[2:00] >> May we please have a roll call.

[2:05] [Members roll call vote in progress]

[2:32] >>

[2:37] (Indiscernible there are some items

[2:38] that have been put on the dais this evening for item G point

[2:41] one.

[2:46] >> And is there also available right in front for folks

[2:48] in the audience if they'd like to see them in the agendas?

[2:53] Thank you.

[2:54] That brings us to item D, public comment on agenda items.

[3:00] This time from -- that is relevant to the jurisdiction

[3:06] that is not on the agenda tonight.

[3:07] If you're here to comment on something not on the agenda,

[3:11] please wait and we will have a comment period

[3:13] for each item on the agenda.

[3:15] Is for items that are not on the agenda.

[3:18] So if you would like to make a public comment on a non agenda

[3:21] item, please approach the podium or raise your hand.

[3:28] If you are online, please raise your hand immediately --

[3:36] in the audience.

[3:37] There's a little bit of feedback going on.

[3:42] Public commission and the audience

[3:44] and see if anybody would like to pull these agenda

[3:46] items to have a staff presentation and public

[3:49] comment on them.

[3:51] Otherwise, we will make one vote as a commission.

[3:54] Our first item to see if we want to keep on the consent agenda is

[3:59] item one, review and approval of the August 6th,

[4:03] 2026 Action Summary.

[4:05] Would anybody on commission like to pull this item?

[4:08] Would anybody in the audience like to pull this item?

[4:11] Please raise your hand.

[4:13] Okay.

[4:14] We will stay on the consent agenda.

[4:17] I saw a hand raised for a moment.

[4:21] Please raise it again if you do want item one pulled.

[4:26] Okay.

[4:27] I'm not seeing it raised again so we will move to item two,

[4:31] review and approval of the August 20th,

[4:33] 2026 Action formula.

[4:36] Anybody on the commission like to pull this item?

[4:39] Anybody in the audience and online you'd

[4:42] like to pull this item?

[4:43] Okay.

[4:44] Item three on the consent agenda is Humboldt exotics,

[4:49] LLC conditional use permit.

[4:52] Would anybody in the commission like to pull this item.

[4:55] Would anybody in the audience like to pull this item?

[4:58] Okay.

[4:58] I'm not seeing any hands raised.

[5:02] That brings us to the end of our list on our consent agenda.

[5:06] With that, do we have any discussion or a motion?

[5:15] >> I moved to approve consent items one through three.

[5:17] >> I'll second.

[5:19] >> Okay.

[5:19] Let's go ahead and just do a voice vote.

[5:22] All those in favor please say, aye.

[5:27] Any against?

[5:28] Any abstain.

[5:29] Motion passes.

[5:34] >> That brings us to item F, item from consent.

[5:36] We did not have any items pulled from consent

[5:39] so we'll move to item G, public hearings.

[5:41] We have one public hearing item tonight --

[5:44] the new Cingular wireless PCs LLC AT&T mobility conditional

[5:51] Use permit Coastal Development permit and special Use Permit.

[5:54] We are going to open that up with a staff report.

[5:57] I have time for questions from the commission

[5:59] and then we will open up public comment for that.

[6:02] And then we'll bring it back to the Commission

[6:04] for discussion and decision.

[7:13] >> Good evening commissioners.

[7:15] I'm with the Humboldt County planning

[7:18] and I'm here to present the project PLN-2025-19320 Cingular

[7:31] wireless PCs and AT&T mobility for a conditional use permit

[7:35] and coastal development permit for a cell tower.

[7:37] This project is at 3384 Lily Ave.

[7:40] The operator is Cingular wireless PCs and AT&T mobility

[7:43] and the agent is Erin D law and he's available later

[7:47] for questions. --

[7:49] Erin Dillow and he's available later for questions.

[7:52] The location of this cell tower is on the northern end

[7:56] of Mckinleyville.

[7:57] The property is just south of the Arcada Eureka Airport

[8:02] and adjacent to highway 101.

[8:05] Here is another image showing you

[8:09] from the south where the cell tower is proposed.

[8:15] This project is for an 89 foot tall monopole tower with stealth

[8:23] designed to resemble a large conifer tree,

[8:27] surrounding trees ranging between 72 and 76ft tall.

[8:31] The lease area for the equipment and the 30 kilowatt generator

[8:36] for backup power would be 414ft².

[8:38] And the tower would include 12 antennas, 12 remote radio units

[8:45] and one GPS antenna.

[8:49] This is the location of the decommissioned cell tower.

[8:54] It used to be on the gas station 76 on Murray Avenue.

[9:00] Most people didn't even recognize it was there.

[9:03] This is the proposed new location.

[9:07] And then, this is the --

[9:09] I apologize.

[9:10] The location on the right is the vertical bridge site

[9:15] that recently was approved over at the Bow Prairie Golf Course.

[9:24] Several alternative sites were considered

[9:27] as required by County code.

[9:30] 313912834 -- examined possible sites for the proposed tower.

[9:38] This is the existing coverage map of the 76 gas station

[9:47] location where the old tower used to be.

[9:50] It was recently torn down.

[9:52] So you can see the coverage map.

[9:55] This next one shows the absence of that tower

[10:01] and theoretical use of the vertical bridge site,

[10:06] if they were to use the co-location.

[10:08] This would be the coverage area.

[10:12] This next map shows the proposed site

[10:15] of what the coverage would be if the new site were to be built.

[10:23] The next few slides are a photo simulation

[10:26] of what the tower would look like.

[10:29] This is looking south on Lily Avenue,

[10:32] towards where the tower would go.

[10:34] And as you can see, there's a representation of the tower.

[10:38] Again, 89ft tall, monopole evergreen tower.

[10:43] This next slide is from the south on Meyers Avenue looking

[10:48] Northwest.

[10:49] And there it is again.

[10:52] This next simulation is from Yamaha place, looking west.

[11:02] And that would be the tower of.

[11:07] This shot is on the 101 southbound side,

[11:12] looking northbound.

[11:14] And there's the tower there.

[11:18] And this last one is on the south side but looking south.

[11:24] And that would be the tower.

[11:27] Here photos are taken from in order and I would like to note

[11:33] the where y'all are places, this does not show the properties

[11:38] that are actually built in this shows what is currently?

[11:52] The FFA was contacted as required

[11:55] to determine if there was any hazard to the aviation zone.

[11:58] The project received a 74601 clearance.

[12:01] No tower lights are required nor have they been proposed.

[12:06] And the top of the 89 foot tower would

[12:09] be six feet below the ceiling of protected airspace.

[12:17] This project is CEQA exempt under class three exemption 15

[12:30] 303(c) new construction and conversion of small structures.

[12:36] We received public comment.

[12:38] We had three emails.

[12:39] And a petition was also sent in signed by 21 signatures opposing

[12:43] the construction.

[12:43] All of the signatures were from residents of Brandon.

[12:48] The project is in alignment with Humboldt County Ordinance

[12:52] 2787 which was adopted from the California Coastal

[12:55] Commission which changed the set uniform standards for wireless

[12:59] telecommunication facilities and unincorporated areas

[13:03] of Humboldt County.

[13:06] Under federal law, the Telecommunications Act of 1996,

[13:12] local governance cannot deny a wireless facility permits based

[13:17] on health concerns related to FCC compliance radio frequency

[13:21] emissions.

[13:22] This includes human exposure to radio frequencies,

[13:30] RF, electromagnetic fields.

[13:32] A study was done and presented in the report as a supplemental

[13:35] that you all received earlier today.

[13:40] There was also concerns regarding

[13:44] the placement of the tower.

[13:47] There were -- there was one commenter who suggested moving

[13:51] it to the secondary location.

[13:53] That was considered.

[13:55] This is the current location considered.

[13:57] This location is slightly southwest

[14:00] which was also considered.

[14:02] This is located at 3248 Lets Avenue along the Hammond Trail.

[14:10] Per the applicant, this was considered.

[14:12] But with the concerns regarding vegetation --

[14:16] lack of vegetation to blend in the monopole with its stealth

[14:20] design, it would also be much more visible from the Hammond

[14:23] Trail and the highway itself.

[14:24] And it was also in the safety zone

[14:28] two for approaching incoming airplanes as well.

[14:35] Staff does recommend an additional condition.

[14:41] The tower is currently considered a broad leaf tower

[14:46] design.

[14:47] We suggest having a faux pine to match the Monterey Pine design

[14:51] as opposed to the broad leaf.

[14:53] So that way it would match the trees.

[14:55] Staff recommends that the tower be approved.

[15:01] The proposal implies -- complies with all telecommunications

[15:06] facility ordinances.

[15:08] The lease area cited -- the lease area is sited in a grassy

[15:14] field and is absent from watercourses and sensitive

[15:17] habitat.

[15:17] And the requirements from the variances from the airport

[15:22] have also been approved.

[15:25] And I'm available for any questions.

[15:32] >> Before we move to public comment,

[15:34] does the commission have any questions for staff?

[15:38] Commissioner Kyriazi.

[15:46] >> Thank you.

[15:47] Can you clarify again what the zoning

[15:49] is for that property and the surrounding property?

[15:52] Isn't mostly residential around that parcel?

[16:23] >> Pardon me.

[16:24] It is considered residential low density, five, suburban area

[16:27] with a combining zoned for airport review and noise

[16:32] impacts.

[16:34] RS5.

[16:37] >> So why wasn't it able to go back to the property for the gas

[16:41] station property?

[16:42] >> The owner of the gas station denied renewing the lease.

[16:45] So there was no way to keep it.

[16:49] >> But the gas station is going back on that site?

[16:53] >> I don't know what's going on that site.

[16:54] It's been razed.

[16:55] I don't know what's currently going to happen to that site.

[16:58] And

[16:59] >> They have permits to reconstruct and you can gas

[17:02] station with a new convenience store. --

[17:04] to reconstruct a new gas station with a new convenience store.

[17:08] So when you showed that circle, that was the zone

[17:10] that it would serve?

[17:13] >> Sorry, that circle was showing the different locations

[17:18] that were considered for the new site.

[17:22] >> For the new site?

[17:23] And is there a circumference of that circle.

[17:26] Like, how many feet out did it go?

[17:29] >> I don't have that in front of me.

[17:31] >> Because I'm in that circle, and I didn't know if that was

[17:33] a conflict.

[17:34] >> The applicant is here so he might be able to provide that

[17:37] information.

[17:38] >> I would not say that's a conflict.

[17:40] I, unless you're within close proximity to the actual site.

[17:45] But being within the circle, no.

[17:49] >> Okay.

[17:56] >> I saw Commissioner MacFarlane in commissioner curiosity.

[17:59] >> I saw there was a referral to the county of development

[18:01] of Environmental Health for hazards because there were

[18:04] so many comments about radio frequencies.

[18:05] Was there any referral to county public health or any third party

[18:10] health person to weigh in on that?

[18:16] >> There was not.

[18:17] And again, as was said, federal law

[18:20] prevents us from considering the health effects

[18:23] of radio frequencies as long as it complies with the FCC

[18:26] standards.

[18:27] And so that's what we do.

[18:29] We make sure that it complies with the standards.

[18:32] And presumably, if it's approved,

[18:33] the FCC would also require them to comply with the legal RF

[18:38] standards.

[18:46] >> I'm sorry.

[18:47] I saw that it was in the Coastal Appeal zone.

[18:49] Did they make any early comments?

[18:50] >> No.

[18:51] They did not make any referrals or comments.

[18:54] >> Commissioner Curiosi.

[18:58] >> I guess, can you repeat one more time what the FCC says we

[19:04] are allowed and not allowed to reject based on --

[19:07] you had it pulled up on the slide.

[19:11] And I guess, related to that, for the Beaupre cell tower,

[19:18] I noticed that the RF analysis actually

[19:21] included a watts per square meter

[19:23] on the ground at different radiuses around that antenna.

[19:27] But this report was pretty bare boned.

[19:31] So I'm curious, because I'm assuming

[19:34] the FCC regulations are based off

[19:36] of that watts per square meter exposure.

[19:38] And I didn't really see that in this analysis that was done.

[19:52] >> Again, the analysis was what we were --

[19:54] what we received on the applicant.

[19:56] It was signed off by the electrical engineer leading

[19:59] the project -- completing the project.

[20:02] And it was stamped.

[20:03] So we have to assume that it was correct.

[20:05] I apologize if I wasn't as detailed as past reports

[20:09] that you've seen.

[20:11] >> Just to repeat what we had had up on the slide was that

[20:17] the Federal Telecommunications Act states that local

[20:22] governments cannot deny a proposed facility based

[20:25] on the health concerns of RF as long as the RF standards that

[20:30] they set are compliant.

[20:38] >> Commissioner Skavdahl.

[20:39] >> I didn't notice in the staff report that you sent to us

[20:42] or the presentation tonight that you have included any visual

[20:45] simulations from the alternative sites or coverage maps.

[20:50] Are those available?

[20:52] >> Those were not provided.

[20:54] >> Thank you.

[21:00] >> Any additional questions before I move to public comment?

[21:07] >> Thank you.

[21:09] I guess we have a stamped analysis from an electrical

[21:16] engineer, but it doesn't --

[21:20] I think the one thing that gives me

[21:22] pause is that I don't see the results of the modeling

[21:27] that they claimed was done by approved software.

[21:30] I just see a stamped sheet saying, we are good.

[21:33] And what kind of concerns me is that I surrounding area

[21:37] is all zoned as residential.

[21:39] And so I don't know how closely residences are allowed

[21:43] to be built to this facility.

[21:47] And so, I'm sorry, maybe I'm getting too far

[21:52] out of questions.

[21:54] But I'm wondering if it's possible to get more detailed

[21:58] results --

[21:59] analysis results.

[22:00] >> If I could, one of the things -- clearly,

[22:03] the maximum permissible exposure is identified within the report.

[22:08] It identifies that it's less than that.

[22:11] One of the things that commission can do,

[22:15] you can commission the project to demonstrate compliance

[22:19] with the FCC regulations.

[22:23] Normally, FCC, their RF regulations

[22:27] are kind of off limits in terms of making a decision on a land

[22:33] use permit.

[22:35] But you can ask for proof that it complies

[22:38] with the FCC regulations.

[22:41] So I think there's a balance there in terms of whether

[22:45] or not that's something you need to see

[22:47] before you're willing to take an action on it.

[22:50] Because you can't approve it or deny it based upon that.

[22:53] But you can absolutely require that they demonstrate

[22:56] that they are in compliance with modeling

[23:00] prior to issuance of permits.

[23:09] >> To follow up, how close can a neighboring residential lots

[23:13] that aren't developed With this tower preclude them from

[23:20] their currently allowable future development --

[23:22] developed would this tower preclude them from

[23:25] their currently allowable future development?

[23:28] >> I'm sorry, could you please repeat the question?

[23:34] >> Would installing the tower preclude the adjacent currently

[23:36] zoned residential lots from future development because it

[23:39] would violate a setback limit?

[23:42] >> According to our current county code,

[23:45] the shortest setback would be 50ft.

[23:49] And that would require a variance.

[23:51] The closest home which is on the property that the tower would be

[23:55] sited is a little over 150ft.

[24:00] >> So the short answer is no, it's not going to adversely

[24:04] affect any lot from development.

[24:12] >> Okay, I'm not seeing any additional commissioner

[24:14] questions at this time so it seems like a good time to open

[24:17] up public comment.

[24:18] We're going to start with folks in the room.

[24:20] If you could please approach the podium

[24:21] and make a line if you'd like to comment on this item.

[24:24] And if you are online or calling in

[24:26] and would like to comment on this item

[24:28] please raise your hand now so that I

[24:30] know who to call on when we move to that time.

[24:33] As I mentioned before, there can be

[24:34] a bit of a lag in the video feed so it's good to get practice

[24:37] to raise your hand immediately.

[24:39] And then we will come to you once we finish

[24:41] the in-person commenting.

[24:44] >> If I could interrupt.

[24:46] Normally, it's the practice of the commission

[24:49] to allow the applicant to speak first.

[24:52] >> You are correct.

[24:55] thank you for reminding me.

[24:57] We will have the applicant speak first.

[24:59] They have up to ten minutes.

[25:00] And then we will move to public comment in the room,

[25:03] and then we will move to online public

[25:05] >> Thank you, commissioners.

[25:07] I'm Erin with centerline Communications representing

[25:10] AT&T on this project.

[25:12] I'd like to thank you all for being here

[25:13] and doing what you do.

[25:15] I would also like to thank planning staff and Michael

[25:19] for that presentation.

[25:20] I had a whole bunch of things to say

[25:21] but he has really already said them.

[25:23] I'd also like to thank the public for being out here.

[25:28] Yesterday I received copies of the community's feedback

[25:31] and the petition.

[25:32] There are concerned -- their concerns seem to revolve around

[25:37] three issues.

[25:38] One is the potential negative health effects of e m exposure.

[25:42] I read Doctor de letter regarding her condition --

[25:48] e m e exposure.

[25:50] I read doctor letter regarding her condition.

[25:55] I can say that AT&T takes very seriously obligation

[25:58] to be in compliance with all rules and regulations.

[26:01] I am in no way or qualified to speak on the matter.

[26:05] They did have the independent engineering firm

[26:07] run a study on the maximum exposure

[26:08] to a person on the ground that they

[26:11] could receive from this tower.

[26:13] And I believe that the number was 3.156%

[26:16] of the maximum allowable limit.

[26:22] I mean no disrespect and I don't mean

[26:26] to discredit anybody's thoughts or opinion on this matter

[26:28] pure mind I'm just saying that AT&T follows the rules.

[26:31] There was also some commentary about the possibility

[26:36] of declining home values.

[26:37] Before I got into wireless, I was a realtor selling

[26:41] homes in the Sacramento area.

[26:43] And all I can say is that the value of a property

[26:48] is determined by the buyers opinions.

[26:51] And it can vary widely to be surprising.

[26:55] Recently, I did a public hearing in Palo Alto.

[27:00] Only one couple -- a neighbor showed up to the hearing.

[27:04] And they wanted to make sure that their house was getting

[27:07] better coverage because they accessed

[27:08] the internet through their hotspot off their telephone.

[27:12] So what may be negative to one person

[27:14] may be somebody else's positive.

[27:15] It's up to the buyer.

[27:18] Yeah, and the last thing is the candidate on lets avenue

[27:25] that Michael addressed.

[27:26] I was there with the owner.

[27:28] And while I was standing at the site,

[27:30] I could see people walking by on the Hammond trail.

[27:33] And there's some bushes around but no real tall trees

[27:37] to hide the thing in.

[27:38] I've been doing this for a real long time.

[27:40] I try to sites -- site the sites as well as I can and have some

[27:44] tree camouflage or whatever type of camouflage camouflage we can

[27:47] get to keep -- to keep it hidden as soon as possible.

[27:53] With that said, I'm here to answer

[27:54] any questions you may have.

[27:58] >> If the permit was not approved tonight,

[28:00] would AT&T abandon the project?

[28:02] Where will they move it to a different location?

[28:07] >> That's not a decision that I can make.

[28:11] Like I said, I'm a representative.

[28:13] I'm not even an employee of AT&T. So

[28:16] that would be up to them.

[28:24] >> Thank you.

[28:25] >> Sure.

[28:27] >> Okay.

[28:27] Now we're going to open it up to public comment.

[28:30] Folks who would like to comment on this item,

[28:32] you will have three minutes.

