Eugene George Lewis entered into this world on November 14, 1955 in Hoopa and began his journey to the other side on October 15, 2023 due to complications related to cancer.

He is survived by his daughter Lovella Jean Lewis, her children Tek-tah, William, and Myah; his Daughter-In-Law, Falene Blake Lewis and son Pegoy Victor Lewis; his Mother, Donna Matilton, his siblings Monica Matilton (Yogi) and Family, Jon Matilton, Tina Rae Jury (Gary Sr.) and Family, Page Matilton (Irma) and Family, and Holly Fawn Spencer Matilton Jones (Jason) and Family. Eugene had ten Uncles and three Aunts on his father’s side and six Uncles and five Aunts on his mother’s side. His heart was full of love from his entire family and he loved spending time with them.

George was preceded in death by his father, Manuel Lewis Jr.; grandparents, James Peters and Daraxa Peters; great-grandparents, Charles and Rose Stevens; his sister, Ronda Lynn Marshall; his stepfathers Ronnie Marshall and Ray L. Matilton; his son Harmon E. Lewis and numerous loved ones.

George was welcomed by many. He was approachable and willing to help. He practiced his traditional ways and was eager to share his ability and knowledge. He was thankful to be blessed by his “Dance Family.” He was a recognized voice in ceremony, gifted, and his prayers were quite powerful! In March of 2022, when the Yurok Condor Restoration Program brought the California Condor back to our homelands, Eugene sang the Condor Song for the Prey-go-neesh and welcomed them home. He was a student and teacher of many languages and life skills.

Friends and family are invited to join his family for a Visitation/Wake at the Matilton Family Home on Telescope Road, Wednesday, October 18, 2023 after 7:00 pm. Graveside services will be held on October 19, 2023 at Johnsons Cemetery at 12:00 pm. Reception to follow at the Libby Haripop Nix Community Center in Weitchpec, Ca.

Pallbearers are Pegoy Lewis, Tek-Tah and William Sylvia, Jason Jones, Gary Jury Jr., Keoki Burbank, Ryan Matilton, Bryan Matilton, Matthew Douglas, Billy Buck Peters, Damien Scott, Vernon Muggins Peters, Amos Pole, Speygee Bussell, Robert Jones, Ish-kayshTripp, Chey-lel and Ka-gosh O’Neil.

Honorary pallbearers Christopher Peters, William “Billy” Peters, Walter McKinnon III, Jon Matilton, Gary Jury Sr., Page Matilton, Stephen Burbank, Patrick Wilson, Fred Lewis, Dave Severns, Alan Ng, Charles Burdick, Joe James,

His beautiful people, Cindy Sylvia, Dania Rose Colegrove, Gianna Orozco, Keiko Yamamoto Yokazowa and Gracie Lewis.

His family would like to thank the community for their generous support in his fight.

Eugene was a fighter to the end!

His caregivers at Kimaw Medical Center St. Joseph’s Hospital, Pacific Hematology and Oncology in San Francisco, Mad River Community Hospital, Cal-Ore Life Flight and Sutter Roseville Medical Center. Truly amazing care.

By no means can we list George’s entire family and friends.

He loved you all and now he travels with your love and memories.

Chue

###

Paul ‘Pablo’ George
September 8, 1948 to September 18, 2023

Paul George passed away Monday Sept. 18, 2023 after a brief battle with an aggressive form of cancer, a few days after celebrating his 75th birthday surrounded by family.

Born in 1948, Paul grew up in Pasadena with his parents and four siblings. A surfer and two-sport athlete in high school (football and baseball), Paul left Pasadena at the age of 17 and moved to Humboldt County where he met the love of his life, Libby, and raised two sons, Hudson and Maxwell. Paul coached his boys growing up and continued to be their biggest fan in life. He often said his proudest accomplishment was raising two sons who didn’t turn out to be “jerks” (not his exact word).

Paul and his father-in-law, Marlan Stover, founded SG Builders together, “Big since ‘76.” Their second catch phrase was “Driving nails and riding the planet.” Paul was known for his amazing craftsmanship and attention to detail in his work as a contractor, and he spent the majority of his career working time and time again for a group of loyal customers he valued tremendously. Paul always had a love of music and played in such notable local bands as Uncle Sam Cereal, The Dry Creek Boys, Mervin Revere and the Waddington Rebels, Robbin’ Pablo, and Undone. Based on these accolades, he would often tell his boys that he was the hippest dude they were ever going to meet. And he was right. Paul thoroughly enjoyed playing golf, and he spent as much time as possible with his many good friends at Beau Pre Golf Course in McKinleyville. His second proudest accomplishment may have been the short time he was a single digit handicap.

Paul will be remembered as an amazing husband, father, grandfather, brother, brother-in-law, uncle, friend and band mate. He will also be remembered for his generosity, sense of humor, and many aphorisms, such as, “If you want to run with the big dogs, you got to get off the porch.” Paul is survived by his wife Libby, his eldest son Hudson (wife Sarah, sons Evan and Jacob), youngest son Maxwell (wife Kathy, son William), his siblings David (Cherry) , Jamie, Donna (Louis) and Bruce (Trish), his in-laws Tommy (Kathy), Judy, Laya (Richard) and Alene (Ron) and many beloved nieces and nephews.

