Humboldt Waterkeeper
  • About Us
    • Our Mission
    • Waterkeeper Alliance
  • Humboldt Bay
    • Geography
    • Wildlife
    • Bay Issues
    • Photo Gallery
  • Programs
    • Toxics Initiative
    • Water Quality
    • Bay Tours
    • Community Outreach
  • Get Involved
    • Report Pollution
    • Speak Out
    • Volunteer
    • Donate
    • Membership
    • Stay Informed
  • Contact Us
  • News
    • Latest
    • Press

News

Supes to forge ahead on GPU with new reports; next hearing Oct. 1

Details
Virginia Graziani, Redwood Times
Latest
Created: 25 September 2012

9/25/12
After hearing three hours of public comment from 45 speakers, the Humboldt County board of supervisors agreed unanimously to continue their review of the General Plan Update with a revised schedule and new staff reports intended to help the supervisors better understand what proposed changes to the current (1984) Framework General Plan mean.

Board chair and fourth district supervisor Virginia Bass began the hearing by explaining to the standing-room-only crowd that comments made by supervisors at the previous hearing were "mischaracterized" in the media to suggest that the board was about to scrap the GPU and start the process over.

A change that extreme would have to come before the board as a separate agenda item, and it has not been agendized, Bass said.

Fifth district supervisor Ryan Sundberg, whose comments at the Sept. 10 hearing triggered the misunderstanding, apologized.

"I was angry and upset last week and I didn't articulate clearly," Sundberg said. "I don't want to kill the plan and start over ... My intention was just to ask a question about how to see it more clearly."

Third district supervisor Mark Lovelace, who had sharply criticized Sundberg's Sept. 10 statements, apologized in turn to Sundberg and thanked him for his clarification. "Last week was not the high point of the year," Lovelace said.

At the end of the hearing held last Monday, Sept. 17, the supervisors unanimously agreed to resume review of the GPU on Monday, Oct. 1.

In the meantime, county planning staff will prepare the first of their new reports on Chapter 5, the Community Services and Infrastructure Element, and Chapter 6, the Telecommunications Element.

First reports will include a description of the legal basis for the element, the key issues, a comparison of how the issues were addressed in the existing Framework Plan and how they are addressed in the current GPU draft, which was approved by the county planning commission in May 2012.

The report will also include reasons for the changes - such as state requirements, public comment, and planning commission recommendations, as well listing the board's options.

After the supervisors cast their straw votes, staff will compile a second report that will include a "strikethrough" version of the draft element showing how the straw votes changed the wording.

The second report will also provide the corresponding section of the Framework Plan, a description of the differences, and a chart that shows how these changes, if adopted, will affect landowners, and the estimated cost of implementing the changes.

The supervisors agreed to postpone further deliberations on Chapter 4, the Land Use Element, which began in July. This element, which defines land use designations that in turn determine zoning on individual parcels, contains the most difficult issues, particularly regarding residential uses on agriculture and timber lands.

Environmental advocates urged the supervisors to proceed with the draft GPU rather than go back to the Framework Plan.

Scott Greacen, executive director of Friends of the Eel River, said current property owners as well as wildlife and future generations need the complete GPU, not just a "tweaking" of the Framework Plan, so that they can have a clear picture of what they can and cannot do.

If there are no guidelines, resource advocates will have no choice but to challenge property owners "project by project," Greacen said.

At the same time he admitted that there is a lot in the GPU he doesn't like but he's willing to go ahead with the existing document rather than face the chaos that would follow abandonment of the process.

Hezekiah Allen concurred, stating, "The Framework Plan has been the guiding document for nearly 30 years marked by unplanned, unregulated, and unpermitted development in rural communities. The greatest achievement of the Framework Plan was to solidify the irrelevance of the planning and building department to the everyday lives of rural residents...

"I am frustrated that the time, energy, and resources that have been invested into this plan over the last 12 years, investments made by thousands of individuals, hundreds of organizations, and the public - as represented by the county - now seem threatened by the search for a simple answer," Allen continued.

"We need a collaborative relationship built on trust... This General Plan Update process is simply the starting point to realizing our future; the work is yet to come," he concluded.

Jeff Smith, former chairman of the planning commission, assured the supervisors, "No matter what direction you go, the work done in the past is not in vain...

"None of you were on the board when the ship set sail, and I don't know if anyone could foresee what the GPU is today. No matter whether you've been on the board 15 years or 15 minutes, it's going to be your plan."

Jennifer Kalt, one of the last speakers, told the board, "If you don't [complete the GPU], you'll be remembered as the board that kept us in 1984."

The supervisors, however, seemed to agree informally to continue with the GPU. When every member of the public who wanted to speak had spoken, the supervisors' discussion centered on scheduling, particularly whether to continue working on the Land Use Element or to proceed with some of the less difficult elements.

The next GPU hearing is scheduled for Monday, Oct. 1, beginning at 1:30 p.m. in the supervisors' chambers at the county courthouse in Eureka. The agenda will include setting a revised hearing schedule and review of Chapters 5 and 6, the Infrastructure and Community Services Element and the Telecommunications Element. Oral public comment on these elements will be taken at the hearing.