[28:33] So if anybody in the room would like to comment on this item,

[28:36] please approach the podium.

[28:38] And if you are calling in online,

[28:39] please raise your hand now.

[28:41] It is star nine to raise your hand.

[28:45] I'm not seeing anyone in the room approach

[28:48] the podium so we will move to online.

[28:50] And I see a couple of folks with their hands

[28:52] raised so I'm just going to start with my first person

[28:54] and move down the list.

[28:57] Doctor Stephanie Israel de Souza, you have three minutes.

[29:02] >> Thank you.

[29:03] Good evening, I'm doctor Stephanie Israel de Souza,

[29:07] a resident of Yamaha place and the one

[29:09] who circulated the petition against the proposed cell tower

[29:11] location at Lillie Road.

[29:13] I spoke to a total of 23 residents at Yamaha Place.

[29:16] 21 of these 23 opted to sign the petition

[29:19] due to the concerns about the impact on the cell tower

[29:21] on our neighborhood, our property values and

[29:23] or our health.

[29:24] Of these 21, 19 are homeowners and to our renters.

[29:28] Many of these residents want to be here tonight

[29:30] but had work come a school or child related

[29:32] schedule conflicts.

[29:33] I would like to share my insights from my conversations

[29:36] with my neighbors.

[29:37] The concern universally shared by homeowners

[29:39] that signed the petition was the negative impact that it would

[29:42] have on our property values, which is backed up

[29:45] by all peer reviewed studies in the real estate literature.

[29:49] Several who signed brought up concerns regarding

[29:52] how the Amazon facility going into the nearby airport business

[29:56] park will already make our neighborhood less desirable,

[29:59] noting that adding a nearby cell tower on top of that

[30:01] could significantly impact the character and desirability

[30:04] of our neighborhood.

[30:05] And thus worsen the impact on our property values.

[30:08] Many expressed concerns about how visible the cell tower will

[30:11] be from our yards and windows, noting

[30:13] that an 89 foot tower will stand well above the highest trees.

[30:17] Some referenced the cell tower and the golf course

[30:19] noting that the monoplane design does not look anything

[30:22] like a real tree and still represents

[30:24] a significant eyesore.

[30:25] Residents who signed questioned the justification

[30:28] for placing the cell tower adjacent

[30:30] to a residential neighborhood, suggesting

[30:32] multiple possible alternatives that

[30:33] would be less intrusive and less damaging for our values the.

[30:38] Whether -- was there an area zoned for commercial

[30:41] or industrial use and other areas not right next

[30:43] to residential neighborhoods.

[30:44] Possible alternative locations suggested

[30:46] by residents including placing on the existing

[30:49] tower in the golf course, placing the cell tower

[30:51] at the northern end of the airport business park, perhaps

[30:54] even on top of the proposed Amazon facility.

[30:55] Or even placing the tower at the far northern end

[30:58] of the same parcel on Lillie Road known by residents

[31:01] as the area where horses are known as the road

[31:04] closest Airport Road.

[31:05] I did not circulate the petition due to the short notice

[31:09] we received and limited on my own time

[31:10] as a professor and mother.

[31:11] But I imagine that other nearby residents likely

[31:13] share the same concerns expressed

[31:15] by the residents of Yamaha Place.

[31:16] At the time the petition was circulated to,

[31:19] we were not aware that an alternative site assessment

[31:21] was conducted which identified another site at 3248 Lutts

[31:25] Avenue.

[31:26] Although this location is still closer to our homes

[31:28] and I personally am comfortable with due to my specific health

[31:32] concerns, this location seems preferable

[31:34] as it is not adjacent to any residential neighborhoods.

[31:38] This would significantly reduce if not

[31:40] eliminate any negative impact on our own property values

[31:43] in addition to reducing the overall impact to any property

[31:46] values.

[31:47] The 3248 Lots Avenue site seems preferable via a least intrusive

[31:52] means test.

[31:53] Each of the 21 residents of Yamaha Place that

[31:56] signed the petition ask that this location of the cell tower

[31:59] be reconsidered.

[32:00] Thank you for listening to our feedback.

[32:08] >> Okay.

[32:09] I have one more person with their hand raised.

[32:09] Just as a reminder, please raise your hand now

[32:11] if you would like to speak on this item.

[32:12] Lindsey Reed, you have three minutes.

[32:15] >> Good evening members of the board and thank you for giving

[32:18] me the opportunity to speak today.

[32:20] I am also a resident of Yamaha Place

[32:22] and I'm here today because I have

[32:24] serious concerns about the proposed cell tower

[32:26] placement near my property.

[32:28] The current location is extremely close to my home

[32:31] and I'm really worried about the long term

[32:33] impacts this structure will have on both my property

[32:36] value and the overall character of our neighborhood.

[32:39] Several real estate and urban planning analyzes

[32:43] indicate that homes located near large cell towers

[32:45] can experience notable decrease in value.

[32:49] While exact numbers vary between the city,

[32:52] many reports show reductions in residential property values

[32:55] ranging from anywhere between roughly 10 to 15%

[32:59] when a tower is placed in close proximity to a home.

[33:01] This potential loss is significant and deeply

[33:03] concerning for homeowners who have invested

[33:05] in their properties and rely on equity for financial stability.

[33:09] I want to emphasize that I do understand

[33:11] the importance of reliable cellular service

[33:14] and infrastructure improvements for our community.

[33:17] And my request is not in opposition

[33:19] to progress, but rather in support

[33:21] of finding a location that offers the same service

[33:24] benefits without facing such a substantial commercial structure

[33:28] directly beside existing homes.

[33:30] I respectfully asked the board to reconsider

[33:33] the current proposed site and explore alternative locations

[33:36] that will still meet the community's connectivity needs

[33:39] while minimizing negative impacts on nearby homeowners.

[33:42] Choosing a less residential location such as the Lutz Avenue

[33:48] would help preserve property values,

[33:51] protect neighborhood character and ensure that infrastructure

[33:56] improvements would benefit everyone

[33:58] without causing undue burden.

[33:59] Thank you for your time, your consideration and commitment

[34:02] to finding a balanced solution that

[34:04] supports community and progress in homeowner protection.

[34:08] That's it.

[34:12] >> Thank you.

[34:15] >> I see you have your hand raised.

[34:17] You have three minutes, Amy.

[34:20] >> Hey there.

[34:21] This is Amy Bland.

[34:22] I also live on Yamaha Place.

[34:24] You can see my travel trailer in the picture that

[34:28] was taken from Yamaha Place.

[34:31] And I am also worried about the value of my home.

[34:35] This is not my forever home and I would like to eventually

[34:38] sell and move somewhere else.

[34:41] So I also am on board with Stephanie and Lindsey

[34:46] regarding this situation with the cell phone tower

[34:50] and the overall health and well-being of our families.

[34:54] And of course, our children.

[34:56] As you can see in the map, it is a cul de sac

[35:00] and a lot of children are outside playing.

[35:04] It's a pretty safe neighborhood overall.

[35:07] And I think the eyesore is also going to be a huge problem.

[35:11] I think it looks ugly, personally.

[35:14] And I don't think it should be here.

[35:17] I think it should be close to the Hammond trail.

[35:19] Thank you.

[35:23] >> Thank you.

[35:24] Okay, I'm not seeing any other hands raised online.

[35:27] I'm going to give one more second to make sure

[35:30] and then we are going to go ahead and close public comment.

[35:33] Okay.

[35:34] We are going to go ahead and close public comment

[35:39] and take this back to commission for deliberation.

[35:44] Commissioner Kyriazi.

[35:47] >> Can I ask what the zoning is around the alternate site?

[35:51] Are you able to pull that up?

[35:54] Is it the same zoning?

[35:56] Was it low density residential?

[36:06] Them the zoning of the --

[36:15] >> The zoning of the alternate site (Indiscernible).

[36:19] Where is the zoning?

[36:23] It's not here.

[36:25] That's interesting.

[36:28] Let's try this.

[36:36] our GIS is not showing the zoning.

[36:43] Let's take a look at something else here.

[36:53] >> Commercial recreation is the zoning of the property that

[36:56] the alternate site would be on.

[36:58] But all of the properties north and south are zoned residential.

[37:13] >> Would you be able to bring that map up for us?

[37:16] And Commissioner, I see you have a question next.

[37:27] >> That should be up on the screen share.

[37:28] The property is the one that is shown there in red.

[37:31] So what this is doing is showing the zoning.

[37:35] Everything yellow is residential.

[37:37] Light yellow.

[37:38] And then red is the commercial recreation zone.

[37:41] So that red property is the alternate site.

[37:45] And then, if I take that layer off,

[37:52] you can see that there is a residential neighborhood

[37:55] down to the south.

[37:57] And a larger lot residential neighborhood to the north.

[38:02] >> If we were to pursue an alternative site,

[38:06] would we need to re notice this decision?

[38:18] >> It's my recollection from the past,

[38:19] when we evaluated cell tower sites, we've had --

[38:27] the applicant has provided comparative information

[38:29] on the alternative sites, including visual as well

[38:33] as coverage maps and those types of things.

[38:35] So it's difficult for me to make a decision here

[38:39] without that comparative information.

[38:41] I know visual impact is somewhat subjective,

[38:47] but personally, I don't consider the impact of a drive

[38:51] by on the freeway the same as driving home to my house.

[38:55] So the people that live in the neighborhood

[38:57] and have front yards and backyards,

[39:00] and this is in their view shed, I consider

[39:03] that a little bit different than perhaps

[39:06] driving by a freeway or even walking or biking along a trail.

[39:12] So I would need -- for this project, to support it,

[39:17] I would need a complete practice with that additional information

[39:20] and comparative analysis.

[39:21] I'll tell you right now, for those reasons,

[39:24] I'm not going to be able to support this.

[39:35] >> Commissioner curiosity.

[39:36] >> Thank you.

[39:38] Can you clarify if future modifications to the cell tower

[39:43] were to increase the cumulative total watts per square meter

[39:49] output from that tower?

[39:51] Does that require a permit process?

[39:54] And does the county staff -- what would that look like?

[40:00] >> That would not require a permit from county staff.

[40:08] >> You could attach conditions to this though.

[40:11] It would say that any future modifications need

[40:15] to demonstrate compliance with RF --

[40:19] FCC RF emission requirements.

[40:30] >> Yes, I was just thinking back to the old cell tower site.

[40:34] It was probably less than 150 yards from Widow White Trailer

[40:39] Park, correct?

[40:40] And there was nothing done on that cell tower

[40:42] to protect the viewshed or even try to hide it via a tree.

[40:45] Is that correct?

[40:47] >> Correct.

[40:48] It was strictly a gas station pole sign, rather tall,

[40:54] with antennas off the top.

[40:56] So I would consider this an improvement over what

[41:00] was there once before.

[41:03] It's real close to an industrial area

[41:06] as well that is looking in the future to be developed.

[41:09] I understand that it may not be the prettiest thing

[41:12] in your backyard, but I believe we

[41:16] don't worry about the viewshed, especially when they've

[41:19] tried to dress it up.

[41:21] If we move it over to the other side of the highway,

[41:23] you're going to have the same complaints just from somebody

[41:26] else on the other side.

[41:27] The health concerns, I like the condition

[41:30] of approving that they are within the FCC regulations.

[41:37] So I for 1 a.m.

[41:38] In favor of this project.

[41:43] >> Just to ask for clarification,

[41:45] I didn't see it on the alternative site analysis.

[41:49] But I thought someone had mentioned that the let's site

[41:54] was -- at the Lutz site was in the safety zone of the airport.

[41:59] Is that true?

[42:00] >> It would have been in safety zone two of the airport.

[42:02] The current proposed location is technically also

[42:06] in Safety Zone two.

[42:07] However, it is on the far right side of the approach.

[42:11] The alternative site is directly on approach.

[42:15] However, it is further back from what they would

[42:18] consider the tower location.

[42:20] So the FAA would still have to do a review to make sure

[42:23] that it would be Approvable.

[42:25] But it is technically a greater distance

[42:28] from the end of the runway.

[42:29] So I would assume that they would approve it.

[42:31] But I am not the FAA.

[42:37] >> Greater distance, but also in a direct flight path?

[42:40] >> Correct.

[42:44] >> I'm sorry I don't have the information in front of me.

[42:47] Can you help us understand the alternative

[42:50] to site proposed distance to potential residences compared

[42:56] to the current proposed site distance to residences?

[43:15] >> The closest site for the currently proposed is 150ft.

[43:19] The neighborhoods on Yamaha Place range between from what I

[43:25] calculated, 250 to 350ft depending on what side

[43:30] of the road you were on.

[43:43] >> (Indiscernible) (Indiscernible)

[43:49] >> I'll share a little bit of my thinking right now.

[43:52] I particularly feel for the public commentator

[43:53] who has chronic health condition and struggles

[43:55] to find a safe place to exist.

[43:57] I know what that's like but I also

[44:00] understand that's not within our purview

[44:01] to make a decision tonight.

[44:03] I think my thinking, from what I'm understanding,

[44:06] if there is an alternative site that the only difference is --

[44:12] the primary difference for not choosing that site is because it

[44:15] does not blend as easily with the surroundings because there

[44:18] are not as many tall trees.

[44:20] I lean towards trying to address the neighborhood's concerns

[44:28] around their home values and a second site that potentially

[44:35] does not have neighbors as close but does a bit hinge on

[44:39] how close we have residents at this other alternative site.

[44:42] Because I do hear that if we are just looking at another site,

[44:46] then we are looking at a second neighborhood that's upset.

[44:48] That doesn't really get us anywhere

[44:50] and I would hate to delay the applicant for no reason.

[45:01] >> I guess, in response to that, I'm still undecided.

[45:08] Just what you stated, the only difference

[45:11] is we now move it to the direct approach path.

[45:14] We also move it to the west side of the highway which means

[45:17] it's going to be much bigger compared to the --

[45:20] concern to the Coastal Commission.

[45:22] That's not our decision to make.

[45:24] That's up to the decision --

[45:26] Commission.

[45:27] >> A much higher but even passable part of permitting

[45:30] because of the visual impacts and just the coastal

[45:35] development.

[45:35] I also didn't see a biological report done for the Lutz Avenue

[45:39] so we don't know if that is in a wetland or something that

[45:43] would actually prohibit the Non-compatible use.

[45:51] >> To add to that, I think the difference would be that

[45:54] the Lutz site is presumed commercial recreation,

[45:58] which to me has some meaning in terms of the likelihood

[46:02] of residences being built super close to that location is less.

[46:12] >> May I ask to you, it has some meaning in that it's favorable

[46:15] or not favorable?

[46:18] >> Favorable in terms of my concern of RF exposure,

[46:24] just watts per square meter, and making sure that it stays

[46:29] in compliance as development happens.

[46:31] But I also appreciate Director Ford's suggestion

[46:36] of conditioning that any future upgrades that

[46:38] changed that Watts per square meter output,

[46:41] just to make sure they demonstrate compliance with FCC.

[46:44] And I'm okay with that as well.

[46:51] >> Just the discussion and the speculation if you will about

[46:54] one site versus another site and the impacts,

[46:57] whether it's in the FAA flight zone,

[46:59] whether it's in the coastal zone,

[47:00] whether or not there's more residents there.

[47:03] That's the challenge that I'm having.

[47:04] We don't have comparable information

[47:06] and a complete packet of information

[47:09] on one site versus the other.

[47:12] So, it's difficult for me to make that determination based

[47:18] on what ifs , without having had the applicant provide that

[47:29] similar depth of information on both sides.

[47:33] Instead, the applicant has selected a site

[47:36] and justified that site as being more preferred.

[47:44] And so that leaves me in the quandary.

[47:49] And I'm still >> I certainly understand that sentiment.

[47:54] And I think my thought is that from our purview,

[47:57] it is our job to review what the applicant has submitted

[48:02] and then what staff have reviewed as part

[48:04] of the application package.

[48:05] And so if staff agrees with the applicant

[48:08] that the site complies with all regulations,

[48:12] and I could definitely get on board

[48:16] with the condition of demonstrating compliance

[48:19] in the future.

[48:20] But I think at this point I'm leaning towards support

[48:24] for the project.

[48:32] >> We did find the distance to the nearest residence from

[48:35] the alternative site.

[48:36] And the nearest residence is approximately 280ft.

[48:41] >> Thank you.

[48:47] >> So just to confirm, Yamaha was 250.

[48:48] So we see no difference in proximity to residential ?

[48:57] >> Yeah, to clarify though, Yamaha place is a more dense

[49:00] neighborhood than what you would have adjacent to Lutz .

[49:06] So it's not a complete comparison.

[49:11] >> And there is that residence that is on the proposed property

[49:15] that is closer, yes?

[49:24] Which I'm assuming that because it's on that property,

[49:29] those property owners are consenting to the cell tower.

[49:32] >> Our understanding is that the people who live on that property

[49:35] are renters so we do not know if they've actually consented.

[49:39] >> (Indiscernible)

[49:40] >> They would have received notice of this hearing.

[49:44] >> Thank you.

[49:49] >> It does state for that property (Indiscernible) that

[49:53] has a willing landowner on the analysis.

[50:10] >> I think I'm leaning towards Commissioner scandal and I'll be

[50:12] interested in a bit more information on the alternative

[50:14] sites presented by the applicant.

[50:21] >> You guys know my opinion but I generally support cell towers.

[50:26] But if 19 homeowners -- and a lot of Mckinleyville has turned

[50:33] into rentals.

[50:33] But when you have 19 out of 21 of the homeowners opposed to it,

[50:37] I think we should listen to people who

[50:39] have invested in Mckinleyville.

[50:41] And primarily the towers there that

[50:45] serve people driving up and down the highway,

[50:47] that's its primary function.

[50:49] But I would vote against it.

[50:52] That's my opinion.

[50:59] >> (Indiscernible) answered your question before

[51:01] but the alternatives analysis does say that the Lutz parcel

[51:04] would be considered as part of the primary candidate

[51:07] if the first parcel was disqualified.

[51:09] So I think from that, we can interpret based on your earlier

[51:13] question that AT&T wouldn't scrap the project,

[51:15] but they would review the second site.

[51:17] So we don't know if the second site is permeable,

[51:20] but they would still pursue the project.

[51:25] >> So I'm hearing sentiments in favor.

[51:27] I'm hearing sentiments against.

[51:29] I'm hearing that we need more information.

[51:31] Unless there's more discussions to be had,

[51:36] would anybody care to dabble in a motion

[51:39] in one direction or another?

[51:45] >> I'll take a stab at one.

[51:46] I would move to continue this project

[51:49] and request the applicant to provide additional information

[51:53] on alternate sites including equivalent information as

[52:04] presented for the primary site.

[52:10] >> I'd make a recommendation.

[52:11] Before you make that motion and get a second on it,

[52:14] I would encourage you to talk to the applicant

[52:16] and see if they are willing to do that.

[52:22] I'll just ask you to ask that question

[52:25] and I would ask you to ask that question.

[52:28] >> Can you remind me of the applicant's name?

[52:32] >> It looks like Aaron Deleo.

[52:38] >> Please approach the podium, yes.

[52:41] >> Thank you for that.

[52:42] I was dying to come back up here.

[52:45] So I was asked to provide information about the candidate

[52:49] over by the golf course, which, if you had asked about photo

[52:55] simulations and other information

[52:56] about the Lutz candidate, I'd be happy to provide that.