In lieu of flowers, please feel free to make a donation to your favorite charity in memory of Paul. A celebration of life will be announced at a later date.

###

As we wrote about a couple a days ago, tonight the Eureka City Council will officially acknowlege that the self-described “Housing for All” initiative, which seeks to stop housing development on downtown parking lots, received enough valid signatures to be placed on the ballot.

Since the petition received enough valid signatures, the City Council can do one of two things: Either pass the “Housing for All” initiative itself, or put it to the voters at the next municipal election.

But when is the next municipal election? Apparently “Housing for All” believes it to be in March 2024 — next year’s presidental primary. And they’re ready to sue the city to make that the case.

In a press release sent out a few minutes ago, the Housing for All people note what we noted: That the staff report associated with tonight’s item proposes to place the initiative on the November ballot, not the March ballot. And they call shenanigans. They write:

According to the Agenda Summary prepared by city staff, the Initiative would be placed on the November 5, 2024, ballot. According to the Elections Code, the city must place the Initiative on the March 5, 2024, ballot, the next statewide general (not just primary) election.

But what does the Election Code actually state? Election Code Section 1405(a), which the city relies on in its staff report, states this:

(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), the election for a county initiative that qualifies pursuant to Section 9118 shall be held at the next statewide election occurring not less than 88 days after the date of the order of election. The election for a municipal or district initiative that qualifies pursuant to Section 9215 or 9310 shall be held at the jurisdiction’s next regular election occurring not less than 88 days after the date of the order of election.

The election for a municipal initiative that qualifies for the ballot shall be held at the jurisdiction’s next regular election. Local cities have their elections in the fall, always — that is when city council seats are up for election. There is nothing city-related at all on the spring ballot. 

Assistant City Attorney Bob Black confirmed to the Outpost this afternoon that this is the city’s understanding of the matter. It’s not just a meaningless distinction, either — cities contract with the county to run their elections, and they don’t have the power to just shove something on the ballot any time they like, or make the county run a snap election at the time of their choosing.

So unless the city’s understanding is very much mistaken — the courts will tell us, I guess! — it looks as though the “Housing for All” people misunderstood, this whole time, when they would be on the ballot, and are now ready to file suit in an attempt to make their misunderstanding reality. Wow!

Full press release from the Housing for All and Downtown Vitality Initiative below:

Mike Munson and Michelle Costantine-Blackwell, proponents of the City of Eureka Housing for All and Downtown Vitality Initiative, have filed suit against the city seeking judicial relief from the city’s apparent intent to improperly postpone an election on the Initiative until November 5, 2024. The lawsuit also alleges the city violated the Elections Code by failing to certify the Initiative at the City Council’s October 3, 2023, regular meeting.

The Housing for All Initiative has been placed on tonight’s City Council agenda. At tonight’s meeting, the council can take one of two actions: (1) adopt the ordinance directly or (2) submit the ordinance to voters. According to the Agenda Summary prepared by city staff, the Initiative would be placed on the November 5, 2024, ballot. According to the Elections Code, the city must place the Initiative on the March 5, 2024, ballot, the next statewide general (not just primary) election.

The Council can correct the mistakes and avoid needless litigation by voting tonight to adopt or place the Initiative on the March 5, 2024, ballot.

The petition can be found at eurekahousingforall2024.org.

###

PREVIOUSLY:

• Local Group Announces Intent to Stop the City of Eureka’s Conversion of Downtown Parking Lots Into Housing With New Ballot Measure
• Group Circulating Eureka Housing Petition Says the Wiyot Tribe’s Projects Are OK, Clarifies That Parking Lot Conversions Will Be Allowed So Long as Developers Build Even More Parking Than Before
• Open Letter Urging Eureka Voters Not to Sign the ‘Housing For All’ Petition Endorsed by 100+ Humboldt County Residents, Including Local Leaders in Politics, Business and Culture
• GUEST OPINION: Like Eureka, McKinleyville Also Has an Excess of Parking Spaces That Could Be Housing
• Former Eureka Mayors Come Out in Support of Pro-Parking Initiative
• Eureka Council Requests Informational Report on ‘Housing for All’ Initiative to Clear Up Confusion for Voters, Discusses Guidelines for ADUs, and More
• Backers of Eureka’s Pro-Parking ‘Housing for All’ Initiative Say They’ve Gathered and Submitted Enough Signatures to Get It On the Ballot
• (UPDATE) Eureka Gets $30 Million Grant for Housing Projects That the ‘Housing For All’ Initiative Hopes to Block
• New Coalition — ‘I Like Eureka Housing!’ — Formed to Oppose Arkley-Backed Pro-Parking Lot Initiative
• (UPDATE) Arkley-Affiliated ‘Citizens for a Better Eureka’ Files Two More Lawsuits Against the City, Aiming to Block Linc Housing Developments

Press release from the Yurok Tribe:

The Yurok Election Board today took formal action on the Primary Election held October 11, 2023 and issued formal certification of the primary results for all Districts. The Election Board on October 17, 2023, certified the election of the following people:

NORTH DISTRICT

• Edward “Horse” Aubrey: 54 (28.72%)
• Phillip L. Williams (Incumbent): 134 (71.28%)

REQUA DISTRICT

• Ryan Ray, Sr. (Incumbent): 31 (100.00%)

WEITCHPEC DISTRICT

• Jewel C. Frank: 9 (14.06%)
• Isaac S. Kinney: 18 (28.13%)
• Toby Vanlandingham (Incumbent): 37 (57.81%)

Since all successful candidates received more than 50% of the ballots cast, there will be no Run-Off for any office. Phillip L. Williams won the position of North District Representative, Ryan Ray, Sr. won the position of Requa District Representative, and Toby Vanlandingham won the position of Weitchpec District Representative for the Primary Election and their installation ceremony will take place on Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 11am at the Main Yurok Tribal Office in Klamath, CA.

MORRO BAY — Joey Racano used to have a dining room table. Now the sunlit nook off the family kitchen more often than not serves as a conference room. The table is covered with maps, thick binders bulging with tech reports, towers of meeting minutes, abandoned coffee mugs — the accumulation of years of community vigilance.

On this day, his home is a lively place where a handful of locals are discussing one of California’s most complex and audacious initiatives — loading the Pacific Ocean with sprawling wind farms that float 20 miles from shore.

To some, it’s an exciting endeavor that will power California’s carbon-free electricity grid of the future. To others, including the people around the table, the construction of untried technology off the coast carries too many risks and unknowns.

“This is just another attempt to industrialize the coast,” said Rachel Wilson, who lives in Cayucos, a tiny, old-fashioned beach town, and regularly attends public meetings about the wind projects. “I can just see Port Hueneme with cranes and lights and a huge wharf in my charming little coastal community. No way.”

Last December, the federal government offered its first-ever wind energy leases off the California coast, concluding with five companies leasing deep ocean waters off the Central Coast and Humboldt/Del Norte counties. Included are 376 square miles that will hold three massive floating wind farms off Morro Bay, each with perhaps 50 or more turbines that will tower about 900 feet above the surface of the ocean. In addition, a developer has proposed a much smaller demonstration project of four turbines in state waters 2.8 miles off Santa Barbara County.

Local officials in Humboldt are hopeful that wind farms will boost their economy, although they are wary of the impacts and the accelerated pace. But the mood is different along the Central Coast: In Morro Bay and neighboring areas, some people are trying to stop the projects — or at least slow them down — until more can be understood about how the offshore wind industry might alter a place they cherish.

“I can just see Port Hueneme with cranes and lights and a huge wharf in my charming little coastal community. No way.”
— Rachel Wilson, Cayucos resident

The coastal economy here is largely dependent on lonely beaches and bluffs where vacationers flock to swim in quiet coves, look for migrating humpback whales and watch piles of corpulent elephant seals wrestle or snore. Main streets have remained as visitors remember them from their childhoods.

The region has a history of environmental awakening, and its residents have the energy to write letters, attend public meetings and challenge development they view as incompatible with the Central Coast vibe.

If the group of neighbors gathered around Racano’s table in Los Osos is any indication, the area is not in a mood to embrace the change.

But ready or not, change is coming. From Monterey to Morro Bay and beyond, the Central Coast in the next decade will become a vital link in the state’s shift to 100% carbon-free energy.

First of its kind, the floating wind technology carries a host of unknowns, including how the projects will affect marine life, especially whales. The projects off Morro Bay will bring with them onshore development, but exactly how it will all come together is still to be determined. Building and operating them and bringing the power to shore will require a new, expanded port somewhere along the coast, as well as offshore and onshore local substations and transmission lines.

The waters off the Central Coast are among the Pacific Ocean’s most biologically rich and diverse, where warm water from the south collides with cooler water from the north, a mashup that biologists say creates one of the rarest and most distinct marine areas in the world.

Accessible from the teeming bustle of Southern California and the searing heat of the Central Valley, this quiet coast draws throngs of tourists year-round: San Luis Obispo County alone hosted 7.5 million visitors last year.

Residents say they won’t abide drastic changes any more than they would accept altering their beloved Morro Rock, a volcanic plug more than 21 million years old that squats like a totem in the bay.

At the residents’ meeting, ideas ping-pong around the table, voices rising and overlapping. How are boats going to move in and out of Morro Bay’s harbor? What will happen to the biologically-valuable Estero Bay? What about whales, fish and birds? How might our hometowns be transformed?

Community members from the Morro Bay area meet to discuss what’s next.Photos by Larry Valenzuela, CalMatters/CatchLight Local

Citing the need for clean energy and the potential to create nearly 12,000 specialized construction jobs over five years, the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors voted in June to support offshore wind development off its coast. The board also called for state and federal funds to review the potential of building a clean-energy port in the county and study the wind farm’s impacts on the region’s valuable commercial fisheries.

The multinational energy company Equinor, which holds one of the three wind leases off Morro Bay, says it wants to be “good partners” with residents and help foster an economic revival.