To make written comments, which may be of any length, write to Kathy Hayes, Clerk of the Board, 825 Fifth St, Eureka 95501 or email her at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Only one copy of written comments is required.

For more information, go to the GPU website, www.planupdate.org, or call the planning department at 445-7541.

Read More

HSU Biodiversity Conference, Sept. 29-30

Details
HBK
Latest
Created: 24 September 2012

“because life is so cool …”

Humboldt State University's 2nd annual Biodiversity Conference is this weekend!

The Biodiversity Conference brings together educators, researchers, and conservation advocates to discuss with how their respective fields explore and protect biodiversity. Bio Conf 2012 will include a series of presentations covering a variety of ecological topics. Students and the public are invited to join an exciting weekend of learning more about the world around us, ways to get involved locally, and how each of us play important roles in the health of the ecosystems we are part of.

Read more …

Legislation helps North Coast crab fishermen; restricts permit transfers to out of state boats

Details
Luke Ramseth, Times-Standard
Latest
Created: 23 September 2012

9/22/12

A bill authored by Assemblyman Wes Chesbro, D-Arcata, would help North Coast crab fishermen by restricting permit transfers to boats from outside of California.


”It's kind of a loophole that we're trying to close,” said crab fisherman Aaron Newman, Humboldt Fisherman's Marketing Association president.
In a press release, Chesbro said the bill is meant to “prevent a repeat of last season when large crab boats from out of state took unfair advantage of the devastation in Crescent City Harbor caused by the tsunami.”


Chesbro said he hopes the bill, AB 2363, can take effect immediately after Gov. Jerry Brown signs it -- ideally in time for crab season, which usually starts in December. The main provision of the bill would set tighter limits on emergency transfers of Dungeness crab permits to boats outside of California.


”It was something that was well intentioned that was taken advantage of by some individuals,” said Eureka crab fisherman Mike Cunningham, who helped develop the new legislation with Chesbro.


Newman said larger, out-of-state boats purchased local crab fishing permits after the March 2011 tsunami devastated the Crescent City harbor, taking an unfair share of crabs from local fishermen with smaller boats.


”There were boats that weren't even operable before the tsunami,” or not actively participating in crab fishing, Newman said. Because of the tsunami emergency, those boat owners were granted permission to transfer their crab fishing permits.


He said he hopes the new legislation will force regulators to ask some tough questions before a permit is transferred.


”Is it a bogus transfer, or is it for people that actually need it?” he said. “Some permit owners were offered a pile of money to go fishing, which is not the intent of the law.”


Cunningham stressed that the option of transferring permits is still there for boat owners, in the case of “bona fide” emergencies. But, he said, the current regulations needed more restrictions.


Another provision of the bill would allow crab fishermen to retrieve lost or abandoned crab traps at the end of the season, even if the pot is not their own. Under current regulations, fishermen can only pick up their own pots.


”This means less derelict fishing gear in the water to ensnare wildlife or to interfere with other fishing operations,” Chesbro said.


Fishermen are usually good about picking up their own traps, Newman said.


”But, they do get abandoned,” he said. “There are people that are sloppy.”


That can cost other fishermen, Newman said. If a pot gets tangled up in a boat, it can cause damage.


A final provision would allow crab fishermen to sell meat from test crabs. Each year crab size is tested to see if the crabs are big enough for the season to commence. In the past, experts have recommended that the season be delayed due to a poor crab meat-to-size ratio -- a delay that sometimes means weeks without income for crab fishermen.


Newman has been involved with the preseason testing process before, a process he called “expensive.” Fishermen have to go out and fish, and a plant has to process 5,000 pounds of crab, he said.


The test crab catch was always given away to charities, Cunningham said. Under the new provision that the catch can be sold, allowing fishermen and testers to recoup costs and still have enough crab left over to give away, he said.

 

Read Original Article

Governor Signs Chesbro Aquaculture Bill

Details
Ryan Burns, North Coast Journal Blogthing
Latest
Created: 19 September 2012

9/18/12

Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a bill by Assemblymember Wesley Chesbro (D - North Coast) to boost California’s growing aquaculture industry. 

AB 1886 expands the role of an industry funded aquaculture coordinator within the Department of Fish and Game (DFG).


“Aquaculture is a clean, sustainable industry that has great growth potential in California, especially on the North Coast,” Chesbro said. “The coordinator program is important to the continued growth of California aquaculture, especially when it comes to helping the industry to meet high environmental standards.”


“The California Aquaculture Association requested this legislation and the industry asked for an increase in licensing fees to pay for the expansion of the aquaculture coordinator’s duties,” Chesbro added.