[53:00] I think that AT&T would prefer to continue and provide

[53:04] additional information than to have a denial

[53:08] and possibly go to appeal or whatever type of other remedies

[53:11] they would want to go for.

[53:14] I think that there are problems with the Lutz property.

[53:17] I did do the original scrub of this ring.

[53:21] We call it scrubbing a search ring.

[53:24] The circles that Michael showed on the map,

[53:27] there was a smaller one that focused around the gas station

[53:31] where the exit site is -- at the site that's being

[53:35] decommissioned.

[53:35] I searched all of those properties,

[53:38] and I didn't find anything that would

[53:40] work with a willing landlord and all the other things we need.

[53:43] AT&T expanded it even further.

[53:46] I've been doing this for two years on this one search ring.

[53:50] So I prefer not to scrap everything and just

[53:55] be able to provide enough information to you to make

[53:59] a informed decision.

[54:04] >> Do we have any questions for the applicant?

[54:06] Thank you.

[54:19] >> I'll second a motion if there is no more discussion.

[54:22] (Indiscernible) uncertain.

[54:31] >> Okay, we have a motion and a second.

[54:33] >> Could you add to that?

[54:35] I don't know how to phrase this but could

[54:37] you add to this that for the first two sites,

[54:42] that we need to hear from the Coastal Commission?

[54:46] Especially because the Western site,

[54:49] whether it's the biological resources, the visual,

[54:52] it completely disqualifies them from permitting at all.

[54:55] I think that needs to be a factor in our decision.

[54:57] That could be more information for the continuance.

[55:04] >> I'm okay with that if that seems like a reasonable

[55:06] condition.

[55:09] >> We can ask, but we can't force a response.

[55:14] >> And to clarify that the west side of the highway is

[55:17] significantly different in consideration

[55:20] for the Commission?

[55:21] Bam particularly, when it comes to scenic vistas. --

[55:28] >> Particularly, when it comes to scenic vistas.

[55:32] >> The other thing through the chair is obviously that if it

[55:34] were to be considered, we would want to see detailed biological

[55:37] information which probably not be able to be obtained until

[55:40] next spring.

[55:41] We can see about getting some feedback from the commission

[55:44] but we're not going to have complete information

[55:46] to decide that that is an appropriate site to approve.

[55:53] >> Yes.

[55:54] Agreement.

[55:54] But we could use some existing online resources

[55:58] to get a baseline assumption of what could exist.

[56:01] And we could get Coastal Commission staff

[56:04] feedback on the visual impact, and then

[56:07] maybe take the temperature.

[56:16] >> I believe we have another question for the applicant,

[56:18] if you would please approach the podium again.

[56:24] >> I just have a quick question in regards to the property --

[56:27] the second property across the highway.

[56:29] Is there any infrastructure already in place as to roads

[56:32] to where the cell tower would be installed?

[56:35] >> No.

[56:35] We would have to improve a road to get to the spot

[56:39] that the landowner specified as the best spot to place it.

[56:45] That was two years ago.

[56:48] So I don't know if the property has changed hands.

[56:50] I don't know if that landlord is willing.

[56:52] I guess that would probably be the first step.

[56:56] But there are problems with that.

[56:58] Like I said, I've been doing this for 20 years.

[57:02] I try to find the path of least resistance,

[57:04] not just only for the community but for myself.

[57:07] We don't want this to turn into a battle of us against them

[57:12] or anything like that.

[57:14] It may very well be in the flight path of the airport.

[57:18] And I know we had this current site.

[57:23] We had the tower taller.

[57:26] And with the local airport authority,

[57:27] they had us bring it down because of the distance to --

[57:33] I forget what it was but it was very complicated.

[57:36] This new site, we will have to look at the let's site and see

[57:43] if it would even be allowed there or they would shorten us

[57:47] to 35ft or something that wouldn't work.

[57:50] So they would need to be some additional work there. --

[57:54] there would need to be some additional work there.

[57:56] >> In the two years that you would review these sites,

[57:59] did you confer with the people that lived around the Yamaha

[58:02] site or the area?

[58:05] >> No.

[58:10] >> I just want to put the question on the table,

[58:12] what happens if we come back and we have an outpouring of letters

[58:18] from the public saying that they are against the Lutz site

[58:22] because they use the Hammond Trail and it's a visual impact

[58:25] to a scenic view?

[58:26] So now we are weighing those opinions

[58:28] versus the Yamaha residents.

[58:33] It puts us in a bit of a pickle.

[58:35] I don't have an answer but it's something

[58:36] to consider if we continue it and we see that outpouring,

[58:40] because now you have potentially a broader impact.

[58:43] >> There's also the alternative that you don't do the tower,

[58:45] or there's another site.

[58:47] So it's not all or nothing.

[58:49] If it's not here, it can't be there, then it'll never happen.

[58:55] Of course, there's been money invested in researching these

[58:58] sites already, and say they don't want to lose that

[59:01] investment. -- and so they don't want to lose that investment.

[59:07] >> (Indiscernible)

[59:07] >> I think that we consider that after we look at what the review

[59:10] is of the alternative site.

[59:14] But it's not all or nothing.

[59:16] And maybe we don't approve any site.

[59:19] I don't know.

[59:22] >> My answer to that question is,

[59:24] we will have done our due diligence and explored

[59:27] alternatives.

[59:28] And for me, even if that points us back to the site

[59:32] that we are looking at today, I can still

[59:34] make a decision to do that if I had all the information.

[59:40] So that's all I asking.

[59:42] If we check with the FAA and they say it's not feasible,

[59:48] then it's not feasible.

[59:50] But we checked.

[59:51] That's all I'm asking.

[59:53] >> I'm going to -- do you have something to say?

[59:57] >> I hope it's not a matter of a site or not a site,

[1:00:02] because the FCC is pretty strict about that.

[1:00:07] They need to provide coverage, we

[1:00:10] need to allow them to provide coverage.

[1:00:12] What I hear is, is this really a matter of this

[1:00:18] being the best site?

[1:00:20] Have the alternatives rendered a better coverage map?

[1:00:23] Do they render a better visibility?

[1:00:25] And so coming back with that information

[1:00:28] to demonstrate that this is the better site for coverage.

[1:00:32] It is a better sight for visibility.

[1:00:38] For the larger community, I understand the residents

[1:00:42] are very concerned about it.

[1:00:43] And you can't really argue with that.

[1:00:46] But it really is a matter of taking the broader picture

[1:00:49] into consideration.

[1:00:52] >> Can you explain that better to me?

[1:00:54] AT&T is the applicant, right?

[1:00:56] They are the ones that will financially

[1:00:58] benefit from this tower, so how does the FCC need this site?

[1:01:02] I thought they were the permitting authority?

[1:01:05] >> One thing I can tell you, if you're driving in that area

[1:01:08] right now, you saw the coverage map earlier.

[1:01:12] People don't have indoor coverage anymore in that area.

[1:01:17] Okay?

[1:01:17] So now, there's adequate outdoor coverage.

[1:01:21] But most carriers want to achieve indoor coverage

[1:01:25] so that people can connect to the internet with their cell

[1:01:30] phones in their homes.

[1:01:31] Right now, that's been curtailed a little bit

[1:01:36] because the site has been taken down.

[1:01:38] So AT&T obviously wants to provide good service

[1:01:43] to their customers.

[1:01:44] This obviously is a site that gets used.

[1:01:47] I don't think that they think they are going to build a site

[1:01:51] and attract customers.

[1:01:52] They have customers that they need to serve.

[1:01:55] And the FCC wants to make sure that they are

[1:02:00] able to provide that service.

[1:02:02] And so that's where the FCC gets involved and says,

[1:02:06] local jurisdictions, you can't come up with reasons

[1:02:09] to just deny these sites.

[1:02:14] >> And I'll add as counsel, that the way they do it is very rule

[1:02:19] making and it's very detailed (Indiscernible) when state

[1:02:23] and local regulations become --

[1:02:25] I'm sorry.

[1:02:26] I'll add that FCC regulations also

[1:02:29] add in specific rules for when state and local regulations can

[1:02:34] amount to an effective prohibition.

[1:02:36] And that's something that I'm happy to provide

[1:02:38] additional details about.

[1:02:39] I'm not saying that anything that I've heard today

[1:02:41] hasn't gone on the wrong side of that line.

[1:02:43] But really, what it is, it's a great question.

[1:02:46] The FCC actually has the ability to limit what any local state

[1:02:49] regulatory body is able to do on this topic because of touching

[1:02:53] on interstate commerce.

[1:02:55] So that is how they authorize that.

[1:02:58] >> The lack of coverage is a health and safety issue.

[1:03:01] If there's people living in that community.

[1:03:03] And I don't know how many are impacted by the fact

[1:03:06] that that other tower went down in.

[1:03:08] But if they are unable in their home with their cell phones

[1:03:11] to call 911 -- well, I guess they can call 911.

[1:03:14] But call family or whoever they might need to.

[1:03:17] And so you're saying, right now there

[1:03:19] are people who can't do that?

[1:03:20] Or that are >> don't want to specific arguments --

[1:03:26] comments like that.

[1:03:28] But you saw on the coverage map that indoor coverage

[1:03:30] was removed from that area, including the residents.

[1:03:33] It's not just the freeway.

[1:03:35] That was for people who are living there.

[1:03:38] >> Who are just AT&T customers?

[1:03:39] Because I hadn't noticed a difference.

[1:03:42] But, okay.

[1:03:45] >> That site may not be off air.

[1:03:47] I'm not sure about that.

[1:03:49] Will usually try to get the new site up on air before the --

[1:03:53] we usually try to get the new site up on air before the old

[1:03:55] site is going to be decommissioned.

[1:03:58] >> I'm happy to be corrected.

[1:03:59] I thought that the site went down.

[1:04:00] Thank you.

[1:04:03] >> You might have had a comment before I moved to Director Ford?

[1:04:08] Okay.

[1:04:09] Commissioner karaoke.

[1:04:16] >> I'm just acknowledging the proposed modification

[1:04:18] to the motion of asking the Coastal Commission for comments.

[1:04:23] It makes sense to me.

[1:04:26] And then, including -- it sounds like we are proposing to include

[1:04:30] information from the f a.

[1:04:33] Is that what I was hearing?

[1:04:39] >> We will look at that and we will determine the extent

[1:04:41] to which additional analysis needs to be done.

[1:04:44] >> Don't both of the sites require the Coastal Commission

[1:04:47] approval?

[1:04:48] >> No.

[1:04:49] >> Just the one?

[1:04:51] >> Neither one requires Coastal Commission approval unless

[1:04:55] it's appealed.

[1:04:57] >> So why do we want to know then what they think?

[1:05:01] >> I was asking because on the west side,

[1:05:04] you have a much higher likelihood of it getting

[1:05:06] appealed.

[1:05:07] If he gets appealed to the Coastal Commission,

[1:05:11] the Coastal Commission can deny it.

[1:05:14] >> So you're just worried about an appeal?

[1:05:16] You're not worried about them not getting a permit?

[1:05:18] Because the county would be issuing that for them?

[1:05:20] >> Right.

[1:05:21] But it's much more likely on the west side to be appealed.

[1:05:25] >> Okay.

[1:05:27] >> I don't know who to ask, if this is a question

[1:05:31] to the director, but how long, if we were to ask for this

[1:05:35] continuance, how long would that information take to gather?

[1:05:39] >> That's something we're going to have to work with

[1:05:41] the applicant on to put that information together.

[1:05:45] I don't know what their ability is.

[1:05:47] We will work with the airport.

[1:05:50] But first, we've got to -- realistically,

[1:05:54] they've got to do their analysis of the height of the tower,

[1:05:58] the location of the tower.

[1:05:59] And then after that's done, we know what the coverage is.

[1:06:04] Then we can determine the visual impacts.

[1:06:07] Then we can talk to the airport director

[1:06:10] about what the potential impacts to the airport are.

[1:06:22] >> I'm just cognizant of the amount of work that's going

[1:06:24] to add to county staff.

[1:06:25] We've also had similar cases not where the applicant has

[1:06:28] been a large commercial industry,

[1:06:30] but some similar cases where it's been an individual

[1:06:33] and they don't want the continuance

[1:06:34] because financially they need to move the project along.

[1:06:38] So I don't know that that applies here,

[1:06:40] but I am cognizant of the work that is going

[1:06:43] to be put on county staff.

[1:06:48] >> I believe we heard from the applicant that they preferred

[1:06:51] a continuance over a decision today,

[1:06:55] that given the direction of the wind .

[1:07:02] I just wanted to -- to some of the comments I heard earlier,

[1:07:07] I truly am on the fence on this.

[1:07:10] I hear you.

[1:07:12] I appreciate that the applicant is willing to find more

[1:07:15] information and that this is the kind of project that there is

[1:07:20] usually no good side, and we have to make a decision. --

[1:07:25] no good sight, and we have to make a decision.

[1:07:27] Two Commissioner's point, I think

[1:07:30] I would like to really make sure that I

[1:07:32] feel like we've done our due diligence

[1:07:36] and are addressing finding the best possible site

[1:07:41] for this community.

[1:07:42] Thank you for being here tonight.

[1:07:45] Thank you for answering our questions.

[1:07:48] We have a motion and a second on the table .

[1:07:51] We have a request for an amendment to that motion.

[1:07:54] I wanted to process the point and make sure

[1:07:58] that the seconder was okay with that amendment to the motion.

[1:08:02] >> No.

[1:08:03] >> Okay.

[1:08:04] So then, I do believe, process-wise,

[1:08:06] we need director Ford.

[1:08:10] >> Process-wide, you even -- you need another second or you need

[1:08:14] to reframe the motion.

[1:08:16] >> Can I ask why, if you're specifically pushing

[1:08:18] for a continuance to get more information,

[1:08:20] why wouldn't you want to get --

[1:08:29] >> Because I think that's the applicant's decision whether

[1:08:32] they want to approach the coastal Commission.

[1:08:32] And I think if we approached the Coastal Commission,

[1:08:35] we are putting that pathway in place.

[1:08:40] So I would leave it up to the applicant to --

[1:08:45] if they are concerned about that,

[1:08:48] they could certainly take it to the Coastal Commission.

[1:08:51] I don't think we need to direct them to do that.

[1:08:54] I think it opens another can of worms.

[1:08:57] >> I guess playing devil's advocate here,

[1:09:00] worst case scenario would be we approve the Lutz location,

[1:09:04] it gets appealed and then denied by coastal,

[1:09:06] and then the applicant is right back here?

[1:09:09] >> That's the applicant's risk.

[1:09:11] >> Understand that we can't just move it to the Lutz location.

[1:09:17] The applicant's agreeable, this application being withdrawn.

[1:09:22] A new application being submitted,

[1:09:24] sending out referrals that would include the Coastal Commission,

[1:09:28] having conversations with the Coastal Commission

[1:09:30] about that new application.

[1:09:33] It starts all over.

[1:09:46] >> I'm convinced and fine with removing those amendments

[1:09:50] and keeping to my original proposal to request comparable

[1:09:57] information for alternate sites for us to make an informed

[1:10:03] decision.

[1:10:04] And continuing to >> I believe that brings us back

[1:10:11] to our original motion and our second.

[1:10:14] Okay!

[1:10:15] Well, then, I believe with that, let's go ahead

[1:10:20] and have a roll call vote, please.

[1:10:25] [Members roll call vote in progress]

[1:10:27] >> Yes.

[1:10:29] >> Yes.

[1:10:32] >> Yes.

[1:10:35] >> Yes.

[1:10:41] >> Yes.

[1:10:42] >> Motion passes.

[1:10:45] >> Okay, thank you.

[1:10:46] >> Thanks.

[1:10:51] >> Alright, this brings us to item H,

[1:10:52] our public workshop on the Humboldt Bay area plan.

[1:10:56] I think this is probably a good time for us

[1:10:58] to take our ten minute break.

[1:11:01] We will return at 7:21 p.m.

[1:11:04] To take up the workshop item.

[1:20:51] >> We are back.

[1:20:53] We are going to go ahead and move to our workshop item.

[1:21:03] I'm gonna pause for just one moment.

[1:21:07] >> My apologies come on we can go ahead.

[1:21:10] >> I just wanted to make sure it wasn't anything we needed

[1:21:13] to address.

[1:21:14] We have a public workshop on the Humboldt Bay area plan.

[1:21:17] And we are going to do this a little bit differently tonight.

[1:21:21] If you've been following along this

[1:21:24] will be our third time with the workshop.

[1:21:26] We've made it about two thirds of the way through the document

[1:21:31] so far.

[1:21:32] Staff has asked to start with a presentation on the Samoa Town

[1:21:39] Master Plan.

[1:21:40] And then we're going to do public comment on that piece.

[1:21:43] And then we will move back to the top of the document

[1:21:46] and go through the changes and discuss things again and pick up

[1:21:51] where we left off last time.

[1:21:53] And if we have time to do a second public comment again

[1:21:57] on the other changes to the documents

[1:22:00] separate from the Samoa Town Master Plan.

[1:22:03] Did I capture that accurately?

[1:22:05] Great.

[1:22:08] >> Yes you did.

[1:22:10] >> Do you have a question?

[1:22:11] >> I want to make sure I heard that correctly.

[1:22:13] So we're going to cover the proposed changes in the Samoa

[1:22:17] master plan section, take public comment

[1:22:19] and then go back to the beginning of the document?

[1:22:22] >> I believe so.

[1:22:25] >> We also recognize that there are some questions on the Samoa

[1:22:30] Town Master plan.

[1:22:31] We will do that as a part of this.

[1:22:35] >> Thank you.

[1:22:36] With staff, whenever you are ready.

[1:22:52] >> Good evening Commission.

[1:22:53] We will be continuing with the Humboldt Bay area plan tonight.

[1:22:57] The agenda as chair West has stated,

[1:23:02] we will be discussing chapter seven which is the Samoa plan --

[1:23:09] Town Master Plan.

[1:23:11] We would like to cover the definitions from chapter eight

[1:23:13] and then go to public comment.

[1:23:15] It's my understanding.

[1:23:16] And then from there, we will review the draft,

[1:23:21] implement any changes that we have been discussing

[1:23:26] at the previous workshops.

[1:23:30] And we've received two public comments

[1:23:32] as we're going through the document,

[1:23:34] we will address those in the appropriate section.

[1:23:39] >> We did hold a meeting for the town of Samoa residents on this

[1:23:43] Monday August 31st at 6 p.m.

[1:23:46] To discuss these following topics with them to let them

[1:23:50] know that we are proposing to discuss these

[1:23:53] with the Commission tonight.

[1:23:56] The following topics would be adding

[1:24:01] a completed in or on date for Samoa Town Master Plan

[1:24:06] policy that has been completed just

[1:24:08] to make it very clear to everyone involved

[1:24:11] that that policy has been met.

[1:24:13] But we are not proposing to delete it or add it.

[1:24:17] Just simply adding the words completed in or on

[1:24:20] and then whatever the appropriate date is.

[1:24:22] The California Coastal Commission

[1:24:25] had a suggestion to add two sentences to 7.1, purpose

[1:24:31] and general provisions.

[1:24:32] We are proposing an addition of one sentence to the community

[1:24:38] character and visual policy six by not

[1:24:41] requiring a coastal development permit to repaint or reroof

[1:24:44] a house.

[1:24:45] Adding that exterior lighting shall

[1:24:47] be consistent with the outdoor lighting ordinance for community

[1:24:51] character visual policy eight.