“When we come into a new location it’s really important for us to come in and be respectful of the community where we will live and operate,” said Molly Morris, Equinor’s president of U.S. offshore wind operations. “It’s important that we continue to hear from the people we potentially impact.”

During Equinor’s community meetings about its East Coast offshore wind projects, Morris said residents expressed the same concerns about viewsheds, property values and community disruption. “There’s NIMBYism, there’s a lot of ‘I don’t want to see this from my beach.’ I totally understand that,” she said.

California Energy Commission Chairman David Hochschild said many residents’ fears do not align with the facts.

“There is not a single area on the coastline where offshore wind is going to be closer than 20 miles, in some cases 60 miles,” he said, referring to the five leases in federal waters off Morro Bay and the Humboldt coast. “In terms of view impact, there will be lights at night but you won’t see them. Many communities are excited about this. They see this as an opportunity.”

But can large-scale renewable energy coexist with a lightly-developed coastline? At this point, less than a year since the lease sales were finalized, state and federal officials are in the uncomfortable position of telling the public that they simply don’t know.

“There is not a single area on the coastline where offshore wind is going to be closer than 20 miles, in some cases 60 miles. In terms of view impact, there will be lights at night but you won’t see them.”
— David Hochschild, California Energy Commission

All projects must first pass muster with California’s array of regulators, who wield the sharpest of weapons — the state’s environmental quality law.

“It’s not a secret — there are a unique set of regulations that have been important to California and will continue to be,” said Tyler Studds, CEO of Golden State Wind, which holds an 80,000-acre lease off the Central Coast. “We went into this with our eyes open, we were prepared for it.”

Many Morro Bay area residents have vague but firmly-held notions about the potential impacts, even though the spinning blades — as big as one-and-a-half football fields — will be too far offshore to be seen from anyone’s kitchen window.

They also fear the intrusion, a disturbance akin to living with a neighbor undergoing a long and loud renovation project.

According to the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, offshore wind turbines are expected to have a service life of about 20 years and the blades require repair every two to five years. The floating platforms, buffeted by wave action, will need to be shut down, disconnected and towed to shore every 10 years for extensive repairs.

“This will create a drastic change to the community. I don’t trust anyone from Sacramento with what they are telling us, which is very little.”
— Robert Sidenberg, Arroyo Grande resident

The project work begins with up to five years of site surveys and planning, with boats ferrying workers and equipment out to sea for extensive studies of fish, birds and the geology of the sea floor. A conservative federal estimate of the number of survey boat round trips from Morro Bay, for example, is more than 450 over 873 days.

“This will create a drastic change to the community,” said Robert Sidenberg of Arroyo Grande, who said he is working with others on a ballot initiative in San Luis Obispo County to stop offshore wind. “I don’t trust anyone from Sacramento with what they are telling us, which is very little. People had this sprung on them. These wind farms are ridiculous, the whole thing is absurd.”

The Morro Bay Harbor, with Morro Rock in the background, is likely to get busier as wind projects ramp up. Photo by Larry Valenzuela, CalMatters/CatchLight Local

Conservation groups generally support offshore wind but voice concerns about the pace of development and the many unknowns.

“Offshore wind represents a massive industrialization of the ocean,” said Laura Walsh, California policy manager for Surfrider, an environmental group focused on protecting the sea and shore. “The speed at which this is going should perk our ears. We need to make sure we are doing this properly. We are doing all this for climate goals, but the ocean is the largest carbon sequesterer we have. When you industrialize it, you jeopardize its ecosystem. You don’t get it back.”

A decades-long history of environmental activism

Marc McGinnes was a young corporate lawyer in San Francisco in 1969 when his mentor, U.S. Rep. Pete McCloskey, called him with an urgent summons: Get down to Santa Barbara, there’s been a blowout at an offshore oil well.

Over a week and a half, more than 100,000 barrels of crude oil spewed from Platform A, 6 miles at sea, and coated the coastline — and uncounted numbers of shorebirds and marine life.

Communities along the coast exploded in anger at the desecration of their beaches. “People began to scream and yell, then they began to organize,” said McGinnes, 81. As McCloskey had predicted, the disaster launched the practice of environmental law, along with the modern American environmental movement.

McGinnes said the region’s ardor for environmental issues, especially local ones, has never cooled. Residents attend meetings, write letters and, as they did more than 50 years ago, speak up.

The current complaint: Floventis Energy Ltd. has proposed building a 6-square-mile wind farm floating less than 3 miles off the coast of Lompoc and the Vandenberg Space Force Base in Santa Barbara County. The demonstration project, known as CADEMO, would be California’s only offshore wind lease in state waters and the smallest of all the proposed floating wind projects.

The state is still reviewing the project’s lease application, which was submitted in 2019, but Floventis says the small-scale project with four turbines could be producing energy in four years, powering as many as 60,000 homes.

While the wind farms off Morro Bay and Humboldt won’t be visible from the coast, the turbines off Santa Barbara County are much closer to shore and may be visible from high points in coastal towns.

