###

Two weeks after a heated Humboldt County Planning Commission hearing that soured relations between the commission and local tribes, applicant Travis Schneider said he’s optimistic ahead of tonight’s follow-up meeting, where the hearing is scheduled to continue.

“I think we’ve found some common ground with staff’s revised conditions,” he said in a phone interview this morning. “It gives me optimism. It makes me feel good, and I think it kind of demonstrates that we’ve come together on this issue.”

His optimism comes despite the fact that neither he nor the county has managed to connect with anyone from the Wiyot Tribe or the Blue Lake Rancheria since the Aug. 18 meeting, at which Planning Commission Chair Alan Bongio lambasted the tribes, repeatedly referring to them as “the Indians” and accusing them of dishonestly manipulating negotiations. [DISCLOSURE: The Blue Lake Rancheria is a minority owner of the Outpost’s parent company, Lost Coast Communications, Inc.]

As previously reported, Schneider is pursuing a coastal development permit and special permit modification in order to resume construction of his 8,000-square-foot home on Walker Point Road, near Fay Slough and the Indianola cutoff.

A stop work order was placed on the project late last year after Schneider violated the terms of his previous permits by laying down an access road through environmentally sensitive habitat and disturbing a known Wiyot archaeological site when he used an excavator to clear native blackberries and other foliage. Schneider also built the home’s foundation about 10 feet away from the footprint specified in the approved site plans, and he initially failed to comply with the county’s stop work order.

Over the past eight months, county staff has worked with the California Coastal Commission and three Wiyot-area tribes — the Bear River Band of the Rohnerville Rancheria, the Blue Lake Rancheria and the Wiyot Tribe — to document the damage and pursue a resolution.

Several stakeholders, including county staff and Schneider himself, believed that a list of 11 conditions of approval had been agreed to by all parties during an Aug. 2 meeting. But just one day before the Aug. 18 meeting,  the Planning Commission received comment letters from the Wiyot Tribe, the Blue Lake Rancheria, and the California Coastal Commission, all of which asked the commission to reject staff’s recommended approval.

The Wiyot Tribe and Blue Lake Rancheria both asked for additional environmental review and more time to review the proposed restoration and mitigation measures, with the latter asking the county to revoke Schneider’s building permit. They also said it was unclear how the recommended conditions would be implemented, monitored or enforced. The Coastal Commission backed their stance, saying the proposed project didn’t adequately address violations of the Local Coastal Plan nor adequately protect onsite coastal resources.

The Bear River Band, meanwhile, submitted last-minute comments saying they agreed with staff recommendations except for one: a proposal to conduct an archeological excavation, which the tribe considers disrespectful. Instead the tribe recommended placing $38,000 into a fund to be used for future mitigation of cultural resource damage.

At the contentious Aug. 18 meeting, the commission voted three-to-three, with Bongio leading the charge to allow Schneider to resume building his large family home. (Commissioner Melanie McCavour had recused herself, participating only in her capacity as the Bear River Band’s tribal historic preservation officer.) The three dissenting commissioners noted that the Coastal Commission could easily overturn an approval, and the matter was ultimately tabled for further review.

Following the meeting, county planning staff reached out to both the Wiyot Tribe and the Blue Lake Rancheria to request a meeting but did not hear back. The Outpost also reached out to the tribes but had not hear back by publication time.

But the county is again recommending approval of Schneider’s coastal development permit and special permit modifications, with a couple of revised conditions of approval. The staff report for tonight’s meeting lays out staff’s reasoning:

Given that the recommended conditions were developed in consultation with the Tribes and the Coastal Commission, agreed to in principle during the August 2nd meeting, and that the parties have not offered suggested alternative conditions, the Planning Department believes that the recommended conditions are appropriate to address impacts to coastal and archaeological resources.

One of the conditions — dedication of an easement to the Wiyot-area tribes for access to the archeological site — has been revised to specify that it is permanent and will be dedicated specifically to the Wiyot Tribal Land Trust for conservation and open space, at Schneider’s expense.

Another revised condition adopts the Bear River Band’s request for a tribe-managed fund for mitigation of cultural resource damage.