[1:24:53] And similarly, adding that sound should be consistent with

[1:24:57] the signs ordinance for Community Care --

[1:25:01] character Visual Policy nine.

[1:25:03] This would be an example of adding the completed

[1:25:05] in or on date for any completed policy within the Samoa Town

[1:25:09] Master Plan.

[1:25:13] 7.1, the two sentences recommended by the California

[1:25:19] Coastal Commission are highlighted in a dark blue.

[1:25:23] So there's one at the beginning of the section and one

[1:25:27] at the end of the section just clarifying further

[1:25:29] the role of the Samoa Town Master plan.

[1:25:35] Then moving on to preservation and enhancement of community

[1:25:41] character and visual resources to remove the requirement

[1:25:46] to get a coastal development permit

[1:25:48] to repaint or reroof a house.

[1:25:51] The beginning of that policy would start off

[1:25:54] with the remodeling and restoration.

[1:25:57] And then we are recommending to remove

[1:26:01] including but not limited to painting or reroofing.

[1:26:04] So a coastal development permit would no longer

[1:26:07] be required for those two actions.

[1:26:14] Adding the sentence exterior lighting

[1:26:18] shall be consistent with outdoor lighting ordinance.

[1:26:20] And adding that signs shall be consistent with the signs

[1:26:27] ordinance.

[1:26:27] We did discuss this with the town of Samoa residents

[1:26:32] and did not receive any opposition.

[1:26:35] Andere, we can move on to the document.

[1:26:59] So this will be from attachment two, the workshop draft revised

[1:27:06] for this meeting.

[1:27:08] Chapter seven, this is page 125 out of 175, the Samoa Town

[1:27:14] Master plan.

[1:27:15] So the changes are not included in this draft

[1:27:18] because we did want to discuss it

[1:27:21] with the residents of the town of Samoa first

[1:27:25] and the Commission.

[1:27:27] So once again, 7.1, the addition of the area plan land

[1:27:33] use maps for this area and Simone

[1:27:36] show a Samoa Town master plan land use designation overlay.

[1:27:41] The overlay designation provides standards

[1:27:43] that supplement that underlying land use

[1:27:46] designation of the lands to which the land Use

[1:27:48] designation is a applied.

[1:27:50] That would go before the purpose of the Samoa Town Master Plan.

[1:27:57] And the concluding sentence of that section would be where

[1:28:02] a conflict arises between the policies of the Samoa Land Use

[1:28:07] Overlay designation and any other policies of the Certified

[1:28:11] humble Bay Area Plan, the policies of the Samoa Master

[1:28:16] Plan overlay designation shall take precedence --

[1:28:19] I believe it says precedence.

[1:28:25] I'm not sure if we want to start scrolling or get

[1:28:29] the Commission's opinion on adding the Coastal Commission's

[1:28:34] recommendations on those two sentences.

[1:28:36] And if it is more challenging to read in this format,

[1:28:40] I can go back to the slide show.

[1:28:42] Thank you.

[1:28:44] >> It's your choice if you would like to walk through these where

[1:28:47] we can begin walking through the existing document to allow

[1:28:54] comments.

[1:28:56] >> Okay.

[1:28:58] >> Maybe take a consensus and see if there's any concern with

[1:29:01] what's been presented as the changes.

[1:29:04] And we can go through those one at a time

[1:29:06] if that would be helpful.

[1:29:13] >> Commissioners, so far, would you like to go through

[1:29:16] the changes one by one?

[1:29:18] Do you have thoughts on what you've heard so far

[1:29:21] and what to discuss?

[1:29:28] >> I don't have any initial changes.

[1:29:30] I think pulling up the language in the easier read would be

[1:29:35] presentation -- and the easier read presentation would be

[1:29:37] helpful just to see it one more time.

[1:29:40] Pam okay.

[1:29:53] >> Beginning with the beginning section of the Samoa Town master

[1:29:56] plan, this would be the first proposed change.

[1:29:59] In that dark blue highlighted, those

[1:30:01] are the two sentences recommended

[1:30:03] by the Coastal Commission to add to that section.

[1:30:21] >> Those changes make sense to me.

[1:30:29] >> I will move back real quick to the suggestion of adding

[1:30:32] a completed in or completed on date.

[1:30:36] For this draft, we do not have the completed policies

[1:30:40] identified so I cannot tell you how many have been determined

[1:30:44] to be completed or what those dates would be at this moment.

[1:30:47] However, just an example of that would

[1:30:51] be proposing to put it right after the title of each policy

[1:30:54] to make it very clear when that was completed.

[1:30:58] But other than that, not altering those policies.

[1:31:04] >> To me, that makes sense.

[1:31:07] >> I don't know where this goes or if it should even be brought

[1:31:09] up at this point but is there any way to designate

[1:31:13] preservation of historical properties that are out there?

[1:31:16] I know it looks like some of them

[1:31:18] have been brought up to current standards

[1:31:22] but they were still some properties

[1:31:24] that I saw when I was out there or buildings

[1:31:27] that could be preserved rather than torn down.

[1:31:32] >> Yeah, there is language in there about some of the historic

[1:31:36] buildings in the existing document.

[1:31:40] Once we have finished with this, we

[1:31:42] can scroll down and see if that's adequate.

[1:31:49] >> I think I'm seeing support for the completed on dates.

[1:31:56] >> I guess that this makes sense to me as well.

[1:31:59] One thought is, I find the phrase completed

[1:32:03] in slightly confusing language.

[1:32:06] Doesn't the county code already show

[1:32:09] in parentheses added as a particular date

[1:32:11] as you go through, and so may be following that same approach.

[1:32:17] >> Sure.

[1:32:26] >> As a layperson, it's certainly helpful

[1:32:30] (Indiscernible).

[1:32:31] >> Moving on to the next recommended change or discussion

[1:32:36] would be removing including but not limited to painting

[1:32:40] and roofing, therefore repainting roofing would never

[1:32:45] need a coastal development permit.

[1:32:57] >> Do we have to spell out more examples or is it something that

[1:33:00] the owners would reach out to you.

[1:33:02] Let's say they are replacing a window.

[1:33:04] Is it better we leave it less language

[1:33:07] and they reach out case by case?

[1:33:10] >> If I could, I think the struggle here is that this is

[1:33:15] a much higher standard than is applied any place else

[1:33:19] in the coastal zone.

[1:33:21] And so this is the actual language

[1:33:24] that we're just proposing to remove.

[1:33:28] Relative to replacing windows or doing other things that

[1:33:34] changed the basic refurbished condition of the house

[1:33:36] requires a design approval.

[1:33:38] So there's already a process for that.

[1:33:42] >> To me, it's wild that this ever required a CDP to paint

[1:33:46] or reroof a house.

[1:33:48] I feel the cost of that added on to whatever is already

[1:33:52] a really challenging cost, I'm glad to see we're removing that.

[1:34:05] >> The next change would be adding the sentence exterior

[1:34:07] lighting shall be consistent with the recently adopted

[1:34:09] outdoor Lighting ordinance.

[1:34:18] >> I'm seeing head nods for that one in support.

[1:34:20] >> And finally, similar train of thought,

[1:34:23] adding signs shall be consistent with the signs ordinance.

[1:34:27] >> I'm seeing some thumbs up.

[1:34:33] >> I'm seeing no concerns.

[1:34:38] >> That would conclude the proposed language to the master

[1:34:40] plan.

[1:34:41] So I will reopen the document and we can go section by section

[1:34:45] for that.

[1:34:47] >> Okay.

[1:34:48] And maybe it didn't make sense but if we

[1:34:52] are going to have wind towers out there,

[1:34:54] wouldn't they have to be lit in order for safety.

[1:34:58] And would that violate our lighting ordinance?

[1:35:06] >> So that will be one of those things that will need to be

[1:35:09] addressed as part of the port overlay.

[1:35:12] Or if the port overlay is not incorporated into this document,

[1:35:17] that would need to be addressed as part

[1:35:20] of the future approval of whatever the zoning looks

[1:35:25] like for the heavy lift terminal.

[1:35:47] >> Beginning with 7.1, purpose and general provisions.

[1:35:55] Of this first section of policies

[1:35:58] is related to new development.

[1:36:07] >> So to make sure I'm understanding correctly,

[1:36:09] we are reading through this section to see if in addition

[1:36:12] to the changes that you are suggesting,

[1:36:14] commissioners have any other suggestions or comments?

[1:36:19] >> Yes, please.

[1:36:21] >> Okay.

[1:36:23] >> I have a question.

[1:36:25] Could staff just elaborate a bit on what Master parcel two is

[1:36:29] and what the role of identifying that plays?

[1:36:34] >> Originally, there were two parcels.

[1:36:36] There was parcel one which was the ecology parcel and master

[1:36:43] parcel two, which was everything else.

[1:36:46] And this is identified within the small town master plan.

[1:36:51] It was then modified into three parcels.

[1:36:55] And parcel one was the parcel.

[1:36:59] Parcel two was Vance Avenue and the location

[1:37:01] of where the wastewater treatment plan is located.

[1:37:05] And it's got some open space associated with it.

[1:37:10] And then everything else.

[1:37:18] >> I can bring those exhibits up if the commission would like.

[1:37:20] It looks like there's a request for that.

[1:37:29] >> I'm gonna go to Director Ford with this.

[1:37:32] This master plan was developed at the beginning

[1:37:41] of the town of Samoa moving from private parcel

[1:37:45] to more of a public entity, right?

[1:37:48] And it seems when I'm reading through this,

[1:37:51] a lot of this stuff has been completed or is in progress.

[1:37:59] And I didn't think that the effort

[1:38:04] to update Humboldt Bay area plan was also

[1:38:10] intended to be necessarily a complete update of the Samoa

[1:38:15] Town Master Plan.

[1:38:16] But maybe it is becoming that.

[1:38:18] Can you clarify that?

[1:38:21] >> We're trying not to completely update this.

[1:38:24] We're trying to have the lightest touch possible on this.

[1:38:29] Even to a point where rather than take a bunch of policies

[1:38:33] out, just say, complete it.

[1:38:35] This is done.

[1:38:37] >> Okay.

[1:38:40] So that it's really to provide everybody

[1:38:43] an understanding of what's required, what's been done

[1:38:46] and when it was done.

[1:38:48] And just keep the original approval intact.

[1:38:53] >> Okay.

[1:38:54] So with that understanding, it seems that we as a commission

[1:39:04] really shouldn't be making big changes in the direction

[1:39:06] with the town Master plan.

[1:39:08] It's a plan that is being implemented

[1:39:11] and has been being implemented for several years now.

[1:39:14] I get the idea of eating it up in areas

[1:39:19] where a great example is not requiring a coastal permit

[1:39:23] for repainting your house.

[1:39:25] But I was thinking that we weren't trying to go too much.

[1:39:29] We need to be careful about making some wholesale changes

[1:39:36] to a plan that's already going down the tracks.

[1:39:39] >> I think that's a fair statement because there is a lot

[1:39:42] that has happened.

[1:39:46] Including the development of the Old Town is rapidly moving.

[1:39:53] I want to be careful about the adjectives I use there.

[1:39:55] But it's moving (Indiscernible).

[1:39:59] And there is an improved map for the new town

[1:40:02] that has not been recorded yet.

[1:40:04] But the tentative map has been approved.

[1:40:09] They are in plan check to have the improvement plans approved

[1:40:14] and the final map recorded.

[1:40:18] So modifying things that would affect those entitlements

[1:40:24] should be avoided.

[1:40:28] >> With that in mind, (Indiscernible) thank you

[1:40:32] for highlighting that again .

[1:40:37] Took me a minute to follow along and process everything.

[1:40:40] I want to pull the commission and see whether or not we really

[1:40:43] truly want to have staff pull this page by page

[1:40:48] and see if there's more input from us.

[1:40:51] And I want to hear from you guys.

[1:40:53] Do you have more input on this than what staff has proposed?

[1:40:56] Do we need to go page by page?

[1:41:00] Or can we move past this?

[1:41:09] >> I would like to propose that we move past the page by page

[1:41:12] thing and address any questions if there's no questions

[1:41:18] on something -- questions.

[1:41:20] If there's no questions on something,

[1:41:22] there's no reason to go through that page.

[1:41:25] >> Is everybody else comfortable with that?

[1:41:28] >> Thank you come on that's a more succinct way of saying what

[1:41:30] I was trying to get at.

[1:41:34] >> I think I just want to clarify --

[1:41:38] I want to clarify that I see it as staff's recommendation that

[1:41:45] we don't touch the master plan in any way outside of making

[1:41:52] the changes that have already been made,

[1:41:55] rather than we shouldn't.

[1:41:57] So I think it is up to us.

[1:41:59] I think I agree with staff's approach.

[1:42:03] And I agree with going ahead and addressing

[1:42:07] the questions we have.

[1:42:08] I also want to bring up that I had indicated that there were

[1:42:12] a number of things I wanted to bring up

[1:42:14] for this section at the last workshop,

[1:42:17] but I think staff has itemized comments or responses

[1:42:25] to public comment really helped with a lot of this.

[1:42:29] So I think I have a couple of questions myself.

[1:42:33] >> Thank you for clarifying where you are coming from.

[1:42:37] Through this process, I really understood

[1:42:39] that the town of Samoa is highly interested in this process.

[1:42:45] And are concerned about changes to the Samoa Town Master plan

[1:42:50] are a great interest to them -- is a great interest to them.

[1:42:56] Are I want to make sure that if we're cracking this open that we

[1:43:01] listen to the community and keep the community in mind.

[1:43:04] I appreciate that staff went and had a meeting with the community

[1:43:07] and that there's a light touch of changes being made now.

[1:43:11] And that we've changed our stance from no changes

[1:43:13] to sunlight changes.

[1:43:15] So I appreciate all of that and I'm

[1:43:19] comfortable with the recommendation of not

[1:43:21] doing much more than that.

[1:43:24] It sounded like Commissioner curiosity,

[1:43:26] you did have a couple of questions

[1:43:27] that you wanted to address.

[1:43:30] >> Yeah.

[1:43:32] One, in response to our Ceas comment regarding gas pipelines

[1:43:38] and limiting to where those are allowed to be placed.

[1:43:45] I think staff was -- was proposing for.

[1:43:53] I guess, what's the status of staff

[1:43:57] addressing that particular part of the comment?

[1:44:02] For example, not allowing pipeline pipelines

[1:44:06] through existing residential.

[1:44:10] >> I think there's two struggles.

[1:44:11] One is that some of the areas are existing residential.

[1:44:15] And so we can't very well turn that off.

[1:44:22] There are some existing lots in the old town

[1:44:26] that are not developed yet.

[1:44:29] As we move forward, part of the RCP

[1:44:34] would be to try to move away from gas.

[1:44:38] Certainly in the new town, moving away from gas

[1:44:42] would be appropriate.

[1:44:44] That's part of what we're trying to do with the action plan. --

[1:44:52] the Regional Climate Action plan.

[1:44:56] >> Thank you.

[1:44:57] I think that makes sense.

[1:44:59] And it sounds like maybe that is better

[1:45:02] addressed in a different section than in the energy

[1:45:08] VMT additions made to this master plan.

[1:45:14] I do have one other question.

[1:45:18] Give me one second.

[1:45:19] Where did it go?

[1:45:28] The sea level rise numbers, I think,

[1:45:36] maybe there's inconsistency in the sea level

[1:45:41] rise numbers in new development policy >>

[1:45:52] Are you talking about under the geologic hazard analysis?

[1:45:54] Because I think I might have the same comment.

[1:45:58] Is there a page number?

[1:46:01] >> I'll have to pull it up.

[1:46:11] >> Hazard policy two and three, is that right?

[1:46:24] >> There is different SLR numbers being presented.

[1:46:28] >> They're saying 4.5ft of sea level rise but the sea life rise

[1:46:32] management area uses the 21 immediate --

[1:46:36] 2100 immediate high which is 5.5.

[1:46:39] >> We will synthesize those to go to the more recent number.

[1:46:58] >> Immediate high 2100 should be 5.5.

[1:47:05] >> If it is the desire of the commission,

[1:47:07] which I can't imagine it not being,

[1:47:09] we will make those consistent.

[1:47:12] >> I'm seeing head nods.

[1:47:18] >> Those were my remaining questions.

[1:47:19] And I feel like staff's responses

[1:47:22] to comments covered everything else.

[1:47:27] >> Am I remembering correctly that you also wanted to go over

[1:47:31] definitions before I opened public comment on this item?

[1:47:37] >> We can do definitions.

[1:47:40] >> Why don't we take public comment and if there's issues

[1:47:44] with definitions, we can get those along the way.

[1:47:48] >> Great.

[1:47:49] What we're going to do now is we're

[1:47:52] going to open up public comment on the Samoa Town Master plan.

[1:47:56] As a reminder, if you're just tuning in,

[1:47:59] we are doing two different public comments

[1:48:01] for this workshop.

[1:48:03] One that is focused on the Samoa Town Master plan and the changes

[1:48:07] that staff just proposed.

[1:48:09] And then we will do a second one where

[1:48:11] we are going to go back to the rest of the document

[1:48:15] and then do another comment.

[1:48:17] And you can comment in both public comment periods

[1:48:19] if you would like to.

[1:48:20] This is simply to make sure that folks

[1:48:23] who are concerned with the Samoa Town Master plan

[1:48:26] changes have an opportunity early on

[1:48:29] to directly address those while we are talking about it.

[1:48:32] And then we will move to the document as a whole.

[1:48:35] Just to reminder, you can comment

[1:48:38] during both opportunities tonight if you would like to.

[1:48:41] Please adjust your comments to the Samoa Master Town Plan

[1:48:47] and what was discussed in it.

[1:48:51] >> If you would like to comment, please approach the podium.

[1:48:54] If you're online, please raise your hand.

[1:48:56] Star nine if you're calling in.

[1:48:58] As a reminder, there can be a little bit of a lag

[1:49:00] so if you're online, raise your hand now so that I can see you

[1:49:03] and know to call you -- call on you when we move to the online

[1:49:09] portion of the comments.

[1:49:11] >> I'm commenting on everything I can think of.

[1:49:15] I wanted to thank very much the county

[1:49:18] for creating that meeting for us to all hear about this in Samoa.

[1:49:23] I am a Samoa resident.

[1:49:25] Don't forget that.

[1:49:26] So I appreciate the open communication.

[1:49:29] And I do appreciate the expressed concern

[1:49:33] that we maintain a historical character

[1:49:36] of our quirky little neighborhood down there.

[1:49:40] So that was my primary concern.

[1:49:43] I really don't think any of my neighbors

[1:49:46] or I have any concern about not having

[1:49:48] to get a Coastal Commission permit to change our paint

[1:49:52] or put on a new roof.

[1:49:54] So I appreciate the changes that are being made.

[1:49:57] And again thank you for your concern

[1:49:59] and care for our little tiny community.

[1:50:01] Thank you.

[1:50:05] >> If anybody else would like to comment in the room,

[1:50:08] please approach the podium.

[1:50:09] And if you're online, I'm not seeing

[1:50:11] any hands raised currently so please raise your hand now

[1:50:14] if you'd like to comment on this item.

[1:50:19] >> I'm not seeing anybody else here in the room approach

[1:50:22] the podium and I'm not seeing any hands online so we are going

[1:50:25] to move back to the commission.

[1:50:26] And sometimes it's going to be a confusing process so bear with

[1:50:30] me while double Dutch we will be opening another public comment

[1:50:35] period later again -- we will be opening another public comment

[1:50:38] period later on this item.