Specifically AB 1886:

  • Requires DFG’s aquaculture coordinator to coordinate with California’s Aquaculture Development Committee, which is comprised of industry representatives, state regulators and other stakeholders.
  • Increases fees for first time registration and renewal of aquaculture operations and increases the base penalties for engaging in aquaculture without paying registration or renewal fees.
  • Requires the DFG to apply revenue from these fees specifically to the aquaculture coordinator program and maintain an up-to-date cost accounting and provide it to the Legislature and the Aquaculture Development Committee.

Greg Dale is the Eureka-based regional manager for Coast Seafoods, which is a major producer of oysters on Humboldt Bay. He is past president of the California Aquaculture Association and currently serves on the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District.


“The aquaculture industry is pleased the governor signed Assemblymember Chesbro’s bill,” Dale said. “The coordinator helps the industry collaborate with the DFG on sustainable aquaculture practices and relay our successes to the public.”


“The California Aquaculture Association offered to pay higher fees to expand the coordinator program and in return require the DFG to increase transparency and accountability,” Dale added. “This legislation ensures revenue from these fees is applied to the aquaculture coordinator program and that an accounting of the program is provided.”

 

Read Original Article


Previously: The World is Yours, Oyster Farmer

County Staff Comes Up With a Way to Clarify the GPU for Supes

Details
Ryan Burns, North Coast Journal Blogthing
Latest
Created: 19 September 2012

9/18/12

It was standing-room only at yesterday’s special meeting of the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors.


“Was it something I said?” joked Fifth District Supervisor Ryan Sundberg, who last week expressed confusion and concern over the general plan update process and suggested possible changes to that process. Many, including this reporter and Sundberg’s fellow supervisor, Mark Lovelace, interpreted those comments as the opening salvo in an effort to undo some or all of the work that has been done on the update process thus far. Not so, Sundberg asserted.


“Just to be clear, I don’t want to kill the general plan. I don’t want to start over.” Sundberg said he was just seeking a way to clearly track the changes between the existing framework plan, which has been in effect since 1984, and the updated draft, 12 years in the making and approved by the planning commission. “I take responsibility for my part in not being clear about that,” Sundberg said.


Interim Planning and Building Department Director Martha Spencer then laid out a proposed method to help make things more clear. For each element of the general plan under consideration, Spencer said, staff would prepare two reports: one looking back and the other looking forward. Report No. 1 would compare the framework plan with the planning commission-approved draft (as Sundberg requested) and provide background on the reasons for any changes. This would be prepared prior to any board vote on the element in question.


Report No. 2 would be prepared after the vote, examining the big-picture implications of the board’s decision, clearly stating the changes that had been made to the framework plan and providing a potential blueprint for implementation.


Sundberg was pleased, and tranquility settled across the land.


Or not. The crowd had come loaded for bear, and while many commenters eased off the trigger in appreciation of Sundberg’s comments, most fired away. Developers, contractors and other property-rights advocates thanked the three conservative supervisors for the suggestion they now disavowed — namely, starting from scratch with the 1984 framework plan and updating it just enough to comply with state and federal laws.


Others, including environmental activists, argued that the update process represents years of hard work and compromise from all corners and urged the board to move forward.


Even county planning commissioners, who spent years helping to craft the current draft plan, disagreed on the best approach. Current Second District Commissioner Mel Kreb urged the board to respect the efforts of others. “You inherited the work done by previous supervisors, planning department staff and the planning commission. You need to ask yourself if you trust any of the work that those people did, because you repeatedly hear from people here who say you should not trust anything that’s ever been done in this process. And I just reject that idea outright. It’s an insult,” Kreb said. “You must get to work.”


But former commission chair Jeff Smith urged the board to think independently. “None of you were on the board when this ship set sail … but the bottom line is, whether you’ve been on the board for 15 minutes or 15 years, it doesn’t matter. This is gonna be your plan, and it’s up to you to do what you think is right.”


Public comments continued for nearly three hours, leaving the supervisors no time to proceed with the task at hand — continuing its review of the general plan’s land use element. Instead, the board elected to skip the remainder of that contentious element for now and move on to chapters five and six (community infrastructure/services and telecommunications) at the next meeting, to be held Oct. 1. Staff will prepare new reports for those chapters, as proposed.

 

Read Original Article

More Articles …

  1. Supes Majority Offers Grab-bag of Reasons to Torpedo the GPU Process
  2. First California sea otter to survive oil spill has a pup
  3. Volunteers prepare for tsunami debris
  4. Management plan in the works for Humboldt community forest; Supervisors approve $17,000 grant to investigate McKay Tract project

Latest

Press

Page 130 of 199
  • Start
  • Prev
  • 125
  • 126
  • 127
  • 128
  • 129
  • 130
  • 131
  • 132
  • 133
  • 134
  • Next
  • End

Advanced Search

Current Projects

  • Mercury in Local Fish & Shellfish
  • Nordic Aquafarms
  • Offshore Wind Energy
  • Sea Level Rise
  • 101 Corridor
  • Billboards on the Bay
  • Dredging
  • Advocacy in Action
  • Our Supporters
Report A Spill
California Coastkeeper
Waterkeeper Alliance
Copyright © 2026 Humboldt Waterkeeper. All Rights Reserved.