Schneider said he believes these revised conditions address some of the concerns tribes raised before the last meeting.

“I don’t know if they’re going to agree, but they haven’t spoke out against it,” he said.

Asked his opinion of Bongio’s comments at the August 18 meeting, Schneider said, “It was a moment I wasn’t in agreement with or proud of. I even spoke to Alan [afterwards].” Schneider said Bongio’s tone and language choices “took attention away from the issue at hand.”

First District Supervisor Rex Bohn, who appointed Bongio to the Planning Commission in 2013, said he still hasn’t watched the August 18 meeting but did hear about the controversy surrounding Bongio’s comments.

“Am I disappointed? Yeah, because I feel we’re making some headway” with county-tribe relations, he said, adding that he understood the objections to Bongio’s comments. “My concern is with the tone and the delivery. I have talked with Alan about that. We didn’t go deeply into it. … I’m hopeful that we can get back to an even keel so that we’re back working together on projects.”

In developing his family home, Schneider is taking advantage of the county’s Alternative Owner Builder program, a simplified, less restrictive permitting system adopted by the county in 1984. The program’s stated goal, according to the housing element of the county’s general plan, is “to promote low cost housing and improved permit compliance in rural areas not served by public water or sewer.” 

“That goes way, way back,” Planning and Building Director John Ford said in a recent interview. “I think the idea was that, for people who were building a house — particularly for those folks that were part of the back-to-the-land movement and maybe using materials and styles that aren’t customary for a home permitted under the uniform building code — this gave them some flexibility.”

The Alternative Owner Builder program permits much more flexibility in acceptable design and materials along with more lax inspection schedules. The general plan says that through this program, builders “approach the need for low-cost housing in a carefully considered and innovative manner. Investing their capital in rural land and building low-cost, low-amenity dwellings of innovative designs, often utilizing recycled or home manufactured materials, they are able to provide themselves with an affordable, comfortable, and satisfying living environment.”

Over the years, however, the AOB program has been embraced by builders with much grander ambitions. Schneider’s 8,000-square-foot home is one example, and Ford said the program was also used by Mackey McCullough, owner of Arcata-based McCullough Construction, Inc., when he built a 10,000-square-foot home near Lord Ellis Summit.

Ford said the AOB program has loopholes that should probably be addressed in the near future.

“Normally, with a conventional permit, you’d have to call for a foundation inspection to make sure the house conforms with the approved plan. That was not done in this case,” Ford said, referring to Schneider’s project. “Had there been an inspection we probably would have not been in this situation with the house.”

Schneider’s property qualifies for the program because it’s not within the boundaries of any incorporated city or municipal sphere of influence and it’s not served by public water or sewer services, but Ford said the original idea was to promote code compliance among rural landowners who probably couldn’t afford to hire their own contractors, let alone build such large homes.

Schneider said he used the program because of its eased restrictions. 

“The primary reason is because it provides the option for us to not use fire sprinklers in the home,” he said, adding that most of the design and building conditions remain the same as with standard permitting. Still, he acknowledged his project’s divergence from the original intent, to promote rural development at a reduced cost.

“The program could conceivably use some revision and maybe second look after this particular case,” he said. 

Bohn agreed, saying the Schneider and McCullough projects exceeded the expectations people had when the program was established.

”Anybody building anything is gonna push it to where they can go,” Bohn said, referring to regulatory compliance. “I think that [the AOB program] was maybe not fine-tuned enough, or the perception is that it is being taken advantage of.”

Tonight’s Planning Commission meeting is scheduled to start at 6 p.m. inside board chambers at the county courthouse. The meeting can also be streamed via the county website.

###

California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s last-minute legislative plan for tackling the climate crisis was largely victorious as lawmakers approved laws to set interim targets for 100% clean energy, regulate projects to remove carbon from the atmosphere and smokestacks, and end new oil drilling near communities.

One ambitious bill for tackling climate change, however, was shot down by the Assembly: AB 2133 – which would have ramped up goals for reducing greenhouse gases — failed at the last minute.

Five of the six climate and energy bills pushed by Newsom made it to his desk. He now has until Sept. 30 to sign or veto them.