[1:50:40] With that, let's take it back.

[1:50:41] Can you remind me, you're now looking for a direction?

[1:50:46] >> I think we've heard the direction.

[1:50:48] Unless there's something else you want to add.

[1:50:51] But I think we know what changes we

[1:50:54] want to move towards making and the things that we need to do.

[1:50:58] And so the next step will be to bring back a document reflecting

[1:51:04] those changes to you.

[1:51:12] >> Your number is off again.

[1:51:16] It says 5.3 by 2100 but it should be 5.5.

[1:51:38] >> Okay come on I'm not seeing any other comments from

[1:51:40] the commission.

[1:51:42] >> I just want to acknowledge that at our first public hearing

[1:51:45] we did have a lot of concerns expressed from the residents

[1:51:48] of the town of Samoa.

[1:51:49] Thank you to staff for taking the time

[1:51:52] to meet with the community and help bring everybody up

[1:51:56] to speed on where we are.

[1:51:59] Any comments tonight, and the lack of comments tonight --

[1:52:04] the lack of comments tonight reflect on that.

[1:52:07] I appreciate it.

[1:52:14] >> To clarify, are we wrapping up section seven and then going

[1:52:17] back to the beginning?

[1:52:18] Or are we wrapping up?

[1:52:21] >> I wanted to clarify.

[1:52:22] Thank you.

[1:52:23] I think we are bringing it back to staff

[1:52:26] to present on the changes made to the document

[1:52:30] since the last time we had a workshop

[1:52:32] beyond chapter seven, the Samoa Town Master plan.

[1:52:45] >> So the first proposed change will be on page five.

[1:52:51] And that is an update to the table of contents.

[1:52:54] It is changing section 3.2 from General Description

[1:53:00] to non structures.

[1:53:02] I can elaborate a little bit more on that

[1:53:04] once we get to that section.

[1:53:05] It was just a duplicate section.

[1:53:08] So I'm going to just start scrolling and announcing

[1:53:14] some changes.

[1:53:16] After a meeting with the Coastal Commission,

[1:53:18] we decided to remove the rural subdivision requirements

[1:53:23] because that is explicitly discussed in the zoning code.

[1:53:27] So that is why we are suggesting removing that section.

[1:53:32] That would conclude changes to the table of contents.

[1:53:45] Maps will be updated for the public hearing.

[1:54:04] These changes were made by the Coastal Commission

[1:54:07] just to elaborate which section of the Coastal Act.

[1:54:12] And just further, add a little bit more description.

[1:54:16] And that would conclude the changes made in chapter one.

[1:54:26] Moving on to chapter two, we did revise the land acknowledgment

[1:54:35] based on a planning commissioner suggestion.

[1:54:41] >> There was one that I would either strike or modify,

[1:54:46] and that was the stray heights Indian community with long

[1:54:50] standing ties to the area.

[1:54:52] Or just dropped that whole paragraph.

[1:54:57] Where it says Tree Heights Indian community,

[1:55:01] the Trinidad Rancherie located north of Trinidad

[1:55:04] includes Yurok and other native descendants.

[1:55:07] There are Wiyot descendants there also in that community.

[1:55:10] But their ties to the area and not necessarily

[1:55:12] to the coastal zones.

[1:55:19] >> Okay.

[1:55:20] So would the commission like us to strike that through?

[1:55:24] >> You could take the whole paragraph out.

[1:55:26] Because you took out the bear River paragraph.

[1:55:31] >> I appreciate Commissioner O'neill having worked with

[1:55:37] tribes and sharing your knowledge.

[1:55:39] I still would really love for the tribes

[1:55:45] to be able to provide language about themselves

[1:55:50] and speak for themselves.

[1:55:52] And I know that you have reached out and you've asked,

[1:55:55] and in the absence of that, Commissioner O'neill

[1:55:59] has provided her expertise.

[1:56:00] I think that's where I'm having hesitation.

[1:56:03] I appreciate the commentary and I don't have a solution beyond

[1:56:09] just asking .

[1:56:13] >> We will continue to ask.

[1:56:15] We did get a response from the Wiyot

[1:56:16] and they said that they will get us language.

[1:56:19] But they were concerned about being able to get it

[1:56:23] to us by this meeting.

[1:56:25] >> I tried to reach out to them too and I found a hard time

[1:56:28] finding emails for anybody on their website.

[1:56:30] Because I was going to send them my draft.

[1:56:34] >> We did.

[1:56:36] >> Okay.

[1:56:37] >> And I almost said, do you have any emails?

[1:56:39] Because I couldn't find them on their website.

[1:56:42] >> We can get you contacts.

[1:56:45] >> I just know that there's other groups within the Trinidad

[1:56:48] area that have ancestral ties to the community and I don't want

[1:56:54] to start the back and forth there.

[1:56:57] >> So is the concern here that by calling out heights

[1:57:02] in particular, that we may be omitting some?

[1:57:09] >> Yes.

[1:57:10] In that, because it's not historical going back

[1:57:13] to the beginning of time, that the people that are there now

[1:57:17] had those connections.

[1:57:18] Those people that are there now came there in the 1950s.

[1:57:22] So the people that do have those long standing historical ties --

[1:57:28] and you know who you are, because you've heard from them

[1:57:30] before, might feel that they were omitted.

[1:57:35] Either take that out and don't bring the subject up.

[1:57:38] You already took out bear River.

[1:57:40] We're add to the area instead of the coastal area.

[1:57:43] Do you see what I'm saying?

[1:57:45] >> I do.

[1:57:47] Thank you.

[1:57:58] >> We still have some work to do on this so we will do that

[1:58:00] and come back to you.

[1:58:02] >> Thank you.

[1:58:10] >> Would we like to say on tribal history or move

[1:58:12] on to environmental justice?

[1:58:15] >> I'm thinking about time and thinking about public comment

[1:58:21] and wanting to make sure that we we have a time for public

[1:58:26] comment.

[1:58:26] Yeah and I see six people online and a couple folks in the room.

[1:58:31] So I'd love to continue with you talking briefly

[1:58:35] about the changes that have been made.

[1:58:38] We will go to public comment.

[1:58:40] And then we will bring it back to the Commission

[1:58:42] for a more in-depth discussion about language and policy.

[1:58:46] >> So we're going to try to go through this really fast

[1:58:49] to accomplish that.

[1:58:51] >> Thank you.

[1:58:57] >> The next change will be in environmental justice is

[1:58:59] the addition of one policy to address public comment.

[1:59:05] And I'm gonna keep moving forward for the sake of time.

[1:59:09] Please stop me if you have any questions.

[1:59:11] So we did remove general description

[1:59:15] because it is previously referenced in chapter one.

[1:59:19] It's now 1.2.

[1:59:22] We are recommending changing it to nonconforming structures

[1:59:26] because that applies to the whole area,

[1:59:29] as it was previously under urban, I believe.

[1:59:33] And then going into standards for land use designations,

[1:59:38] that one paragraph has been moved to housing.

[1:59:42] It was more appropriate in that section.

[1:59:49] Urban development -- the policy was added to address a public

[1:59:56] comment.

[2:00:00] Urban limit line -- >> I have a question on the policy that was

[2:00:07] added.

[2:00:08] I was curious if that was intentionally added only

[2:00:13] to the urban section?

[2:00:15] Or is it an intention that it does not

[2:00:18] apply to areas outside of an urban limit line?

[2:00:29] >> It currently is under urban development so it would be

[2:00:32] within a urban limit line.

[2:00:35] >> Can I ask why only within the hermit limit line?

[2:00:45] >> I'm not recalling the comment that was received.

[2:00:47] But one of the things that makes sense

[2:00:49] is that the focus of development was in the hermit limit lines.

[2:00:54] So we're not encouraging development outside of that.

[2:00:58] So when it comes to vehicle miles traveled and smaller

[2:01:04] development where you can do energy efficient design,

[2:01:08] a lot of this is going to come back --

[2:01:14] come out of the cap work anyway.

[2:01:19] >> I understand that.

[2:01:20] It just seems like it's something

[2:01:23] that would be generally good to strive for rather than only

[2:01:25] within an urban limit area.

[2:01:28] >> We can relocate that into the rural requirements as well.

[2:01:34] Or put it up as a general policy somewhere up above.

[2:01:42] >> That would be my preference if other commissioners are okay

[2:01:45] with that.

[2:02:16] >> Moving on to urban limit line,

[2:02:18] we did receive a public comment regarding this section.

[2:02:21] I'm just going to go to the appropriate section

[2:02:25] for that first.

[2:02:30] So we've received a public comment requesting

[2:02:35] that additional criteria be added to the list

[2:02:39] for identifying an urban limit line,

[2:02:43] changing urban limit lines and development within urban limit

[2:02:45] lines.

[2:02:46] The additional criteria requested

[2:02:48] is to have consistency with the adopted Regional Climate Action

[2:02:51] Plan and the Regional Transportation Plan

[2:02:53] and potential for reasonable access

[2:02:56] by bike, transit, or pedestrian means.

[2:02:59] We are not proposing to modify the criteria for identifying

[2:03:05] an urban limit line, which is why we did not add that

[2:03:10] as part of the public comment.

[2:03:13] Urban limit line is more tied to identifying areas where --

[2:03:21] that are generally suitable for urban development or development

[2:03:24] that is greater than one unit per acre where public sewer,

[2:03:28] water and road improvement services are available.

[2:03:34] And that's the current criteria for urban limit >>

[2:03:42] And I'll just add another thing.

[2:03:43] Changed urban limit line requires a modification

[2:03:46] to the Humboldt area plan.

[2:03:50] So there's not criteria there that staff could follow

[2:03:53] and arbitrarily --

[2:03:55] I shouldn't say arbitrarily.

[2:03:57] But change without a public hearing.

[2:03:59] Without going to the planning Commission

[2:04:01] or going to the board.

[2:04:02] So the focus where urban limit lines are

[2:04:07] are very much structured around utilities.

[2:04:24] >> Moving on from urban limit line,

[2:04:25] this was moved from urban limit line to general as it applies

[2:04:30] to areas outside of the urban limit line as well.

[2:04:35] The second public comment we received

[2:04:38] was the discussion of the residential high density land

[2:04:43] use designation.

[2:04:44] We did previously discuss this at the first public workshop.

[2:04:53] And we were planning on the initial --

[2:04:58] the initial thought of removing it was because there is no

[2:05:03] concurrent lands that are even proposed to be rezoned to that

[2:05:08] land use designation.

[2:05:09] So that's why we have not added it back.

[2:05:16] >> I would also say there's no zoning for the high density

[2:05:20] residential.

[2:05:21] And so if there ever is a future desire

[2:05:27] to rezone land to high density residential

[2:05:31] or modify the local coastal plan to include high density

[2:05:34] residential, that could all be done as part of one action.

[2:05:37] But the fact of the matter is, it doesn't exist in the zoning

[2:05:40] right now.

[2:05:41] And it doesn't exist on the map.

[2:05:50] >> I think I would appreciate a little bit more discussion

[2:05:52] on that, but maybe that could come after public comment.

[2:05:56] >> I think that's a good >> Okay,

[2:06:04] moving back on to the document and changes.

[2:06:06] And those were the only public comments since we've received --

[2:06:16] Si comments we've received since the publication of the agenda.

[2:06:21] Adding relevant Coastal Act policies for rural development,

[2:06:27] removing the rural subdivision requirements as

[2:06:30] discussed earlier per discussion with the Coastal Commission.

[2:06:34] We did decide with the Coastal Commission

[2:06:39] to add the policy of the permitting

[2:06:41] and inciting of septic systems.

[2:06:43] Noting the qualified combining zone

[2:06:46] within Fairhaven for consistency.

[2:06:55] >> I have a question.

[2:06:56] As I recall, the Coastal Commission

[2:06:59] had some pretty stringent requirements

[2:07:01] around water supply.

[2:07:03] Were you able to mitigate those?

[2:07:07] Or were they here?

[2:07:10] >> I believe they were here when we met with coastal Commission,

[2:07:14] we discussed them and came to the consensus that they

[2:07:19] aren't needed to be discussed in this plan.

[2:07:23] >> Thank you

[2:07:34] >> Let's see, here.

[2:07:34] I believe page 32.

[2:07:36] Was there an amendment or a fix that was done in here?

[2:07:43] I was noticing there was (Indiscernible) business part.

[2:07:49] >> That was a note for staff based on our discussion with

[2:07:53] the Coastal Commission.

[2:07:55] We are working on getting the commercial residential ordinance

[2:08:00] that was approved -- getting that approved with the Coastal

[2:08:04] Commission right now.

[2:08:05] There was discussion that we still

[2:08:07] need to revisit with them on updating the business park

[2:08:10] section of the humble Bay Area Plan.

[2:08:16] However, we're still working with them on if that's needed.

[2:08:21] Same with tiny house villages.

[2:08:25] So there's some further discussion

[2:08:28] needed about those ordinances.

[2:08:30] So it's not directly to the Humboldt Bay area plan.

[2:08:35] However, if we do get comments back from the Coastal Commission

[2:08:39] saying that something needs to be added to the section by --

[2:08:46] in order to approve them for the ordinance for the Humboldt Bay

[2:08:49] area plan.

[2:08:50] Then we could bring that up as a change discussed most

[2:08:52] likely at the public hearing.

[2:09:08] Moving on to coastal dependent development,

[2:09:13] per the workshops at the planning Commission,

[2:09:18] there was a request to add more on county commitment

[2:09:21] to renewable energy.

[2:09:23] And that is added right here.

[2:09:28] I'm just going to scroll past unless commission

[2:09:31] would like to read it.

[2:09:39] At the workshops, we had some discussion

[2:09:43] on this section of policy so we did update that

[2:09:46] to adjust those discussions.

[2:09:52] We removed the reference explicitly

[2:09:55] about offshore wind and updated that policy further.

[2:10:09] Referencing the impact of wildfire risk.

[2:10:20] Added some new policies for recreation.

[2:10:26] They were borrowed from Arcata's local coastal plan.

[2:10:31] But they also do address public comments from attachment three.

[2:10:38] And then there was some redundancy so we did remove that

[2:10:44] policy as It is in 3.8.2(c), right here.

[2:10:57] This was added based on discussion with the Coastal

[2:11:00] Commission, just clarifying about incentives, concessions.

[2:11:07] The county may require any deed restricted affordable units.

[2:11:11] The affordable life of development,

[2:11:13] which is consistent with some of the density bonuses.

[2:11:18] Similarly, updating this.

[2:11:21] It was moved from an above section.

[2:11:24] It was more appropriate to be within the policies for housing.

[2:11:29] And that statement again, discussing incentives.

[2:11:34] Changing the section from explicitly saying

[2:11:38] archeological to cultural.

[2:11:42] This was a discussion point at our workshops.

[2:11:46] So we did change this more to have a cultural focus

[2:11:50] and reference cultural resources as recommended from both

[2:11:55] the Coastal Commission and our planning position --

[2:11:59] Planning Commission workshop on the sixth.

[2:12:01] So these are more policies based on that discussion.

[2:12:20] Minor changes made to Timberlands, just

[2:12:22] for clarity purposes.

[2:12:30] Adding a section for aquaculture as requested by public comments.

[2:12:36] And I believe we discussed it at the workshop as well.

[2:12:44] So this section is new based on comments and the workshop

[2:12:49] discussing aquaculture .

[2:13:09] Revision to a policy address public comment.

[2:13:17] This was an outdated paragraph so instead of revising it,

[2:13:24] we ultimately decided to delete it

[2:13:27] as it was no longer needed for that section.

[2:13:35] Revising Esha related policies, and based on Planning Commission

[2:13:43] comment from previous workshops, we broke down the policies

[2:13:47] stating that these ones are related to Esha.

[2:13:51] And later on referencing a wetland-related policy just so

[2:13:55] it breaks down that lengthy policy section

[2:13:58] a little bit more.

[2:13:59] Because right here would be the identification

[2:14:01] of wetland and traditional agriculture related policies.

[2:14:08] We deleted per coastal Commission comments .

[2:14:17] This was an outdated site, so no longer applicable.

[2:14:21] So we deleted that.

[2:14:29] Additions per coastal Commission guidance .

[2:14:43] Updating the minimum ratio from 1 to 1 to 2 to 1.

[2:14:45] And that is for wetlands and Esha.

[2:14:53] Additions per coastal Commission comment.

[2:14:56] Received a comment from Fish and Wildlife.

[2:15:00] So we did update riparian corridors

[2:15:03] to make it simpler and consistent with fish

[2:15:06] and Wildlife recommendation.

[2:15:42] This was removed and moved up to a previous section

[2:15:47] as it was more consistent there and didn't just apply

[2:15:49] to Esha and wetlands and was more relevant to rural areas.

[2:15:58] Deleted per Coastal Commission comments.

[2:16:02] And then moving on to scenic and visual Resources.

[2:16:11] Updating exterior lighting references

[2:16:14] to reference the Outdoor Lighting ordinance now

[2:16:17] that it's approved in the Coastal zone.

[2:16:23] Moving on to chapter five.

[2:16:38] Updating the tsunami rate.

[2:16:50] >> In this sea level section that we're on right now,

[2:16:53] there were a couple of comments where there were inconsistent

[2:16:56] use with the capitulation of the term sea level rise.

[2:16:59] And same with GHG.

[2:17:02] And you have a little paragraph justifying your use of 21 dash

[2:17:08] 2100, because the design life of the building

[2:17:11] would be longer which is good but then you

[2:17:13] jump to using 2100 intermediate high

[2:17:15] and you don't explain why you use intermediate high versus

[2:17:18] intermediate.

[2:17:19] As I understand, the obesity guidance intermediate high

[2:17:22] is for critical infrastructure.

[2:17:24] It's fine whichever we want to do,

[2:17:26] but I think making that distinction is important.

[2:17:45] >> I did screen share.

[2:17:46] >> Okay.

[2:17:52] [Ambient conversation]

[2:17:59] >> (Indiscernible)

[2:18:07] >> Okay, I see.

[2:18:13] >> Thank you.

[2:18:13] And the previous version was proposing

[2:18:15] high instead of intermediate high, is that correct?

[2:18:19] >> That is correct.

[2:18:21] And the reason we went away from high,

[2:18:23] and I think it's right there on the screen,

[2:18:26] is because there's a 0.1% chance that it would ever be exceeded.

[2:18:31] And so that is maybe an unrealistic chance

[2:18:39] that it would happen intermediate by itself

[2:18:41] has a fairly low chance of ever being exceeded.

[2:18:45] As I recall, that's at 20%.

[2:18:49] And so intermediate high is still

[2:18:53] a very conservative projection.

[2:19:06] >> And we're going with intermediate?

[2:19:07] >> High.

[2:19:20] >> We may need to work on the language a little bit

[2:19:22] if it's not clear.

[2:19:23] I know the person that wrote it was

[2:19:26] scrambling to get it modified.

[2:19:30] >> Are you okay if we circle back to this one after public

[2:19:35] comment?

[2:19:37] >> I had one more comment in this section.

[2:19:39] When you get to the part in policy they believe it is --

[2:19:43] can we go back up to that?

[2:19:46] To where we made the changes.

[2:19:49] Down a little bit now.

[2:19:51] It says new development will have a lifespan beyond 2050,

[2:19:55] so longer span appropriate 2100 is being chosen.

[2:20:00] >> That's the part I like.