The details are not final, but subsea cables would transmit the electricity to an onshore point near a boat dock south of Point Arguello, and a new onshore substation would be built at Vandenberg, with 11 miles of new overhead power lines, according to the company’s application.

“It’s not a pristine wilderness. Of course we are taking heat, and some people criticize it, and some people think this is the best thing. Do we have all the answers? No.”
— Mikael Jakobsson, Floventis Energy

Santa Barbara, with its rooftop solar and electric vehicles, has been fiercely debating offshore wind. McGinness doesn’t see a contradiction with advocating to protect the environment and being skeptical about the impacts of a clean energy source.

“Our demand isn’t that you should pack up and go home,” he said. “Just explain it to us with sufficient clarity so we understand the project.”

Mikael Jakobsson, Floventis Energy’s director, has heard the concerns.

“Obviously it’s a very nice area, but it’s full of activity. It’s not a pristine wilderness. Of course we are taking heat, and some people criticize it, and some people think this is the best thing. Do we have all the answers? No, we do not have all the answers,” he said.

Jakobsson said he aims to use the project as a demonstration — it’s better to develop new floating technology on a smaller scale and learn from it before embarking on building large wind farms in deeper waters.

“We have never been in deeper water than 300 feet. That’s a fact,” he said. “Talk about deploying fixed cables and anchors in dark water — we have never done that before.” Ultimately, he said, the company’s biological data and some technical data will be made public so developers can learn from each other.

In part to minimize impacts on Santa Barbara County, the company says the giant platforms likely would be constructed at the Port of San Francisco, and then towed to the Port of Los Angeles, where the bulk of the work to assemble the turbines and staging of vessels and equipment would occur. Then they would be towed back to the waters off Vandenberg.

Jakobsson said critics should take the long view in the face of an urgent need to address climate change.

“If no one does anything, nothing will happen,” he said. “The house is on fire and you are discussing where we should hang the fire extinguisher.”

Marine impacts are likely, but to what extent?

The ocean off California has the nation’s most desirable wind resource. But because the strongest winds occur far off the coast in deep waters, it is not practical to install traditional platforms that sit on the ocean floor. What’s envisioned instead are wind turbines that float on the surface, tethered to one another and the seabed. It will be the first time in the world that floating wind farms are placed at this depth and distance from shore.

As expected with novel technology deployed in a new environment, it’s almost impossible to say with certainty what the ecological impacts will be. Even the companies building the wind farms are not completely certain about the technology they will deploy.

“Although we can draw on data and information from other parts of the world and from similar industries in California, realistically, we will not be able to know the full scope and scale of impacts from offshore wind to California’s marine resources until projects are in the water and we are able to monitor and measure the resulting effects,” the staff of the California Coastal Commission wrote in a 2022 report.

Benjamin Ruttenberg, director of Cal Poly San Luis Obispo’s Center for Coastal Marine Sciences, studies human impacts on the ocean and how to manage them. He said he would like to see more information about how ocean creatures may interact with the new floating structures.

“Some critters and some organisms are going to be impacted. There’s no question about that,” Ruttenberg said. “But the bigger question is, is that impact going to be the same as climate is having on the ocean?”

Sea lions rest on a buoy in Morro Bay. They are the largest marine mammals that live year-round in the bay, where they feed primarily on squid, fish and octopus. Photo by Larry Valenzuela, CalMatters/CatchLight Local

The Coastal Commission staff noted that migratory birds and sea mammals will have to navigate through unfamiliar infrastructure above the waves and under the sea.

“Each offshore wind development project incrementally increases the risk of bird strikes, vessel strikes and entanglement, and increases the impacts of displacement. Whales and seabirds are of particular concern for these types of impacts,” the report found.

There are strategies to reduce the peril for seabirds, for example. Early results from an ongoing project at the Schatz Energy Research Center at Humboldt State University suggest design changes that lessen birds’ attraction to the platforms, such as fewer nighttime lights and reduced areas for perching.

“We will not be able to know the full scope and scale of impacts from offshore wind to California’s marine resources until projects are in the water.”
— 2022 California Coastal Commission Report

Many of the impacts are likely to occur during construction, a busy time when the massive platforms are towed into position, tethered by piles or anchors driven into the sea floor, with cables running to shore and between platforms, and ships hauling materials and workers.

Marine mammals could get caught up in an array of crisscrossing cables, or trapped in marine debris.

Whales are vulnerable, scientists say, both because of where and how they feed but also how they navigate. Baleen whales like humpbacks move along the seafloor, mouths open and vacuuming krill as they go. Construction noise, boat traffic and an electromagnetic field produced by wind farms’ cables could discombobulate them.

Along the East Coast, an unusual number of humpbacks have been stranded on beaches in the vicinity of offshore wind operations in recent years. But state and federal authorities say there is no evidence that the projects played any role in the deaths of more than 200 whales. The “unusual mortality event” began in 2016, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which blamed ship strikes or entanglement for the deaths.

“Some critters and some organisms are going to be impacted. There’s no question about that. But the bigger question is, is that impact going to be the same as climate is having on the ocean?”
— Benjamin Ruttenberg, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo’s Center for Coastal Marine Sciences

Of the two federal wind lease areas off California, Morro Bay has the highest whale density. Coastal Commission Executive Director Kate Huckelbridge said California will require continuous monitoring for any effects on marine mammals.