“This was a very big and historic win. It has taken this state decades to get to this point,” said Sen. Monique Limón, a Democrat from Santa Barbara, who authored SB 1137, a bill that requires setbacks around new oil and gas wells and steps to protect residents at old wells.

The moves by the Legislature come as California is experiencing the dire effects of climate change. Higher temperatures and extreme heat waves, more frequent and prolonged drought and severe wildfires are plaguing the state, straining the state’s power grid, threatening the environment and posing risks to vulnerable communities.

Newsom, who is up for re-election and in the final stretch of his first term, urged the Legislature with only about three weeks left in the session to pass the six proposals and approve $54 billion in spending for his climate initiatives. Before that, lawmakers said he had mostly stayed quiet on their bills and hadn’t backed them.

Here are the bills:

Tackling greenhouse gas emissions

Several controversial bills aiming to cut emissions and help California transition to renewable energy were among top priorities debated by the Legislature Wednesday.

AB 1279 codifies the state’s existing goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. Carbon neutrality means a balance between the carbon added to the atmosphere and the carbon removed.

But a more aggressive pace of cutting greenhouse gases failed in the Assembly. AB 2133 would have set California’s target at 55% below the state’s 1990 emissions, up from the current 40% target. Some legislators said setting a more aggressive goal was unrealistic when the state is not on track to meet the existing one and it was too fast of a pace that would put people in the oil and gas industries out of work.

California enacted another greenhouse gas bill, AB 32, in 2006, requiring the state to set a target for emissions to drop to 1990 levels by 2020. As with the discussion Wednesday about the new bill, that bill was criticized at the time for not having a clear plan. But then the state took steps to achieve its goal earlier than the law required.

Nevertheless, just before midnight, the new bill couldn’t garner enough support and fell four Assembly votes short of the 41 that it needed to pass.

California’s fight against climate change requires a massive reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and the elimination of fossil fuels. Planet-warming gases – carbon dioxide, methane and other smog-forming pollutants – trap heat in the atmosphere, exacerbating severe weather events and causing global changes in temperature and precipitation.

The opponents will always tell you that ‘it’s impossible,’ that we will never get there. California has a pretty good track record of knocking the impossible on its tuchus.”
— Sen. Bob Hertzberg

While environmentalists applauded many of the measures, many groups have also criticized Newsom for not acting faster to phase out fossil fuels and cut emissions.

The oil and gas industry also lobbied heavily against Newsom’s climate initiatives, criticizing them as “too aggressive.”

“This is an extraordinarily aggressive goal that would require large-scale transformation of California’s entire economy,” said Kevin Slagle, a spokesperson for the Western States Petroleum Association, a trade group representing the oil industry. “It is a regressive mandate that will hit those at the lower end of the income spectrum the hardest.”

Sen. Bob Hertzberg, a Democrat from Los Angeles, laid out the contentious measure that didn’t pass for his colleagues, taking them through a painstaking recounting of the climate change policy accomplishments California has already achieved.

“Opponents will tell you that we are moving the goalpost. We are,” he said. “The opponents will always tell you that ‘it’s impossible,’ that we will never get there. California has a pretty good track record of knocking the impossible on its tuchus.”

Passing the bills would be like “setting a target, taking victory lap, waving your magic wand and sprinkling some pixie dust.”
— State Sen. Brian Dahle

Republicans in both chambers shot down the measures.

Sen. Brian Dahle, a Republican from Bieber who is also running for governor, was one of the most outspoken opponents of the bills that are Newsom’s climate priorities. As he had done all day in response to the bills, Dahle bemoaned the lack of details in the legislation, questioning if those goals were achievable and how they could be accomplished.

Dahle mocked the approach of the bills, adding that without a more detailed plan, passing the bills would be like “setting a target, taking victory lap, waving your magic wand and sprinkling some pixie dust.”

Clean energy ramp-up

Authored by Sen. John Laird, a Democrat from Santa Cruz, SB 1020 sets interim targets for generating clean energy. A current law already requires 100% of retail electricity to be fueled by renewables such as wind and solar by 2045. The new law would add 90% by 2035 and 95% by 2040. In addition, all state agencies must source their energy from 100% renewable sources by 2035, ten years sooner than law now requires.