[2:20:07] >> The level of projected looks to remain conservative.

[2:20:10] I thought in there we said that this

[2:20:11] would be the intermediate to high >> Right.

[2:20:17] On a recent public document I worked on, there was pushed

[2:20:20] for use of intermediate and not intermediate high,

[2:20:22] because the distinction of intermediate high is only --

[2:20:25] >> If the commission wants to go back to intermediate,

[2:20:28] we are fine with that.

[2:20:31] We understood the direction to be conservative.

[2:20:33] And that's where we went.

[2:20:35] >> That's fine.

[2:20:36] So the last section in asset protection,

[2:20:40] we don't give any examples.

[2:20:43] But then we specifically call out Murrayfield.

[2:20:53] >> Coastal commission asked us to.

[2:20:56] >> Okay.

[2:20:56] My opinion is that it feels like there's a target on a location

[2:21:00] because that should be all county facilities.

[2:21:04] But that's my comment.

[2:21:08] >> 100% I agree with you.

[2:21:10] There is a target.

[2:21:12] >> Anyway.

[2:21:19] >> But if coastal Commission asks the county to, you

[2:21:21] don't have to.

[2:21:22] Right?

[2:21:24] >> We don't have to.

[2:21:25] But don't forget, this has to go to the Coastal Commission.

[2:21:29] And the staff gets to have another thought added.

[2:21:32] So it's better for us to adjust their concerns now.

[2:21:37] >> My suggestion would be to copy that exact same language

[2:21:40] and put it in asset protection in section A. Because you should

[2:21:45] be allowed to do that.

[2:22:25] >> These are mostly changes that were recommended by the Coastal

[2:22:27] Commission as we go through here.

[2:22:46] >> Those are also changes from the Coastal Commission.

[2:23:03] >> Moving on to public access , addition of pedestrian bicycle

[2:23:05] equestrian and public transit or vehicle.

[2:23:08] This was in response to a public comment.

[2:23:11] Similarly, adding explicitly, bicycle and vehicle

[2:23:15] parking for public comment.

[2:23:17] In response to public comment.

[2:23:24] We added some more policies that were consistent

[2:23:30] with the appropriate sections and addressed public comments.

[2:23:45] Coastal Commission recommended we

[2:23:48] removed the southern from the Eureka area

[2:23:51] for the public access.

[2:23:52] And then I am going to jump to definitions since we already

[2:23:58] went through the Samoa Town Master plan at this meeting.

[2:24:14] We added the definition for aquaculture

[2:24:17] as requested by public comment.

[2:24:22] Similarly, coastal dependent food production as

[2:24:28] requested by public comment.

[2:24:35] A lot of the changes were just appropriate capitalization

[2:24:40] or fixing typos in this section.

[2:24:48] And that would conclude the document.

[2:24:59] >> Thank you.

[2:24:59] Quite a large document so it's always

[2:24:59] a feat to review all of the changes you've made.

[2:25:02] The tracked changes is very much appreciated in the comments our.

[2:25:07] >> Is coastal dependent food production --

[2:25:09] is that human grade food or any food like animal fodder?

[2:25:14] And does that matter?

[2:25:17] >> The intent there was really to address the fact that

[2:25:20] there's a lot of human grade food that is produced

[2:25:23] in Humboldt Bay.

[2:25:30] >> If we are producing seaweed that is fodder for abalone

[2:25:33] or something, I just want to make sure -- yeah.

[2:25:38] >> I believe the intent is for human consumption.

[2:25:40] It's the water dependent cultivation and processing

[2:25:44] of marine foods bivalves, algae and sea salt.

[2:25:49] So I believe intent is the primary audience

[2:25:56] would be for human consumption.

[2:25:59] But possibly.

[2:26:04] We got that definition from the public comment

[2:26:07] and checked it with other areas, but they

[2:26:10] requested that it be in here so that they would

[2:26:13] be able to get more grants.

[2:26:17] >> Thank you for being attentive to that.

[2:26:21] >> With that, we're gonna move back to public comments again.

[2:26:24] We've had a lot of folks who have been hanging

[2:26:26] in there with us and I want to make sure that everybody

[2:26:29] has time to talk.

[2:26:30] So we're going to start with folks in the room.

[2:26:33] If you could please approach the podium and line up and then

[2:26:36] we will move to folks who are calling in online.

[2:26:39] As a reminder, if you're calling in online,

[2:26:41] please raise your hand now so that you

[2:26:44] are ready when I move over to the online public comment

[2:26:48] portion.

[2:26:48] Star nine to raise your hand.

[2:26:50] Would anybody in the room like to make a public comment?

[2:26:53] Please approach the podium.

[2:27:00] You have three minutes.

[2:27:04] >> Thank you so much.

[2:27:05] Good evening commissioners and staff, my name is Amy Jester

[2:27:08] and I'm a resident of Eureka.

[2:27:11] I'm here tonight on the behalf of the Redwood Region climate

[2:27:15] and Community Resilience Hub.

[2:27:17] We want to thank you all for working to update and modernize

[2:27:21] the Bay Area Plan and considering

[2:27:22] our comments to date.

[2:27:24] My comment tonight is on section B1F on Coastal dependent

[2:27:29] Industrial regarding the port overlay zone and heavy lift

[2:27:33] marine terminal -- for heavy lift marine terminals.

[2:27:37] We support clarifying the use of a port overlay

[2:27:43] zone for heavy lift a terminals and additions that

[2:27:46] were made to that section and also recommend

[2:27:49] adding language that requires proposed port overlay

[2:27:53] zones to be evaluated through an environmental justice lens.

[2:27:57] Because the overlaying may modify standards related

[2:28:00] to height, lighting, noise and other health based concerns,

[2:28:04] it has the potential to disproportionately affect

[2:28:08] existing and also planned affordable housing plans

[2:28:11] in the community of Samoa.

[2:28:13] You guys already spent time on the Samoa Town Master Plan.

[2:28:18] And I know that you're tracking the additional affordable

[2:28:21] housing is planned out there.

[2:28:24] And also, effects on tribal and culturally significant areas.

[2:28:30] So specifically, we suggest a text

[2:28:33] that states establishment of a port overlay zone

[2:28:36] shall include an environmental justice evaluation

[2:28:39] to identify and avoid minimize or mitigate

[2:28:42] disproportionate impacts to disadvantaged communities,

[2:28:46] existing and planned affordable housing,

[2:28:49] tribal cultural resources and culturally significant areas.

[2:28:53] That addition would reinforce the plan's commitment

[2:28:55] to equitable development and the new addition

[2:28:58] of the Environmental Justice section at the top of the plan.

[2:29:03] Thanks for consideration our comments.

[2:29:06] Last chance, anybody in the room want to make a public comment

[2:29:10] on this item?

[2:29:22] >> I'm James Madison back again, same Samoa resident.

[2:29:24] I just wanted to comment on Miss Jester's comment and second

[2:29:29] our motion that we considered environmental and social justice

[2:29:33] when we're making a Bay area Plan.

[2:29:43] >> Okay, I'm not seeing anyone else on the audience approach

[2:29:45] the podium so we're gonna go ahead and move to online.

[2:29:46] I'm calling in public commenters.

[2:29:48] As a reminder, please raise your hand now

[2:29:50] if you would like to comment on this item

[2:29:52] and we will move down the list.

[2:29:54] Caller 2888, you have the floor.

[2:29:59] You have three minutes.

[2:30:10] >> And it is star six to unmute if you're having trouble

[2:30:18] unmuting yourself.

[2:30:20] >> Can you hear me now?

[2:30:22] >> Yes.

[2:30:24] >> Okay come on thank you.

[2:30:25] My name is Francis Ternstrom and I just

[2:30:28] wanted to say thank you for allowing

[2:30:30] me to make a quick comment.

[2:30:34] My family has a parcel at the bottom of Humboldt Hill.

[2:30:41] And we are included in the Humboldt Bay

[2:30:45] plan for that reason.

[2:30:47] We have been trying to get a project done

[2:30:53] with the county for about eight years now.

[2:30:57] And because our parcel is wrapped up in this Humboldt Bay

[2:31:01] plan, we have been limited on what we can do to move forward.

[2:31:07] So I just wanted to comment to the commissioners

[2:31:11] that we would really appreciate it

[2:31:13] if you could do whatever you can to get this plan finalized

[2:31:19] and to get it approved because it's been eight years for us

[2:31:25] for a project that we have not been

[2:31:27] able to move forward on because of the location of our parcel.

[2:31:31] So I just want to make the commissioners aware

[2:31:38] that there are people that are being held up

[2:31:40] by doing things on the ground because the plan has not

[2:31:45] been completed.

[2:31:46] So thank you very much, I appreciate it.

[2:31:57] >> Thank you.

[2:31:57] The next person I see is epic.

[2:31:57] You have three minutes.

[2:31:58] As a reminder, please raise your hand now

[2:32:00] if you would like to speak.

[2:32:02] >> Good evening, commissioners.

[2:32:03] First I want to -- that was my fault.

[2:32:09] >> We're gonna restart your time.

[2:32:10] If you could start at the top again, please.

[2:32:14] >> How about now?

[2:32:16] >> We can hear you now.

[2:32:18] Sorry about that.

[2:32:20] >> Good evening commissioners, my name is Matt Simmons.

[2:32:22] I'm the climate attorney at epic.

[2:32:25] First of all, I would like to thank the commission and staff

[2:32:28] for making many of the changes suggested

[2:32:30] by epic, Humboldt Waterkeeper and CRB

[2:32:34] in our joint comment letter.

[2:32:36] I do want to focus in to changes that were made

[2:32:39] and why I feel they should be made.

[2:32:42] As I'm sure the Commission is aware,

[2:32:46] Humboldt County has two documents

[2:32:48] demanding quite a lot of the county over the coming years.

[2:32:51] There's the housing element, which

[2:32:54] I don't know if you guys have seen your regional housing needs

[2:32:57] numbers but we're going to need to build a lot of new housing.

[2:33:01] There's also a climate action plan

[2:33:03] which requires us to develop in certain ways

[2:33:05] in order to reduce our emissions,

[2:33:08] building close to jobs and schools that people can walk

[2:33:12] or bike or even just drive less than if we were to sprawl out.

[2:33:17] And I will say that one is particularly important to me

[2:33:21] because I am a climate attorney and because just two days ago,

[2:33:25] the UN announced that we were definitely going to pass the 1.5

[2:33:29] degree threshold that they set as the Paris Climate Agreement.

[2:33:33] And every bit of warming after that just

[2:33:36] further makes the future a scarier

[2:33:39] place for us all to live.

[2:33:41] Getting to the point of this document,

[2:33:43] the two changes that we asked for.

[2:33:45] One was to allow residential zoning

[2:33:47] to continue to exist as a possible thing for the county

[2:33:52] to adopt in the future.

[2:33:54] I know planner Ford said that we could do that in the future

[2:33:59] if we ever decide to rezone an area as residential high.

[2:34:02] If that's true, then why take it out?

[2:34:06] (Indiscernible) and it's not affecting anything.

[2:34:10] I think if you look at the map of Humboldt County

[2:34:12] and really want to put new housing

[2:34:14] and how we're going to read the regional housing needs,

[2:34:16] we're going to need some residential high development

[2:34:18] in the future.

[2:34:19] And hopefully some of that can be in the Myrtletown area which

[2:34:24] is in the coastal zone but above the sea level rise area

[2:34:28] but it has access to transit and jobs and bike lanes now.

[2:34:34] Andy, it just feels like we shouldn't

[2:34:37] be cutting this out just to have to put it back in.

[2:34:40] The second request was about the urban limit lines.

[2:34:43] So obviously that comes from the Coastal Act language .

[2:34:51] Sorry, I moved my cursor.

[2:34:54] 20505.

[2:34:54] I'm sorry, 30250.

[2:34:57] But the current draft already goes

[2:35:00] beyond what the Coastal Commission describes

[2:35:02] in terms of what is required for urban limit lines.

[2:35:05] And so if Humboldt County wants to,

[2:35:08] we can add additional criteria for what

[2:35:11] we consider urban limit line.

[2:35:13] And so we had asked for that to consider walkability, access

[2:35:18] to jobs and services, the things that you think of.

[2:35:24] >> I'm sorry, your time is >> Thank you.

[2:35:31] And I don't see any other folks with their hand raised,

[2:35:33] so we are going to go ahead and close public comment

[2:35:35] and bring it back to the Commission for discussion.

[2:35:47] >> Commissioner.

[2:35:47] >> Just because we heard it in public comment,

[2:35:49] I think we had briefly discussed this at one of the previous

[2:35:52] workshops but I am still in support of allowing

[2:35:55] the residential high zoning.

[2:36:09] >> You bring up a point that I would also like to discuss.

[2:36:11] But to think about process before we get into discussion

[2:36:14] of items and what makes sense for us,

[2:36:17] we have a little less than an hour

[2:36:19] to try to make some progress.

[2:36:22] In the past, we've gone through the documents page by page

[2:36:28] and had staff stop when we wanted

[2:36:30] to stop and discuss items.

[2:36:32] I know that there are a couple of topics that we've already

[2:36:36] tabled from interest a little bit earlier in our discussion

[2:36:40] this evening.

[2:36:40] What feels like a productive way to get

[2:36:43] through this document that also meets

[2:36:47] the needs of the commissioners that they

[2:36:48] are discussing the plans that they want to address.

[2:36:52] Would you like -- >> Didn't we just do that?

[2:36:56] We pretty much went through the whole thing.

[2:37:00] >> Yeah, we did.

[2:37:02] And maybe it would be worthwhile just

[2:37:07] having each commissioner identify the major topic

[2:37:11] concerns they have and just going there and talking

[2:37:14] through those.

[2:37:15] I think we just need 3 or 4

[2:37:20] >> I agree.

[2:37:21] I think there's 3 or 4 areas where

[2:37:23] we need to do a deeper dive.

[2:37:27] >> That sounds good.

[2:37:28] With that, I guess we will let it rip on this first topic with

[2:37:34] the higher density residential designation --

[2:37:38] land use designation.

[2:37:43] >> If it pleases the commission, we can put that back in.

[2:37:46] I mean, it's almost a meaningless discussion

[2:37:49] at this point.

[2:37:52] >> I did have several questions around it.

[2:37:54] You had noted that it's not in the zoning.

[2:37:57] And it's been a while since I've worked directly in planning.

[2:38:02] My of standing was that this document was

[2:38:06] a higher level than the zoning.

[2:38:11] And the next time you update the zoning,

[2:38:13] you could attend to the fact that there was this land use

[2:38:16] designation that's not currently zoned for

[2:38:18] and add in the zone at that time.

[2:38:20] >> We could.

[2:38:22] I think the question is, I know Mr. Simmons mentioned

[2:38:27] Myrtletown.

[2:38:29] And perhaps there are a couple of parcels in Myrtletown

[2:38:33] that would be appropriate to apply this to.

[2:38:36] I haven't evaluated that.

[2:38:38] I don't know if that's true or not.

[2:38:41] But we can certainly add it back in.

[2:38:45] Next time we update the zoning ordinance,

[2:38:47] we can certainly do that.

[2:38:50] Medium density residential currently

[2:38:54] allows 30 units per acre.

[2:38:56] And if you go with the density bonus, you can go higher.

[2:39:02] >> I hear that.

[2:39:04] I think when I think about going with the higher density housing,

[2:39:07] I look at some of the more recent buildings in Eureka

[2:39:11] and that those are 30 units on much less than an acre.

[2:39:15] And everybody has different opinions on what a four story

[2:39:18] building feels like, and I think we will have public process

[2:39:21] to hear from Myrtletown and other areas

[2:39:23] where this would be proposed.

[2:39:25] But to me, 30 units on an acre is not that dense.

[2:39:32] And there are parts of unincorporated Humboldt County

[2:39:35] where I think that something along the lines of a four story

[2:39:40] building on a third of an acre is what I see in Eureka.

[2:39:43] I think that may feel appropriate.

[2:39:46] And currently, as I understand, the medium

[2:39:49] density, that that would not really

[2:39:51] work even if you had your bonuses.

[2:39:54] So that's where I'm coming from and advocating

[2:39:57] for just the option of having higher density.

[2:40:09] >> It's a policy called.

[2:40:10] It's fine with us.

[2:40:19] >> I completely agree.

[2:40:20] It sounds like staff is okay with putting it back in

[2:40:22] and I would like to see that as well.

[2:40:26] And I agree with signaling the interest of considering our H

[2:40:32] in future zoning updates. -- r h in future zoning >> I don't have

[2:40:45] a big issue with it.

[2:40:46] Are you talking about aligning that anywhere? --

[2:40:49] aligning that anywhere in the Bay area plan?

[2:40:52] Or specifically, when I think about it,

[2:40:55] it seems like that area of Myrtle Harris

[2:41:01] and Harrison kind of triangle that might

[2:41:05] some day be suitable for that.

[2:41:10] >> My understanding is that we are just putting the opportunity

[2:41:12] back in.

[2:41:14] We are not actually allocating the land use onto the parcel.

[2:41:19] >> Got it.

[2:41:21] >> That's where I come from.

[2:41:22] I don't want to eliminate -- limited right now but I want

[2:41:25] that opportunity in the future.

[2:41:27] As I understand, there will be a public participation opportunity

[2:41:31] in the future when zoning was updated

[2:41:34] in when it was proposed in Mckinleyville or Myrtle Town

[2:41:38] to be a more robust discussion.

[2:41:50] >> This would be in the Humboldt area.

[2:41:52] >> All this would be doing in my opinion is sending a signal that

[2:41:55] it could happen someday which is probably okay.

[2:41:57] >> It doesn't close the door.

[2:41:58] >> So we will add that back in?

[2:41:59] Is that the consensus of the Commission?

[2:42:05] >> Yes.

[2:42:07] >> I had a question more that a comment section.

[2:42:09] We had a quick commenter who noted

[2:42:12] that they are waiting on working on their property

[2:42:15] until this plan is updated.

[2:42:22] And that is because it's an expensive and challenging

[2:42:26] process to go through.

[2:42:27] I'm assuming they're waiting on a rezone.

[2:42:31] >> Correct.

[2:42:32] >> And it's a challenging process to do that independently

[2:42:35] so they are waiting on the plan to do it so they don't have

[2:42:37] to spend the money?

[2:42:39] >> Correct.

[2:42:40] >> So you can in fact do this without waiting on us,

[2:42:43] but it's much more cost effective to have the plan

[2:42:47] adopted and have the change done.

[2:42:51] >> That is correct.

[2:42:54] >> Understandable.

[2:42:54] And that is not to --

[2:42:57] I hear that neighbors concern and appreciate

[2:42:59] that it's quite expensive to do a zone update.

[2:43:03] We are trying to do our due diligence on this plan

[2:43:06] and understand what folks would like to see --

[2:43:08] that folks would like to see the updates.

[2:43:11] Thank you for the clarification.

[2:43:14] Okay.

[2:43:15] What are some of the other topics folks

[2:43:20] wanted to talk about?

[2:43:23] >> I think we wanted to revisit the intermediate versus

[2:43:26] intermediate-high discussion.

[2:43:34] Where did we settle on that?

[2:43:38] >> I was fine with what Director Ford said.

[2:43:42] I found some of the language a little bit

[2:43:44] confusing in that one section you had on screen.

[2:43:46] But the general intent, if that's the policy decision

[2:43:49] to use intermediate high, that's fine.

[2:43:54] >> We can use intermediate.