“We can understand how one whale will interact with one cable but that doesn’t mean we understand how a population of whales will interact with a project,” she said. “We are pushing to understand the larger scale.”

Powerful ocean winds create an aquatic updraft — known as upwelling — that drags nutrients from the deep sea up where fish, turtles and other creatures gorge on them. The wind turbines could decrease upwelling by as much as 10%, researchers say, reducing the food supply in the area.

Sea otters, which are protected as a threatened species, feed on crabs, clams and urchins in Morro Bay. Marine biologists say offshore wind projects are likely to affect marine life, but they do not know to what extent. Photo by Larry Valenzuela, CalMatters/CatchLight Local

Climate change is rapidly altering the world’s oceans, making the siting of renewable energy projects in fragile seascapes a complicated and double-edged proposition for some researchers.

Eleanore Humphries, senior manager of federal ocean policy at the Monterey Bay Aquarium, said the institution supports environmentally-responsible renewable energy projects and the need for scientific review.

“It’s a world-class ecosystem,” she said. “It’s important to acknowledge the need to get crucial baseline monitoring on the water now so that three years from now we’ve got something to evaluate against.”

Conflicted stances by federal agencies

The Department of Defense has long been concerned about development off California’s coast, saying commercial activities could impinge on military training and air defense radar systems. In particular, the Navy deemed offshore wind development incompatible with its mission across wide swaths of the ocean off California.

“As offshore wind develops, so does the possibility that some turbines would be located within the line of site of coastal radar systems. If not mitigated, such wind development could cause clutter and interference for radar systems involved in air traffic control, weather forecasting, homeland security, and national defense missions,” the U.S. Department of Energy says on its website.

But recently, the military did an about-face. The Defense Department signed an agreement in August that established ground rules for the state wind project off Vandenberg. Military representatives in California and Washington, D.C. did not respond to questions from CalMatters.

The smaller wind project in state waters will be less than three miles off Vandenberg Space Force Base. Photo by Larry Valenzuela, CalMatters/CatchLight Local

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which operates the national marine sanctuary system, also has made an accommodation for wind development.

In 2015 the Northern Chumash nominated about 7,600 square miles from Cambria to Point Conception to become the Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary. NOAA began the official process in 2021 to declare it a sanctuary.

The designation would protect a unique part of the Pacific that is home to tidepools, kelp forests, whales, seals, sea otters and other marine life — known as the “Serengeti of the Sea.” Although activities such as fishing are not banned in national marine sanctuaries, they often are restricted or require federal permits.

But during the time when the federal agency was considering the Chumash’s application, federal and state officials began leasing wind projects in that same area. This created a conflict, since energy development generally is restricted in national marine protected zones, so the wind industry and the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management sent letters to NOAA advocating for boundary adjustments.

In September, in a controversial move, NOAA redrew the original sanctuary map in a new draft management plan, removing nearly 2,000 square miles from the northern end, from Cambria to Morro Bay. That cut out the federal wind lease area, where the projects’ undersea cables would have been problematic in a sanctuary.

“We need to have conservation and renewables together, they have to work together. But not there. It’s a horrible idea.”
— Violet Sage Walker, Chumash tribal council

However, the smaller proposed state wind project off Vandenberg remains within the sanctuary boundaries. Because that application is still being processed by the state, NOAA considers it “speculative,” said Paul E. Michel, the agency’s regional policy coordinator. If the wind farm is approved, permits will likely be required.

In an interview with CalMatters before the draft plan was released, Bill Douros, NOAA’s regional director of sanctuaries for the West Coast region, called the sanctuary area an environmental treasure. But he said offshore wind wouldn’t necessarily threaten it.

“How do we find a pathway that will create opportunities where both interests will be met without either one debilitating the other? I’m not sure four wind turbines offshore would unravel all of the protections,” he said.

NOAA’s new plan added some waters to the sanctuary’s southern boundary, stretching to the Gaviota coast. But experts say removing the northern section is troubling because the sanctuary would lose its connectivity to national sanctuaries to the north in Monterey Bay, and to the south, the Channel Islands.

The Chumash, who have resided on the Central Coast for 20,000 years, oppose the boundary changes. They support offshore wind, but are adamant that the siting of the state project tramples on their cultural heritage.

“We have worked so long to get this right, we won’t compromise Morro Bay to get it out of the sanctuary,” said Tribal Council Chair Violet Sage Walker. “We need to have conservation and renewables together, they have to work together. But not there. It’s a horrible idea.”

Walker said Floventis has been insensitive to the tribe’s cultural objections. “If we have to occupy the land again to protect that guy from destroying our stuff, we will,” she said.

Not all Native Americans in the region see it the same way. The Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians on Friday announced an agreement with Floventis: The tribe will support the project operating within the sanctuary while the company will fund workforce training and other programs, said tribal attorney Sam Cohen.

The federal agency is accepting public comments on its sanctuary plan until Oct. 25, with a designation expected sometime next year.