The question remains, however, if California’s electrical grid can handle the surge in energy demand.

Slagle, of the Western States Petroleum Association, said the governor’s approach was flawed and ignores the reality of the grid’s volatile reliability.

“The governor’s ‘climate package’ depends on energy reliability, so it is inconsistent that on one hand he is aggressively gutting energy reliability and affordability in California and on the other he is pushing actions like this to help try to maintain the grid,” he added.

The state is expected to see a 68% increase in energy consumption by 2045, according to the California Air Resources Board. To handle that increase, the agency estimates that the state needs to expedite renewable energy projects. Power lines and more battery storage capacity also need to be improved. To maintain reliability when wind and solar aren’t available, the state will need more backup dispatchable power to account for energy losses.

Without those investments, California would have to keep relying on climate-warming fossil fuels, particularly natural gas. It’s a concern Newsom has highlighted in his support for extending the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, a clean source of energy that provides about 10% of the state’s electricity. He said the state needs more sources of clean power while it makes progress on transitioning to renewable energy.

“The reality is we’re living in an era of extremes,” he said at a press conference on Wednesday. “Getting Diablo Canyon extended for a short period of time will provide us the capacity to stack all these renewables. That energy does not produce greenhouse gases. That energy provides baseload, reliability and affordability.”

A separate bill, SB 846, that aims to keep the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant operating was approved by the Legislature and is now on Newsom’s desk for his signature. It would keep the plant open until 2030 and give its operator, Pacific Gas & Electric, a $1.4 billion loan to do so. The plant is a carbonfree source of energy, although nuclear power opponents are concerned about accidents and nuclear waste issues.

Carbon removal and capture strategies

A disagreement on methods to extract carbon has pitted the oil industry against environmentalists as California deliberates on how to reduce the millions of metric tons of carbon that are already in the air.

One approved bill, SB 905, directs the California Air Resources Board to develop a program and set regulations for carbon capture, utilization and storage projects at polluting industries, such as oil refineries. The practice is supported by the oil industry but environmentalists say it has the potential to do more harm than good and prolongs the lives of fossil fuels.

Victoria Bogdan Tejeda, a staff attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, said carbon capture and storage projects at industries are “difficult to parse, highly technical and hugely consequential.” She said injecting and storing carbon deep underground can be dangerous and that pipelines could leak could cause severe health problems for nearby residents.

“There’s never been large-scale (carbon capture and storage) development in the state. Few people in California have even seen a permit for a project, let alone reviewed and commented on one,” she added. “This isn’t something that we should be rushing through.”

Another bill approved by the Legislature, AB 1757, would require the state to set targets for removing planet-warming carbon from the atmosphere with nature-based methods, such as planting trees, restoring wetlands and scaling up public landscaping and urban forestry projects. The bill received widespread support from environmentalists, who say nature-based solutions to combating the existing amount of greenhouse gas emissions in the air is a better approach than relying on engineered technologies.

“Natural carbon sequestration is the only way to draw down and sequester carbon this decade while combating heat, drought, and wildfires,” said Ellie Cohen, CEO of The Climate Center, an environmental advocacy organization that lobbied for the bill.

But farmers and grower associations opposed the bill, saying it would be economically unfeasible for them. They say the state could develop targets based on technologies that are not accessible for most farmers and drive small farms out of business.

Oil well buffer zones

The late push from the governor’s office was enough to overcome — just barely — the entrenched opposition that twice has shot down other bills to establish buffer zones around oil and gas wells.

Considering the power wielded by California’s fossil fuels industry, the victory for a public health bill — which, if signed by Newsom as expected, will prohibit new oil and gas development in neighborhoods — is considered a heavy political lift.

The bill, SB1137, prohibits new or extensive retrofitting of existing oil operations within 3,200 feet of homes, schools, nursing homes and hospitals.

The bill stalled in the Senate on Wednesday morning, and voting was put on hold while its authors scraped around for votes. Members were vacillating, said Sen. Lena Gonzalez, a Democrat from Long Beach and the bill’s co-author.

