News

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

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

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

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