Data gaps and scarce information

International companies come to Elizabeth Diller when they need a jungle guide to lead them through the tangle of federal and state environmental permitting of large projects.

Diller, the offshore wind director at the international consulting firm ICF, said wind developers — many accustomed to European regulations or state rules on the Atlantic Seaboard — are in for a shock when they encounter the density of California’s environmental oversight.

“It does add a layer of complexity,” Diller said. “If you work on the East Coast you deal with federal agencies and state agencies, but not with the rigor as in California.”

More than a dozen federal and state agencies have a role in assessing the projects, which also will require a massive infusion of private and public funds. Each of the five wind farms off California’s coast could cost $5 billion to develop, construct and assemble.

“It’s a new industry in California and a new technology on this scale and in an environment that has never seen this infrastructure,” Diller said. “The agencies don’t know a lot about offshore wind, they don’t know a lot about the technology and they have never regulated or permitted any of it. It’s going to be a big challenge to get these projects off the ground.”

Saying she can’t endorse projects that her community has heard so much about but understands so little, San Luis Obispo County Supervisor Debbie Arnold abstained from the board’s 4-0 vote last summer supporting offshore wind development.

She said she is open-minded about wind energy but she attended a congressional hearing and didn’t like the way officials spoke about the region. “They were talking to us like we were just some little spot, like local citizens don’t matter,” Arnold said.

“I get the feeling like there are some policy makers who are jumping the gun, who are pushing this. If you ask people, for the most part they live in this county to not live in a big area of industrialization. Most people have a fondness for just the way it is.”

State Sen. John Laird, a strong supporter of offshore wind, participated in a town hall meeting in Morro Bay, with the intent of discussing the offshore wind projects.

“People had big apprehensions and there was limited knowledge,” the Santa Cruz Democrat said. “The one time everyone applauded was when I said that it will be subject to environmental review and we will work to mitigate every impact.

“People have tremendous concerns and there hasn’t been enough work done to at least give a context for what little information there is on these projects.”

Linda Krop, an attorney with the Environmental Defense Center, said there hasn’t been sufficient environmental and scientific review of the wind projects. Photo by Larry Valenzuela, CalMatters/CatchLight Local

Linda Krop, chief counsel of the Santa Barbara-based Environmental Defense Center, said the accelerated pace of the projects makes them vulnerable to legal challenges in the future. It was a mistake, she said, that federal officials hadn’t conducted an environmental analysis of the entire Central Coast lease area, “from the air to the water column to the sea floor” before the leases occurred.

The normal environmental review process will be streamlined and truncated, she said, at the behest of state and federal officials, which she said is “opening the door for challenges.”

Jenn Eckerle, California’s deputy secretary for oceans and coastal policy, said there is another way of looking at the harvesting of wind: The projects are focusing a lens on an understudied part of the planet.

“We are going to address data and research gaps, and the leasees will support funding for that,” she said. “If nothing else, the first wave of projects will create a repository of information about what goes on in the deep ocean. Information is power.”

###

CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.

Three years ago, California leaders passed legislation that promised the most dramatic expansion of mental health and addiction care coverage in decades.

As the state’s residents struggled with the stress and trauma of a raging pandemic and a record wildfire season, mental health advocates used words like “groundbreaking” to describe the new law. Finally, they said, California was poised to become a national leader on mental health.

Their optimism about that law, Senate Bill 855, has been fraying ever since. Advocates say health plans routinely fail to ensure that enough mental health providers accept their coverage, and often make patients wait too long before being seen.

Case in point: Last week, the Department of Managed Health Care unveiled news of a historic $200 million settlement with Kaiser Permanente for failing to provide patients with timely mental health appointments, among other issues.

Such issues will take center stage Wednesday at a special oversight hearing of the Senate Select Committee on Mental Health and Addiction.

Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener of San Francisco, chair of the committee and author of the California Mental Health Parity Act, says he shares many of the mental health advocates’ concerns.

“We know the plans have a long history of finding ways not to cover mental health treatment,” he told CalMatters. “The whole purpose of this law is to put an end to that.”

Prior to the passage of the 2020 law, the state only required health plans to cover medically necessary treatment of nine serious mental illnesses. For years, mental health advocates had tried and failed to expand that list. With Wiener’s law, they were finally triumphant.

Beginning in January 2021, the state has required plans to pay for treatment of a much more extensive array of mental health issues, along with substance use disorder and addiction. This state law is separate from a federal mental health parity law passed in 2008. The concept of “parity” refers to requiring insurers to treat mental and physical health conditions equally.

Health plans say they “have been diligently working in good faith” to comply with these laws while facing industry-wide challenges like workforce shortages. They say they are navigating guidelines that are ambiguous and uneven while waiting for the Department of Managed Health Care to finalize regulations.

“This creates a situation of moving goal posts for plans, providers, and our enrollees,” said Mary Ellen Grant, spokesperson for the California Association of Health Plans, in an email.

Mental health parity investigations

Mental health advocates have also long criticized the Department of Managed Health Care, which oversees health plans in the state that receive monthly fees to provide health care for their members. And they, too, are concerned that it’s taking so long for the official rules to be decided.