“We were looking for votes all day, it was a mess,” she said.

Previous legislative incarnations of setbacks fizzled, but those attempts did not have the benefit of Gov. Newsom’s blessing.This time around, Newsom included the setback bill, sponsored by Gonzalez of Long Beach and Limón of Santa Barbara, in his climate package and it gained urgency.

It also requires operators to take certain steps at the thousands of existing wells within that buffer zone. Included is a plan to monitor toxic leaks and emissions, and install alarm systems. In addition, new requirements would include limits on noise, light, dust and vapors.

Nearly 3 million Californians live within 3,200 feet of a working oil or gas well, largely in Kern and Los Angeles counties. Scientific and medical analysis indicates that people living near wells are at higher risk for asthma, respiratory illness and some cancers.

The majority of those living near oil facilities are people of color, creating an environmental justice imbalance, Gonzalez and Limon argued during sometimes heated debates in both legislative chambers.

The bill is similar to a regulation in the works from CalGEM, the state’s oil and gas regulator. But that regulation is still being formulated and a long way from being implemented.

Limon said after the vote that she was particularly gratified to see residents from the affected neighborhoods advocate for the setbacks, allowing minority communities to speak for themselves before the Legislature.

Michelle Ghafar, a senior attorney with the group Earthjustice, said overall the legislation is an improvement. “We want to get wells out of neighborhoods,” she said. “There is no safe distance from oil and gas extraction.”

But the bill relies on so-called engineering controls to address leaks and emissions from oil wells rather than prevent the problems before they occur. “You don’t want the problems to get to that point. In practice, they often fail,” Ghafar said.

The bill had been labeled a “job killer” by the state Chamber of Commerce, a criticism that has been taken up by a wide variety of trade unions. Other opponents during Wednesday’s heated hearings, including state Sen. Shannon Grove, a Republican from Kern County, said it would increase importation of oil from countries that don’t have robust environmental regulations.

Dahle noted the long history of drilling in California, which in its early days took place in rural areas that are now built up and populated. He said it’s unfair to crack down on existing oil operations.

“These oil wells were there before the communities were there,” Dahle said.

###

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

Former Correctional Officer Timothy Sean O’Brien has been sentenced to nine years in state prison for shooting a patron at a McKinleyville bar.

O’Brien.=

This morning Judge Kelly Neel sentenced the 56-year-old O’Brien to the low term of five years for attempted murder, plus the middle term of four years for use of a firearm. He also was ordered to pay $350,000 in restitution to the victim, Ethan S. Jacobs.

Last Sept. 27 Jacobs was sitting in Central Station tavern when O’Brien walked in and shot him for no apparent reason. Other bar patrons attacked O’Brien, and during the scuffle he was not only beaten up but somehow shot in the head with his own gun.

Deputy District Attorney Roger Rees said Jacobs was hit in the left arm and left bicep, is permanently disabled and will have to undergo rehabilitative therapy for the rest of his life.

Defense attorney Kathleen Bryson first disputed the amount of restitution, although $350,000 was part of the agreement when O’Brien pleaded guilty in March. She wanted to see some invoices for the victim’s medical bills. Rees refused, saying O’Brien had already agreed on the $350,000.

“I don’t know how you’re going to repay it when you’re in prison,” Bryson said, adding that “this is most likely a death sentence for my client.”

O’Brien is an alcoholic with mental health and other medical problems, she said. Also, other prison inmates will learn he was once a correctional officer.

O’Brien spoke briefly, saying he was sorry for what he did. The problem is, he doesn’t remember either the shooting incident or the hours preceding it.

Rees pointed out there are a lot of guns in the world that are not taken into bars and used to shoot people. There also are many alcoholics — such as O’Brien — who don’t shoot people.

“He is unable to stop drinking,” Rees said. The longer O’Brien is in prison, he said, the longer the public will be protected and O’Brien himself will be protected.

Rees had asked for a prison term of 10 years.

Neel, speaking to O’Brien, said “You have no explanation for what happened that day. I can’t make sense of it … you take a gun into a public establishment and shoot someone.” Neel said it seems O’Brien has a death wish.