[2:43:56] That's fine.

[2:43:58] I did not see the article that you evidently

[2:44:04] just read advising that.

[2:44:08] What I read was that they picked two at the end in the range

[2:44:17] that that were equally likely or unlikely to happen.

[2:44:21] And then really gave that range in the middle.

[2:44:25] And so , just based upon that and based upon being a little

[2:44:32] bit more conservative, I think their work did take into account

[2:44:36] subsidence.

[2:44:37] So we don't need to overcompensate for subsidence.

[2:44:42] So in scale wouldn't be damaging. --

[2:44:50] and intermediate scale would it be damaging.

[2:44:53] I could be wrong but that's my recollection of where

[2:44:56] we ended up in our last discussion

[2:44:58] was intermediate, when we had the discussion about subsidence

[2:45:01] and I was all confused about that.

[2:45:04] And we recognized that subsidence

[2:45:06] was included in their.

[2:45:08] I thought we ended up intermediate.

[2:45:12] >> That's also what I remembered because of the open public

[2:45:15] policy documents in the area that include that.

[2:45:18] But I couldn't remember if maybe we mentioned it.

[2:45:20] So if there's a strong reason to go the other way,

[2:45:23] I'm not for or against one or the other.

[2:45:37] >> I know they do but this is the county's document.

[2:45:39] >> They are always going to support the more drastic.

[2:45:39] I guess, coming from another place,

[2:45:40] we've pushed back on that because the higher scenario,

[2:45:42] the more cost associated with building that adaptation.

[2:45:46] And that's so far out in the science

[2:45:48] that the uncertainty dropped so much that you're potentially

[2:45:51] adding in some cases millions of dollars

[2:45:53] to a project for some threat that may or may not be realized.

[2:45:59] >> This is the same argument that you made.

[2:46:01] We had this discussion.

[2:46:02] That's why I thought we settled earlier.

[2:46:05] >> I missed that.

[2:46:07] I apologize for that.

[2:46:10] >> I don't remember settling.

[2:46:12] I think it is a murky conversation.

[2:46:15] We went around quite a bit on it.

[2:46:19] I think I still lean intermediate-high but I remember

[2:46:23] I was on the fence and --

[2:46:26] I think that's where we were.

[2:46:29] That may be part of the problem.

[2:46:32] >> I personally don't think that the science is there

[2:46:34] for the immediate-high.

[2:46:35] I'm more comfortable around the medium area.

[2:46:39] Not only for the cost basis but, I mean,

[2:46:45] I personally don't see the science

[2:46:47] to justify the immediate-high.

[2:46:58] the

[2:46:59] >> You could also go with intermediate now so that we

[2:46:59] don't financially overburden a project that's on the immediate

[2:47:00] horizon.

[2:47:01] But when OPC comes out with their next round of updates,

[2:47:04] you could update the table in here

[2:47:05] and decide based on the civil overrides

[2:47:08] that we have or haven't seen to change it at that point.

[2:47:29] >> I'm seeing inclination to move towards intermediate.

[2:47:30] Bam did you have a comment about it?

[2:47:32] >> I think I struggle a bit with the speculation.

[2:47:35] I just feel like there's a lot of speculation that we are

[2:47:38] trying to --

[2:47:39] I guess there isn't enough information.

[2:47:44] Again, the argument was that we are putting in infrastructure

[2:47:48] that is here for a long time.

[2:47:53] And I heard staff talk about percent probabilities.

[2:48:01] And I think it might be useful to ground a decision based off

[2:48:05] of something a little bit more numeric rather than feeling like

[2:48:11] whether or not the science -- we're feeling like whether

[2:48:16] or not the cost will be higher or not.

[2:48:19] We are trying to protect property

[2:48:22] but we don't want to limit development.

[2:48:25] It's challenging.

[2:48:27] But I feel like there's a lot of speculation

[2:48:29] so I guess I am still on the fence.

[2:48:31] I'm leaning a bit more towards Commissioner West as well.

[2:48:37] >> It's a hard one.

[2:48:39] And I always spend a lot of time on it.

[2:48:43] You make a very good point that the costs

[2:48:48] are an important consideration, particularly when

[2:48:53] we're thinking about building housing

[2:48:55] and balancing that with safety.

[2:48:57] And we can down the road change things.

[2:49:05] Working in government, I loathe to say this

[2:49:11] but we don't always change things as often as we should.

[2:49:17] I do lean towards being more conservative

[2:49:20] and so I do lean towards being more

[2:49:23] conservative for that reason and loosening things

[2:49:25] if needed instead of going the other direction of tightening

[2:49:28] things if needed down the road.

[2:49:32] >> If I could, chair, I don't know if this helps or not pure

[2:49:36] Mike maybe it makes it worse.

[2:49:38] But in response to commissioners comment about grounding it,

[2:49:43] part of the struggle is the variability

[2:49:46] relating to the global ability to address climate change.

[2:49:56] And so on the one hand, we could be extremely optimistic

[2:50:00] and go to the very low side, because we're

[2:50:04] going to tackle this thing and make a difference.

[2:50:07] Or we could look and see and have a more sober view

[2:50:14] and recognize that even though we (Indiscernible)

[2:50:20] and the rest of the world has great ideas and objectives,

[2:50:23] that they are not necessarily as easy to implement.

[2:50:28] And I think that's where from a staff perspective,

[2:50:32] we lean towards the intermediate high.

[2:50:36] Because recognizing the difficulty of doing all

[2:50:39] that we need to do to curtail the carbon emissions,

[2:50:45] curtail the greenhouse gas emissions

[2:50:48] so that the things that are causing the rise

[2:50:53] begin to change.

[2:51:01] >> Yeah.

[2:51:02] And I want to point out that intermediate is sort of defined

[2:51:05] as roughly 50% chance.

[2:51:07] So intermediate is really flipping a coin.

[2:51:14] >> Commissioner O'neill.

[2:51:15] >> I'm not a scientist.

[2:51:17] This is out of my wheelhouse on this.

[2:51:19] But when we talk about tsunami, we went with the presentation

[2:51:24] that we had.

[2:51:25] We went with a very conservative threat level, I thought.

[2:51:32] That's all I'm looking at.

[2:51:35] You have two different main threats here.

[2:51:38] You have the salami threat and you have sea level.

[2:51:41] And you should be about equal with both of those

[2:51:46] in terms of the probability.

[2:51:49] And I don't know where that falls

[2:51:52] on the medium high, whatever.

[2:51:55] But you should be consistent, I think.

[2:51:58] >> I understand.

[2:51:59] And I will say, with respect to tsunami,

[2:52:02] we did not go for the most conservative.

[2:52:04] We went for the recommended value.

[2:52:07] >> Not you.

[2:52:07] When I was listening to the scientist explain --

[2:52:13] they take a more conservative role and than we follow

[2:52:17] their recommendations.

[2:52:18] I don't think the county deviated.

[2:52:21] But just in the way I heard that explanation,

[2:52:26] and I don't want to go into all of that.

[2:52:29] I'm just saying that we should be

[2:52:31] equal in looking at where we fall on the scale for threats

[2:52:36] and not make one more than the other.

[2:52:39] >> That's what I'm trying to say.

[2:52:40] Even the Geological society identified the maximum

[2:52:44] theoretical tsunami, which was a 2475 event .

[2:52:55] They did not recommend the use of that number.

[2:52:58] Except when you're designing public facilities, emergency

[2:53:02] facilities or things that needed to be able to sustain

[2:53:06] through anything that happened, that's

[2:53:08] where the 975 thing came from.

[2:53:13] >> And that's fine.

[2:53:15] I'm not trying to Rediscuss that.

[2:53:17] I'm just saying that I think we should

[2:53:19] fall within the same amount of caution or lack of caution

[2:53:24] or whatever, for all threats so that we wouldn't

[2:53:28] rate one higher than the other.

[2:53:30] And I like what you said about, there's

[2:53:33] things that are outside of our control.

[2:53:35] With a tsunami, you have more control of how you address it

[2:53:39] and sea level rise because we can't change what

[2:53:43] people do across the world.

[2:53:52] >> I'm seeing a split commission on this.

[2:53:54] Would it be an appropriate tool to use in alternative

[2:53:57] or present us with alternatives?

[2:54:01] >> There are no alternatives.

[2:54:03] There's intermediate, intermediate-high, and high.

[2:54:08] >> When we've had a split discussion they present

[2:54:10] the whole document and then alternative A is intermediate

[2:54:13] high, alternative B is intermediate.

[2:54:16] And as part of our motion making --

[2:54:19] >> That's actually in the document.

[2:54:22] >> I'm not saying with go with one or the other.

[2:54:25] I'm just saying that there are public documents that

[2:54:27] use intermediate simply because it's the logistics of the cost.

[2:54:31] Because the science is uncertain for intermediate high and it

[2:54:34] costs so much more to build to that.

[2:54:36] That counterargument is what Director Ford said.

[2:54:39] I'm happy to go with either one.

[2:54:43] I'm just putting that caution and that awareness out there.

[2:54:48] >> And the challenge is, the science is not that accurate.

[2:54:54] And the difference in these ranges is significant.

[2:54:57] Okay?

[2:55:00] So we are talking about moving from 3.9ft to 5.5ft.

[2:55:06] And that's a completely different,

[2:55:08] from a cost perspective and development standard,

[2:55:14] you're talking about millions if not billions.

[2:55:24] >> Roads and public infrastructure,

[2:55:26] you're talking tens of millions of dollars.

[2:55:28] You can speak better to the cost of residential development

[2:55:30] with those differences.

[2:55:34] >> It will take areas out of residential development.

[2:55:37] It's not like it's going to change --

[2:55:42] it would take areas out of residential development.

[2:55:46] And maybe that's okay.

[2:55:48] But I think that's what it would potentially do.

[2:55:52] Because trying to address it in residential development is going

[2:55:56] to certainly -- you're just going to impact the cost

[2:56:00] of housing to the extent that it would take it out.

[2:56:03] >> Can you just write into the plan that it would be

[2:56:05] automatically updated instead of having it be someplace and then

[2:56:09] you have to bring it back up?

[2:56:10] But that it'll be automatically updated as these numbers change?

[2:56:15] Without having to go back and do a whole revision?

[2:56:18] Of the plan?

[2:56:21] >> I don't think the revision to these numbers is that >> Can it

[2:56:29] be an internal thing that happens at a staff level rather

[2:56:31] than a whole public hearing?

[2:56:34] >> I don't think anybody wants that.

[2:56:36] There's got to be complete transparency.

[2:56:40] There's got to be a public process.

[2:56:43] Nobody wants backroom deals or even the appearance of them.

[2:56:48] >> I meant based on the scientific data that

[2:56:51] you're relying upon not just, it'll just happen.

[2:56:55] >> I think what they're trying to say is can we put

[2:56:57] in a sentence that says we're using the OPC 2024 guidance.

[2:57:01] If this guidance is updated, the new guidance will substitute.

[2:57:07] So we're not changing the decision of use

[2:57:09] on intermediate or intermediate high,

[2:57:11] we're just using the new numbers.

[2:57:15] >> But you're taking the ability of the Board of Supervisors

[2:57:17] and the planning Commission.

[2:57:19] You're removing their ability to consider whether or not that

[2:57:23] is something they want to do.

[2:57:26] >> I agree.

[2:57:27] I agree because you don't know.

[2:57:30] Maybe you get a different group of scientists in there

[2:57:33] that are extremely and they came up

[2:57:34] with something radical or whatever

[2:57:36] and it's like come on wait a minute, that's not us.

[2:57:39] We don't want to do that because maybe they

[2:57:41] go in the wrong direction.

[2:57:53] >> Just to address if we're taking areas out of development,

[2:57:55] if we're taking some areas out of development presumably in any

[2:58:00] of these levels, but we don't really understand how much we

[2:58:04] are potentially taking out of development.

[2:58:06] I think one way to think about it is the sea level

[2:58:10] rise is happening and the least desirable thing to do

[2:58:18] is develop right on the ocean edge.

[2:58:20] So we are talking about -- we are kind of getting at how far

[2:58:25] are we pulling back?

[2:58:27] >> We won't even have a highway 101 if it goes up that high.

[2:58:36] >> You can, but costs.

[2:58:37] >> The higher we go, the more cost.

[2:58:44] >> We're not getting at the setback.

[2:58:46] We're getting at the setback in low elevated >> Correct,

[2:58:53] where this is impacting.

[2:58:54] >> It's helpful for me to think about,

[2:58:55] this is really a discussion on how far we're pulling back.

[2:58:59] Would it be helpful to have maps?

[2:59:03] Is there a way that staff can provide additional information

[2:59:07] for us to visualize?

[2:59:11] >> We will attempt to develop maps showing intermediate

[2:59:15] and intermediate high, to show the difference in land that is

[2:59:19] affected by the two scenarios.

[2:59:29] >> So maybe we will table this discussion?

[2:59:31] >> I'm just listening to the heavy sigh.

[2:59:33] Sorry.

[2:59:35] >> I think someone would like to make a comment.

[2:59:39] If I may comment this is a living document.

[2:59:41] So I'm not seeing the issue with not going with the intermediate.

[2:59:48] And should things change like numbers or signs,

[2:59:51] then we can readdress this at a later date

[2:59:54] should it be necessary.

[2:59:55] But if we start way high, it's kind of hard to go backwards.

[3:00:03] >> And it's true the other way around.

[3:00:07] >> You can tell the document is updated and we have development

[3:00:10] and all that development is there,

[3:00:11] but then you don't have any continued development.

[3:00:16] >> I think looking at a map is a good idea because then you go,

[3:00:19] wow, I didn't realize that if we were on intermediate high

[3:00:23] but that takes out the whole Bay area or something.

[3:00:26] The map will help you extend the land of that is impacted

[3:00:33] but what it won't you -- what it won't help you understand is

[3:00:36] the level of water in areas that are impacted no matter what.

[3:00:39] And that affects the level that you

[3:00:40] have to build your wastewater treatment plan

[3:00:42] or your gas pipeline or your road.

[3:00:45] And that's where the magnitude of the tens of millions

[3:00:49] can come in.

[3:00:50] >> It's the same thing in a flood zone where you have

[3:00:52] to build up higher.

[3:00:55] >> If you would like, we can put the two options up on the screen

[3:00:58] right now.

[3:01:03] I have the sea Level Rise viewer from Noah.

[3:01:07] But we will start with the four foot which is closest to 3.9.

[3:01:13] And then we can jump to 5.5ft.

[3:01:19] And I'm going to share my screen.

[3:01:45] >> Are you seeing this?

[3:01:53] >> So here's the four foot.

[3:02:07] >> For folks who may not have seen this map before,

[3:02:09] the green is current?

[3:02:11] What are the colors that we are looking at?

[3:02:21] >> I don't know the number.

[3:02:26] >> Those look like the former tidelands.

[3:02:28] >> Those are the former tidelands.

[3:02:32] >> I'm working on confirming the color scheme right now but based

[3:02:35] on my personal and previous experience with this,

[3:02:39] I believe the highlight green is stuff that's normally flooded

[3:02:42] out during a King tide.

[3:02:44] So that's just anything highlighted green

[3:02:47] is currently likely to flood out due to King

[3:02:52] tide or heavy rainfall.

[3:02:56] >> That's helpful.

[3:02:57] >> I'm going to go to the four foot.

[3:03:17] >> This is intermediate.

[3:03:21] And this is intermediate-high.

[3:03:31] >> And just to complicate things more,

[3:03:33] this is a bathtub model so it's not going to take into account

[3:03:36] dynamic processes.

[3:03:36] If you pull up the cosmos adapt model,

[3:03:39] you're going to see something slightly different.

[3:03:41] So take the bathtub model with a grain of salt.

[3:03:49] >> The blue areas are areas that would be permanently underwater?

[3:03:52] Is that what we're talking about?

[3:03:54] >> Yes.

[3:03:57] >> Well that would be the whole highway.

[3:04:05] >> Back out so we can see around the northern end of the bay.

[3:04:11] >> This is off of their website.

[3:04:13] Water levels are relative to the local mean

[3:04:15] higher high water data.

[3:04:19] Areas are connected to Hydrologically

[3:04:21] to the ocean are shown in shades of blue.

[3:04:24] Darker blue equals greater depth.

[3:04:26] And low lying areas displayed in green

[3:04:28] are Hydrologically unconnected areas that may also flood.

[3:04:33] So as sea level rises, the ocean or areas

[3:04:37] connected to the ocean that are somehow hydrologically connected

[3:04:42] are in blue.

[3:04:44] And the darker the blue, the deeper the water.

[3:04:48] Proposed water depth is.

[3:04:50] And then the green would be areas

[3:04:53] that aren't connected directly to the ocean Hydrologically

[3:04:57] however may still flood.

[3:05:05] >> Can you go back, to four feet, please?

[3:05:08] >> I can Zoom in if you want.

[3:05:21] >> I'm assuming other jurisdictions (Indiscernible)

[3:05:23] lengthy discussions on this as well.

[3:05:25] Do we have any perspective from what they've done?

[3:05:30] >> We can research that.

[3:05:50] >> Again, this is very high level.

[3:05:51] I think it's helpful.

[3:05:53] But I'm not seeing a dramatic difference, personally.

[3:05:59] >> For me, I'm having a hard time.

[3:06:02] I appreciate staff pulling this up and putting

[3:06:05] this in front of us but I personally

[3:06:08] am not going to be able to follow this well enough

[3:06:12] and look at all the areas to be able to make

[3:06:15] any sort of substantive decision about it tonight.

[3:06:25] >> I will stop share.

[3:06:26] >> How can we help with this?

[3:06:27] >> It's a great question.

[3:06:29] I think maybe even, if this is the data that you think is

[3:06:34] the data to use, then sharing that data --

[3:06:37] I just need time to look at it and play with it in a way that

[3:06:42] makes me digest it, personally.

[3:06:44] But then I also heard that Commissioner Farland

[3:06:48] noted that there was another model that showed something

[3:06:51] slightly different.

[3:06:53] >> Yes, but neither model is going to get to the cost concern

[3:06:57] that was mentioned.

[3:07:00] Because the area is going to be flooded

[3:07:01] in intermediate or intermediate high.

[3:07:03] It's the amount of flooding which

[3:07:05] dictates the road that has to be built

[3:07:08] or the gas line height that has to be raised to.

[3:07:10] And the higher you go, the more cost.

[3:07:13] >> I feel like I understand what you are articulating around

[3:07:17] the cost and the difference between the two.

[3:07:22] I'm curious to the rest of the commission,

[3:07:24] my sense on this item is that I don't

[3:07:27] know that there's more progress to be made on it tonight.

[3:07:31] And that we've double Dutch and that we come back to it again.

[3:07:35] -- and that we come back to it >> We will try to bring back

[3:07:41] some better illustrations that will be in your packet to take

[3:07:44] a look at.

[3:07:46] >> Okay.

[3:07:48] >> Did you have any other questions?

[3:07:49] You had mentioned that you needed more information.

[3:07:52] Does that meet your needs?

[3:07:54] >> It does.

[3:07:55] Thank you.

[3:07:58] >> I wanted to quickly note the miss gesture from Core Hub had

[3:08:05] made a suggestion about adding language about environmental

[3:08:08] justice concerns.

[3:08:09] And I would be in support of adding

[3:08:11] in that language, personally.

[3:08:13] I was curious to see if other commissioners were

[3:08:17] in support of that.

