available at the site will be discussed, Williamson said.

Jacqueline Debets, county director of economic development, said toxic risks at the mill have been secured.

”It's important for the public to see how far the site has come in a short period of time,” Debets said, “and it's important for the public to see the vision for the mill's future and provide their input.”

Williamson said she thinks transparency and communication are key to any effort addressing regional economic growth.

”I think the event is a great opportunity to revisit the possibilities of the site,” Williamson said. “Right now, I think the mill might be viewed by many as an eyesore. The vision that's being considered really draws on natural resources and the beauty of the area.”

The recreation and conservation district owns 72 acres of the property, including docks, and is looking to acquire an additional 80 acres. The building's first tenant, Taylor Shellfish, has signed a lease, Crider said.

Williamson said the revival of the site would certainly address some of the concerns around job loss and the economic needs of the community.

”This is really an opportunity to allow input from whomever wants to provide it,” Williamson said, “and to move forward a positive vision for that area.”

Read Original Article

Click HERE for a glimpse into the mill's potential future

Supes Seek Direction

2/2/14

At the Tuesday board meeting, the Planning and Building Department will ask the board for further clarification on what the Planning Commission should review in the Conservation and Open Space Element of the Draft General Plan.

The board previously voted 3-2 — with Lovelace and 2nd District Supervisor Estelle Fennell dissenting — at its Jan. 13 General Plan Update meeting to send the entire element back to the commission for 45 days of review.

The Planning Commission held two public hearings on Jan. 25 and Jan. 27 to review the element and narrowed down its review to the Open Space and Biological Resources sections until further guidance from the board was given.

Lovelace said that the lack of direction from the board poses a problem for the Planning Commission, as each special meeting costs around $600.

“Before we adjourned on that issue, I did ask if the board wanted to provide more guidance because I thought it was unclear,” Lovelace said. “If they have to review the whole element, they’ll have to find more money.”

Fourth District Supervisor Virginia Bass said the Planning Commission had informed the board in a letter that if a section of the element was going to be sent back that it “would be sent back with the entire element.”

“I said during our meeting that it was up to the Planning Commission to decide which section they wanted to review, whether it was the short list or an item by item approach,” Bass said. “I think it’s up to their preference.”

Read Original Article

Creating a marine reserve snapshot: Baseline monitoring of North Coast to include Traditional Ecological Knowledge

 2/1/14  

A team of academics, citizen scientists, fishermen and tribal governments will begin a collaborative baseline monitoring program today for California’s newest marine protected areas along the North Coast — part of the nation’s most expansive network of marine reserves.

  In the program, researchers from more than 30 organizations will begin an assortment of projects to gather data on the baseline ecological and socioeconomic conditions of the North Coast’s marine protected areas, according to California Ocean Science Trust associate scientist Erin Meyer.

  “With 32 organizations participating, it’s an amazingly comprehensive program,” Meyer said. “It is a very collaborative and interdisciplinary program.”

  The 20 North Coast protected areas — consisting of 19 marine protected areas and one marine recreational management area — took effect on Dec. 19, 2012, and cover 137 square miles along the North Coast, according to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

  The baseline program is led by the MPA Monitoring Enterprise, a partnership between the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Sea Grant, the California Ocean Protection Council and the California Ocean Science Trust.

  Over the three-year span of the program, 11 projects will examine ocean conditions and human uses in eight natural ecosystems along the North Coast.

While baseline programs have been conducted in three other regions of the state, the North Coast program will be the first to incorporate the traditional ecological knowledge of Native American tribes.

In a project led by the Smith River Rancheria, several North Coast tribes will draw upon the knowledge of their members to assess the ecological and cultural importance of several species across four different ecosystems.

Smith River Rancheria Self-Governance Director Briannon Fraley explained the importance of their collaborative project with the InterTribal Sinkyone Wilderness Council, the Cher-Ae Heights Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria and the Wiyot Tribe.

“The Tribe is taking this opportunity (to) find ways our project can enhance Federal, State and Tribal ocean governance for the shared benefit of the resource and preservation of Tribal rights,” Fraley wrote in an email. “Tribes are the first stewards of their traditional lands and have been prescribed the responsibility to act accordingly.”

Over the first two years of the project, Fraley said each participating tribe will conduct a series of interviews of select members who actively harvest marine resources and have adept knowledge of ocean ecosystems. Fraley said tribe members will be asked about their perceptions and knowledge of ecosystems, and the six keystone species that “are most likely to benefit from Marine Protected Areas.”

“The Smith River Rancheria will integrate the information into their governance structure and laws to further their inherent stewardship responsibility and work towards a co-management agreement with the State,” Fraley said.

Tribal knowledge will also be integrated into several other projects, including Sonoma State University biology professor Karina Neilsen’s project on sandy beaches and surf-zone ecosystems.

“This will be the first time I’ll be working with tribe members and getting their perspective,” Neilsen said. “It’s going to be a very informative and rewarding experience.”

Neilsen and her research team — which will include Humboldt State University professor of biology Tim Mulligan — will work to provide a “baseline picture” of shorebirds, invertebrates, and fish who call North Coast beaches habitats home.

Neilsen will conduct her surveys along six beaches that are in marine protected areas and six similar beaches that are not. She said that this is to allow future researchers to have a point of reference during future monitoring studies.

“Somebody could come back after the baseline program is completed and re-survey the same beaches,” Neilsen said. “If the management and protection was having any impact, you’d be able to see the changes.”

While Neilsen and other researchers will examine how the protected areas affect marine life, Humboldt State University economics department chair Steven Hackett will look into how they impact humans.

Collaborating with environmental consultant group Point 97 and the local fishing community, Hackett will investigate how major commercial fisheries and commercial passenger fishing vessel fisheries have been affected by the new regulated areas. Part of the project will include the creation of a Fisheries Advisory Council, made up of members of the North Coast fishing community, which will work to organize interviews and focus groups.

“It represents a connection between us as researchers and the working folks who are out there fishing,” Hackett said.

The three-year project will map out regions of economic importance that have been altered by the protected areas, review commercial catch landings from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and gather information on the community’s perception of the protected areas.

“What happens over time is an open question,” Hackett said. “I think it’s going to be really interesting how we’re going to connect everything at the end.”

Citizen scientists will also play a role in the baseline program project on rocky reefs and kelp forest habitats.

Led by Reef Check California Director Jan Freiwald, who has worked on the other three baseline programs throughout the state, the project uses members of the public to survey the species composition and abundance in reef and kelp environments.

“The public has been really involved in designating these MPAs,” Freiwald said. “Now that they’re in place, we want to know how they are working and how they are affecting the environment.”

Freiwald is collaborating with Humboldt State University to train the citizen scuba divers how to count and identify the species along the different marine habitats.

“We have training for the public, where people can come and we train them in the scientific method and species identification,” he said. “We train them to count 70 species of fish, invertebrates and seaweed.”

Freiwald said the first public training session is set to take place on May 3 and 4 in Fort Bragg. A sign-up form and more information on the project can be found at www.reefcheck.org.

With the Central Coast, North Central Coast and South Coast baseline programs already completed or in the process of completion, Meyer said the North Coast will complete the state’s baseline picture.

“It’s really exciting to be launching this final program so that three years from now, we’ll be in a place where we have baseline monitoring data for the entire state,” Meyer said.

Read Original Article