Was O’Brien intoxicated when he shot Jacobs? Was he angry?

“I don’t know and you don’t know either,” the judge said. “That’s what’s troubling.”

Neel said she chose the lower term for attempted murder because O’Brien has no criminal history.

He was given credit for 272 days of time served, including “good time” credit. Because he committed a violent offense, he will receive just 15 percent credit on the remaining eight-plus years.

O’Brien was in a wheelchair when he made his first court appearance after his October arrest. He is no longer in a wheelchair but could not stand during the sentencing this morning.

“He can’t rise,” Your Honor,” Bryson said. “He does have several ailments.”

O’Brien was fired from his correctional officer’s job after assaulting an inmate.

###

PREVIOUSLY:

• One Person Shot, Another Seriously Injured During Incident at Central Station Bar in McKinleyville
• Eureka Man Arrested in Connection With Last Month’s McKinleyville Bar Shooting
• Former Humboldt Correctional Officer Having Trouble Deciding Whether to Plead Guilty to Attempted Murder

Who will win the bid for the former Jacobs campus?

And what will be built there – a new police headquarters or affordable market-rate housing?

Two entities – the City of Eureka and the California Highway Patrol – have expressed interest in purchasing and developing the former George C. Jacobs Junior High School campus, near Highland Park in Eureka. Eureka City Schools Superintendent Fred Van Vleck tells the Outpost that the school district is “still in active negotiations with both parties.”

“We have received a formal offer from the City of Eureka and have been informed by DGS – the Department of General Services who negotiates for the CHP – that they are in the process of giving us a formal offer as well,” Van Vleck told the Outpost in a recent phone interview. “We’ll see what our steps forward are depending on if CHP or the City of Eureka are able to meet the board’s terms for the piece of property.”

It’s been over a decade since the doors closed at the Jacobs Junior High campus. As the abandoned school fell into disrepair over the years, a group of concerned neighbors formed the South Eureka Neighborhood Alliance to pressure the school district into removing the dilapidated building blighting their community. The Eureka City Schools Board of Education voted to sell the property in May 2019 and the school was demolished in January 2021.

It remains to be seen what exactly will become of the site. While nothing is set in stone, Van Vleck said CHP is interested in building a new Humboldt Area headquarters on the property. If the City of Eureka were to win the bid, it would likely rezone the property to make way for affordable market-rate and workforce housing.

Van Vleck could not say how much the school district is asking for the property nor how much the city and CHP had offered, noting a stipulation in the Brown Act that keeps real estate negotiations discussed during closed session confidential.

In response to the Outpost’s request for additional information, the City of Eureka shared two emails sent by City Manager Miles Slattery to Van Vleck and two school board members – Lisa Ollivier and Mario Fernandez – regarding the sale of the former Jacob’s campus. 

In the first email, dated Aug. 2, Slattery writes that the property has been appraised at $200,000 per acre “and the offer the city is willing to submit is $1,650,000 for the 8.25 acres.” He notes that the “appraisal is based on re-zoning a portion of the property to R2 [or multi-family residential], which is the highest and best use,” and does not include the soccer fields.

Slattery posed a second offer to purchase the entire 14.09-acre property for $2,818,000.

“With this option, the city would be willing to ensure that the soccer fields would be in place in perpetuity, maintain the fields and allow for use for after-school sports programs, and potentially other programs, to [Eureka City Schools],” he wrote. “Preliminarily, we are looking at relocating our corp yard and utiliz[ing] a larger portion of the non-soccer field property for residential development. A priority for the City Council is workforce housing, and the City would be willing to work with [the district] to have access to that housing for teachers and administration.”

In a follow-up email, Slattery refers to an exchange with Van Vleck in which he “received the asking price of $4 million for the property, with or without the ownership of the soccer fields.” Slattery emphasized that the aforementioned offer “is the city’s best and final offer” and urged the district to “take into consideration what is best for our community and the interests of families in the adjacent neighborhood.”