[3:08:28] >> I think it's already in there.

[3:08:29] I heard the concerns about environmental justice

[3:08:32] but when I went back and looked at the section

[3:08:36] on environmental Justice, it cites

[3:08:39] all of the existing policies we have

[3:08:42] to comply with around environmental justice

[3:08:44] so, I'm not sure what other modification

[3:08:49] we necessarily can make.

[3:08:51] I think the document already reflects a commitment .

[3:09:02] >> What I heard in that comment was that it was specific

[3:09:04] to the port overlay.

[3:09:07] Similar to me, as the conversation was had around

[3:09:12] noise where we wanted the idea of calling out that specifically

[3:09:16] as a part of the port or were they consideration so that when

[3:09:25] -- so that we're adding it in specifically to make sure that

[3:09:28] it's considered as part of the port overlay process.

[3:09:36] >> Yeah, I appreciate Commissioner West bringing that

[3:09:38] up.

[3:09:39] I feel it with our time left that was a comment --

[3:09:41] topic I really wanted to address as well.

[3:09:43] I don't feel like the environmental justice section

[3:09:47] necessarily fully addresses either comment we've received

[3:09:53] to date one of my fundamental concerns that I've been

[3:09:59] wrestling with where we have deeply important indigenous

[3:10:05] lands that have a lot of meeting -- meeting.

[3:10:08] And we have residential zoned areas all next

[3:10:12] to this very industrial area.

[3:10:15] And I feel like it's really within the purview

[3:10:19] of this planning document to try to reconcile the known

[3:10:23] challenges that are already there

[3:10:26] and help to provide some direction during a port overlay

[3:10:31] process or even to future commissioners down the road.

[3:10:37] And I don't feel like it quite addresses

[3:10:43] the view shed well enough.

[3:10:48] I don't feel like it addresses decommissioning

[3:10:50] and the potential issues we historically

[3:10:52] see from industry when they force that decommissioning

[3:10:56] work onto the community.

[3:10:59] We've also talked about -- it's been mentioned about anti

[3:11:04] displacements and concerns for missing,

[3:11:07] murdered indigenous people.

[3:11:08] I really appreciate the suggestion of the comment around

[3:11:14] -- instead of trying to tackle each one of those individually,

[3:11:18] really calling out that environmental justice effort be

[3:11:23] made when the port overlay is pursued.

[3:11:28] I appreciate that comment.

[3:11:31] I would like to see that addressed here.

[3:11:41] >> I'm seeing a couple of head nods.

[3:11:43] >> So you're identifying areas that you feel need to be added

[3:11:46] or modified?

[3:11:54] >> What I heard and what I'm proposing is that rather than

[3:11:56] trying to tackle those individual areas here because it

[3:11:59] is a daunting task, do put that onto the port overlay.

[3:12:04] We are allowing a port overlay process

[3:12:06] but then there's a whole process to actually establish it.

[3:12:09] And so it is pushing that down the road a little bit,

[3:12:14] but we are still acknowledging that we

[3:12:17] are aware of those conflicts.

[3:12:21] For me, I really clearly acknowledging

[3:12:23] that we are aware of those conflicts

[3:12:25] and that they need to be thought through.

[3:12:34] >> Are you in agreement with that?

[3:12:36] >> I share the same sentiment as you.

[3:12:37] I'm trying to gauge where the commission is at as a whole

[3:12:41] with this topic.

[3:12:42] I saw a shake of the head no.

[3:12:45] I saw a couple of yeses .

[3:12:55] >> (Indiscernible) sorry.

[3:12:57] I just feel like this document has sufficiently

[3:13:02] addressed the environmental justice issues.

[3:13:04] It calls out just about everything

[3:13:07] you can possibly think of.

[3:13:09] I think we are getting to a point where --

[3:13:15] I feel that this document is adequate in the environmental

[3:13:19] justice concerns.

[3:13:20] It's laid everything out here including

[3:13:24] the Coastal Commission's definition of an environment

[3:13:27] justice policy.

[3:13:36] >> I have a couple of commissioners I haven't really

[3:13:39] seen a yes or a no from on this.

[3:13:40] I'm curious, since we have a little bit of division.

[3:13:45] Is this where you guys land?

[3:13:48] >> Again, I thought I said that I read the environmental justice

[3:13:53] section here, the environmental justice policy.

[3:13:56] I fully support the environmental justice statements

[3:13:59] that are in here.

[3:14:01] And I don't see how the port overlay

[3:14:04] zone is going to be able to walk away from the statements

[3:14:08] that we've already made in the Humboldt Bay area plan.

[3:14:12] So I just didn't see a need to repeat that again

[3:14:16] in the port overlay section.

[3:14:19] >> It's part of this plan that has a whole section

[3:14:21] on our environmental justice and our policies around that.

[3:14:24] If there's some policy language in the environmental justice

[3:14:27] section that doesn't address something,

[3:14:30] then maybe that's where it belongs.

[3:14:34] But I didn't see a need to restate it again

[3:14:38] in the port overlay.

[3:14:41] Port overlay is a part of this plan.

[3:14:53] >> My thought is that there are some missing policy elements

[3:14:55] in the environmental Justice section that I think would be

[3:14:58] very difficult and time consuming to try to tackle here

[3:15:02] and now.

[3:15:03] And I think a lot of that has to do mostly specifically with

[3:15:08] the port overlay area and what might potentially happen in that

[3:15:12] area rather than the Humboldt Bay --

[3:15:15] the entire Humboldt Bay area scope as a whole.

[3:15:19] And so I think it makes sense to me to signal that in some way,

[3:15:25] that there are really no intentions between the --

[3:15:29] no known tensions between the residential zoning and the Samoa

[3:15:33] area and the indigenous lands that are immediately adjacent

[3:15:36] to that area.

[3:15:37] >> So what you're saying is that you don't think we'll get there

[3:15:40] by this policy of ensuring fair treatment and meaningful

[3:15:44] involvement of all people by considering environmental

[3:15:48] justice and encouraging an inclusive and meaningful public

[3:15:52] engagement into the decision making process?

[3:15:54] Like, we're taking all the steps in the environmental justice

[3:15:57] policy to address the things that you want

[3:16:02] to make sure that we address.

[3:16:04] The process is defined in the environmental justice policy

[3:16:08] to achieve environmental justice.

[3:16:10] We don't know what all the issues are yet

[3:16:14] because we haven't done a port overlay plan

[3:16:17] or start to think about all the issues our.

[3:16:19] But we're going to hear about them through a process

[3:16:22] that we've described in the Environmental Justice

[3:16:25] section of including that, having those hearings,

[3:16:28] making sure we bring all those people in.

[3:16:32] That's what I'm saying, I think it's already in here .

[3:16:40] We don't know how else to do that unless we

[3:16:42] get into the process.

[3:16:45] >> Where I'm coming from is that I think we do already know some

[3:16:49] of those conflict points.

[3:16:51] We know that Tuluwat is a very important place to we out

[3:16:56] to people and we know that there's

[3:16:57] significance and concerns with viewshed impacts on development.

[3:17:00] We also know that we are zoning residential immediately adjacent

[3:17:05] to industrial .

[3:17:10] We also know that historically there has

[3:17:15] been decommissioning issues.

[3:17:16] We see that with the pulp mill and the property

[3:17:19] that the Harbor District has been willing to take on.

[3:17:21] And we could potentially see those impacts again.

[3:17:23] I feel like we already have some perspective

[3:17:26] of the tensions that are there.

[3:17:30] And it was feeling lacking to just not acknowledge that.

[3:17:36] But I was also concerned about trying to tackle

[3:17:39] each one of those here.

[3:17:42] And so I do think the suggestion of acknowledging

[3:17:48] those tensions are known and we want to make sure that those are

[3:17:53] addressed during a port overlay process

[3:17:56] rather than turning a blind eye and saying

[3:17:59] that we have the process and we hope that it will be tackled.

[3:18:02] We are aware of these tensions now.

[3:18:12] >> Okay.

[3:18:13] Again, we are aware.

[3:18:17] I don't know how to get at what I'm trying to say.

[3:18:22] I agree with you that we are aware.

[3:18:24] And we're facing them.

[3:18:26] And we are committing to a process of inclusion

[3:18:35] through our environmental justice policies in here

[3:18:37] to address those.

[3:18:39] Restating them in advance of getting to them,

[3:18:45] I don't know how that adds to the Bay area plan.

[3:18:49] But I understand your concern is that you

[3:18:54] don't want us to whitewash them or walk away from them like they

[3:18:59] don't exist.

[3:19:00] But I don't think the process is going to allow us to do that.

[3:19:05] >> Yes, I think that's what I would have to agree with

[3:19:11] the commissioner.

[3:19:11] You would use the term and you hope

[3:19:14] that they would be addressed prior Mark the policy basically

[3:19:16] says that those issues shall be addressed.

[3:19:19] Anything outside of that would be a violation of policy,

[3:19:23] correct?

[3:19:31] >> I'm hoping to hear how you would address this concern

[3:19:33] but I'm just saying that I think it's already covered.

[3:19:49] >> I think we lay out a process to listen to environmental

[3:19:52] justice issues while at the same time ignoring comments we are

[3:19:59] hearing about environmental justice issues.

[3:20:10] What I'm struggling with is how to move forward

[3:20:12] with allowing a port overlay area, which I think

[3:20:18] has a lot of importance for all sorts of reasons.

[3:20:26] But it's in a really tough spot.

[3:20:31] For a lot of reasons that we know now.

[3:20:35] And it doesn't feel genuine to me

[3:20:40] to flesh that out a bit more about what we know now,

[3:20:46] to signal that we know about it and we need to think about it.

[3:20:52] And make sure that we're paying attention to it.

[3:20:57] Rather than we simply have a policy

[3:20:59] and we hope that set of policies will

[3:21:04] capture all the public comments and everything

[3:21:06] we've heard to date.

[3:21:10] >> I just have a question.

[3:21:13] It seems like we're having a conversation right now

[3:21:16] between a process that is already spelled out

[3:21:21] and wanting to identify policies for how these things will

[3:21:25] be treated in the future.

[3:21:29] One of the things I hear on the one hand is

[3:21:34] is that the process will address how those are treated.

[3:21:38] But what I hear being said on the other hand

[3:21:42] is wanting to predetermine how those are addressed.

[3:21:50] Because I think, really, the way to get off this is to decide,

[3:21:56] are we talking about imposing policies

[3:21:59] on how some of these EJ issues are addressed now

[3:22:04] rather than allowing the process to address it?

[3:22:07] Or is this something I'm missing?

[3:22:12] I think there's two different conversations happening here.

[3:22:19] >> Is it the choice of words that you use in the policy like

[3:22:22] shall?

[3:22:23] Because when you say minimize or promote, those are vague words.

[3:22:31] Well, we tried.

[3:22:33] Or, we shall do this.

[3:22:35] Is that where we're going with this?

[3:22:38] Because I'm not sure I'm getting what we

[3:22:42] can do right now in this plan.

[3:22:45] And I agree with what you're saying.

[3:22:48] But how do we put it in the plan?

[3:22:52] Or should we put it in the plan?

[3:22:53] And is it through the use in the environmental justice

[3:22:56] of stronger words?

[3:23:05] >> I think my biggest struggle is that there was a choice

[3:23:07] to integrate into this section two language around history

[3:23:15] of injustice and environmental justice issues.

[3:23:23] But we've chosen to also not include some of the history

[3:23:27] and information and feedback that we've received to date.

[3:23:34] So maybe the -- and I appreciate the discussion because clearly

[3:23:39] I'm not coming with a solution here.

[3:23:42] But maybe an approach is to flesh out and include

[3:23:48] acknowledgment -- more direct acknowledgment of the comments

[3:23:52] we achieved in the conflicts we are aware of so far

[3:23:56] in the background of -- in the background section of 2.2.

[3:24:01] That helps to inform when the policies part B is implemented.

[3:24:07] It has that background to it.

[3:24:16] >> Do you think you could tackle that and come back with some

[3:24:19] recommendations?

[3:24:29] >> I think we maybe are coming a little bit full circle.

[3:24:32] The goal was to get this Humboldt Bay area plan approved

[3:24:37] knowing that we also have this potential big project going on

[3:24:43] out in the industrial area next to Samoa.

[3:24:47] So we said, we're not going to be able to tackle all

[3:24:50] of the issues with that right now so we're going to create --

[3:24:53] we're going to push that off to the future in the port overlay

[3:24:56] zone.

[3:24:57] And we want to make sure when we do get into the port overlay

[3:25:02] zone that we do dig into all of those issues.

[3:25:05] And to do that, we need a lot more technical information

[3:25:08] about what the project is all about.

[3:25:11] And we need to hear about the community's specific concerns

[3:25:15] about that.

[3:25:18] Maybe we haven't done quite a good enough job

[3:25:25] in describing the need for the port overlay zone,

[3:25:30] even up front early on in this document,

[3:25:33] to explain what this document is all about,

[3:25:36] explain that we know there is a potential large project going

[3:25:41] to occur on the bay in the future that's in the development

[3:25:45] stages now.

[3:25:48] And that we are going to utilize this document

[3:25:53] but support it by more detailed documents in the port overlay

[3:25:58] zone that addresses those specific issues such as noise,

[3:26:06] visual, whatever other specific impacts that we've heard

[3:26:09] about that people are concerned about that those will

[3:26:12] be addressed in the port overlay zone document in more detail.

[3:26:16] And that we will follow the Social justice

[3:26:21] policies outlined in section two again

[3:26:25] as a part of that port overlay zone development.

[3:26:31] Maybe we can somehow expand on that description

[3:26:33] because you do have to read into this document for a long time

[3:26:36] before you actually get to the word support overlay zone

[3:26:39] to really understand it.

[3:26:40] And people that do have those concerns probably

[3:26:44] aren't going to get to page 120 and I understand that.

[3:26:52] So maybe we could build that up front somehow.

[3:26:55] I'm just proposing ideas.

[3:26:57] I hear what you're saying.

[3:26:59] I'm just trying to figure out --

[3:27:02] I'm trying to bring that forward in this document

[3:27:04] so that the people wherever raise

[3:27:07] those concerns understand that we are going to get to them.

[3:27:11] And it's not going to be detailed in the segment

[3:27:16] and in the future document.

[3:27:19] >> I appreciate that.

[3:27:21] I feel like that's going in the direction I want it to go.

[3:27:24] A point of clarification, while the EIR process is formulaic

[3:27:28] and it does tackle some of those issues

[3:27:31] that we are aware of that create this conflict,

[3:27:35] I can also see the formula process missing

[3:27:38] some of the issues here.

[3:27:45] And so maybe some reinforcing language

[3:27:48] that you're talking about, that the process of assessing

[3:27:51] the impacts of the port overlay zone

[3:27:54] are ensured to follow this process if I'm

[3:27:58] capturing what you're saying.

[3:28:00] >> I'm proposing to that.

[3:28:04] >> So we're coming up on 9:30 p.m.

[3:28:06] It sounds like we have next steps for this item.

[3:28:12] >> Yeah, I think we can bring some language back

[3:28:14] for your consideration.

[3:28:18] >> That begs the question of, do we have other topics do we need

[3:28:23] to continue this workshop?

[3:28:24] Or can we move this forward into the hearing stage?

[3:28:39] >> I'm happy to move to the hearing stage.

[3:28:41] >> I think I'm feeling a tremendous amount of work has

[3:28:45] happened and public comments have been integrated

[3:28:48] and our comments have been integrated.

[3:28:50] And I saw that there is still a bit more

[3:28:52] to be integrated that we have yet to see.

[3:29:04] >> I think I'm in favor of that as well.

[3:29:05] I would like to throw out an initial request

[3:29:05] to staff to clarify a bit more why they declined

[3:29:09] to integrate the Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District

[3:29:12] requests.

[3:29:14] Yanagi's in light of going back to Commissioner McFarland's

[3:29:20] point about Murray Fields.

[3:29:22] And it feels a bit awkward to me for me

[3:29:25] to call it Mary Field as a particular asset

[3:29:28] while declining the just the Humboldt Bay Municipal Water

[3:29:33] districts concerns about their assets.

[3:29:37] >> I think that's fair.

[3:29:38] We can respond to that.

[3:29:40] I think we looked at Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District

[3:29:43] and in the bigger context.

[3:29:46] And they were looking at very specific issues

[3:29:48] on the peninsula.

[3:29:50] But there are utilities all over the Humboldt area plan.

[3:29:55] And so either the overall arching policies are

[3:30:00] adequate to address it or not.

[3:30:03] I know that the Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District

[3:30:08] has particular struggles that they're

[3:30:10] having with how to address future potential issues

[3:30:14] particularly on the peninsula with maintenance and service.

[3:30:20] We can write things into the plan to facilitate that.

[3:30:26] But I'm not sure that we need to have specific language in that.

[3:30:33] I'd frankly prefer to leave Marie Field alone.

[3:30:36] I don't think we need to specifically call out

[3:30:39] a county facility.

[3:30:42] I don't want to exaggerate but we

[3:30:45] heard it at least three consecutive discussions

[3:30:47] with the Coastal Commission.

[3:30:50] Will do it.

[3:31:02] >> That makes sense.

[3:31:03] Maybe I'm just on the hearing -- maybe including addressing it

[3:31:03] one more time.

[3:31:04] >> I'd be happy to.

[3:31:06] >> Do you need a motion from us?

[3:31:08] You have our direction.

[3:31:11] >> We have direction and I'm understanding in the question

[3:31:14] that our next step would be to advertise for a public hearing,

[3:31:18] which I believe is going to be October 14th --

[3:31:23] 15th.

[3:31:24] >> Okay.

[3:31:26] October 15th.

[3:31:27] Sounds good.

[3:31:28] With that, we will end the public workshop

[3:31:32] and move on to report from planner.

[3:31:39] >> I don't think I have anything tonight.

[3:31:43] >> That brings us to planning commission discussion items.

[3:31:48] I'll start off with, this isn't a discussion item

[3:31:53] but it seems like the most appropriate place to note it.

[3:31:56] The next meeting on September 17th is my daughter's first

[3:32:01] birthday so if we have a quorum and commissioner Curiosi --

[3:32:07] I'm blanking on words.

[3:32:11] As Vice chair would step in, I will not be in attendance

[3:32:16] at our next meeting.

[3:32:18] Just a heads up.

[3:32:19] But if we need quorum, I will come.

[3:32:22] It's been a year?

[3:32:24] Yes. (Laughs).

[3:32:28] Thank you.

[3:32:31] Any other planning commission discussion items?

[3:32:35] >> I won't be here on October 15th.

[3:32:36] Maybe I could call in because (Indiscernible) I

[3:32:44] don't think you would need to hear much

[3:32:45] more from me on the area plan.

[3:32:47] So it's okay.

[3:32:55] >> I have a conflict with the October 1st meeting in October.

[3:32:58] I don't know if it's the first or the second.

[3:32:58] So that's the first meeting in October?

[3:33:00] >> Yes.

[3:33:02] >> Okay.

[3:33:03] I'll be here for the hearing.

[3:33:07] >> Is that the first or second?

[3:33:11] >> Yeah.

[3:33:13] >> Okay.

[3:33:15] Anything else?

[3:33:16] Great, then we are going to adjourn to our next meeting

[3:33:19] on September 17th, 2026 at 6:00 in these chambers.

Planning Commission on 2026-09-03 6:00 PM - Regular Meeting

Agenda

Transcript