This summer, more than a dozen advocacy groups signed a letter of concern to the department, questioning its commitment to enforcing some aspects of the new state parity law. The organizations want the department to publish and publicize its investigations.

“It’s still a relatively secret process,” said Lauren Finke, a policy director at The Kennedy Forum, a national organization that cosponsored California’s parity legislation.

The Department of Managed Health Care declined to make anyone available to speak with CalMatters until later this fall. In an email, a representative said the department “is committed to ensuring enrollees have appropriate access to behavioral health care when they need it.”

In response to advocates’ critiques that the department isn’t adequately analyzing and publicizing how well plans are complying with state parity law, the department said in a statement that it is evaluating health plans’ compliance in other ways; including that analysis in the behavioral health investigations would slow them down too much, the statement said.

Meiram Bendat, a Santa Barbara attorney and psychotherapist who focuses on mental health parity, says that the three-year-old state law has improved patients’ ability to receive mental health care by creating a uniform definition of what is considered “medically necessary.”

But when it comes to ensuring that health plans maintain adequate provider networks, he said, the department is “failing miserably.” Too often, plans offer their members only outdated lists of providers who then prove to be unavailable, Bendat said. The Department of Managed Health Care hasn’t adequately held plans accountable for this and other problematic practices, he said.

“The historic network inadequacy around the state and the lack of meaningful fines, that’s a real failure on the part of the department,” he said.

Kaiser mental health settlement

Finke, of The Kennedy Forum, called the Kaiser settlement “long overdue” and “a very important first step in the Department holding plans more accountable for their performance (or lack thereof).” The settlement includes a $50 million fine and corrective action plan as well as a commitment by Kaiser to invest an additional $150 million over five years to improve behavioral health services.

But Finke and others also said the settlement itself provides evidence of the department’s failures to enforce a previous settlement agreement with Kaiser from 2017.

“Will DMHC do its job going forward? That’s the big question,” asked Fred Seavey, research director for the National Union of Healthcare Workers, which represents 2,000 Kaiser mental health workers in Northern California who undertook a 10-week strike last year over heavy clinician workloads and long wait times for appointments. He said he wrote complaints to the Department of Managed Health Care earlier this year, saying that Kaiser in Southern California has been illegally restricting the scope of behavioral health services.

Kaiser said, in an emailed statement, that “any accusation that we intentionally limit or restrict needed care is untrue.”

Southern California Kaiser members receive a wide range of behavioral health clinical offerings, the statement said. Despite a statewide shortage of clinicians, Kaiser is “doing all that we can” to expand its network of mental health providers.

###

CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.

Linda Louise (DeMello) Treadwell
August 27, 1941 - September 13, 2023

It is with deep sadness that we announce the passing of Linda Louise (DeMello) Treadwell on September 13, 2023. She was comforted by the presence of her loved ones in the days before her passing. Her joyful laughter and fun sense of humor will truly be missed.

Linda was born in Scotia to Evelyn (Deniz) and Louis DeMello. She was raised on a dairy farm in Ferndale until the flood of 1955 destroyed their home. At age 14 she and her family moved to Rio Dell.

Linda was a lifelong learner. After graduating from Fortuna Union High School, she graduated from Santa Rosa Junior College with an associate degree as a registered nurse. Linda continued her education at Humbolt State University earning a Bachelor of Science in nursing in 1979, followed by a Bachelor of Arts in French in 1980. Linda was known by friends to be a gifted writer with an excellent command of grammar.

In 1970 Linda married Robert (Bob) Treadwell, MD and they moved to Scotia, where they remained until 1984 when Bob retired from his practice from the Pacific Lumber Company, and they moved to Fortuna. Linda and Bob loved to travel, visiting Hong Kong, China, England and France, where she put her French language skills to effective use. They also traveled locally within California to visit family. After retiring, Linda continued pursuing her love of travel, although sadly her husband had passed away. After his passing she traveled with her sister, Denise, to Portugal and Mexico.

Linda loved entertaining, creating simple, yet elegant table settings and cooking fabulous meals. She made each guest feel special and welcome.

Linda enjoyed a nursing career that spanned over 40 years, working at the Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, the Redwood Memorial Hospital in Fortuna, and the Humbolt County Public Health Department, where she retired as a nursing supervisor in 2003. She gained a reputation of being a devoted advocate for the children and families that she visited. The friendships she developed during her career lasted well beyond her retirement. She and her friends met regularly for lunches, dinners, and games of Scrabble.

Linda was predeceased by her parents, Evelyn (Deniz), and Louis DeMello; her husband, Robert; brother, Louis; sister, Denise; and niece, Nicole. She is survived by her brother, Greg; stepchildren, Kevin, Todd (and wife, Cindy), Kim, and Karen (and husband, Jay); nephews, Robert, Nick, and Louis; nieces, April and Rachel; and grandchildren, Sarah, Ian, Melissa, Amee, and Katie.

Friends and family are invited to gather in celebration of her life at her home: 1002 Holly Lane in Fortuna on October 22 at 1 p.m. Attendees are encouraged to bring memories and photos to share.

###