“As public servants responsible for the appropriate use of public funds, the city cannot justify anything higher than our current offer,” the Aug. 29 email states. “The city has appraised the property under a zoning designation that provides the highest market rate value of the property, and there is no zoning designation that could justify such an exorbitant value. …The city is not interested in getting into a bidding war with a state agency with much more resources and less interest in what is best for our community and the neighborhood.”

Reached by phone this week, Humboldt Area CHP Captain and Commander Shawn Morris said he could not say what CHP was prepared to pay for the property and directed the Outpost to DGS – the department in charge of real estate management and acquisition for CHP – for additional information on the agency’s offer. DGS has not responded to our request for comment as of this writing.

Slattery’s email raised a few questions. Namely, if CHP – or another entity – were to make a better offer, would the school district be obligated to accept the offer, regardless of the content of the proposal? Van Vleck couldn’t say. 

“As far as the school district is concerned, our biggest interest is to generate the best revenues that we can to [best] impact student learning,” he said.

A quick Google search yielded this result from the state Legislative Analyst’s Office:

If a school district has surplus property, the local governing board can vote to sell or lease the property through a competitive bidding process. Before using this process, however, the district must offer to sell or lease the property to certain types of entities, including agencies interested in sponsoring low-income housing, local parks and recreation districts, and city and county governments. In most cases, the school district may sell or lease the property to these entities at current market value.

When asked specifically whether the school district was obligated to go with the highest bidder, Van Vleck said, “This is a question that our attorney will address with the Board once we have the bids in from CHP and the City of Eureka. As such, at this point, I cannot give you a legal answer.”

There’s no telling when the district will make a decision on the matter. The Board of Trustees will likely return to the item during its next meeting on Thursday, Sept. 15 at 6:30 p.m.

###

###

Press release from the Yurok Tribe:

Today, the Yurok Tribe Construction Corporation purchased the Bigfoot Golf Course and Country Club in Willow Creek. The tribally owned construction corporation, in conjunction with the Yurok Economic Development Corporation and the Yurok Agricultural Corporation, will collaborate on a multi-phased effort to modernize and rebrand the ideally located course and restaurant.

“This acquisition is part of our long-term plan to develop a diverse economic development portfolio and provide jobs for our people, whether they live on or off of the reservation,” said Joseph L. James, the Chairman of the Yurok Tribe. “I am proud of the progress we have made in terms of providing employment opportunities and services to the Yurok families in the Willow Creek area.”

“Together, the Yurok Tribe Construction Corporation, Yurok Economic Development Corporation and Yurok Agricultural Corporation are uniquely equipped to transform the course into a world-class golfing destination, including a family friendly tap room and restaurant for Humboldt residents and visitors alike,” said Frankie Myers, the President of the Yurok Tribe Construction Corporation. 

“With the acquisition and renovation of the bank and golf course properties, we are creating new jobs for the many Yurok families in the Hoopa/Willow Creek area and reviving the economy in the region,” said Yurok Tribal Council Member Lori Hodge, who represents the East District, where nearly 800 Yurok citizens reside.

The picturesque property is comprised of 90 acres near the Wild and Scenic Trinity River.

The far-sighted golf course investment includes: a nine-hole golf course, club house with a restaurant and banquet room, pro shop building, maintenance building, a large garage for golf carts, 18 mobile home spaces, a seven-unit RV park and two houses.

For phase one of the renovation, the three tribal agencies have a plan to turn the restaurant into a well-appointed tap room based on the successful Mad River Brewing Company Tap Room in Blue Lake. Mad River Brewing Company COO Linda Cooley will be leading the development of the new tap room in Willow Creek. The contemporary Tap Room will offer delicious meals paired with the Mad River Brewing Company’s best-quality hand-crafted ales and seltzers. Owned by the Yurok Agricultural Corporation, the MRB Tap Room regularly hosts special events for the Blue Lake community. The tribal corporations will install a venue on the Willow Creek property for music shows and other forms of entertainment.
 
The Yurok Tribe Construction Corporation and Yurok Agricultural Corporation will implement the major remodel of the golf course.  During phase two, the tribal corporations will create an executive golf course in the footprint of the current course. The Yurok Agricultural Corporation’s Weitchpec Nursery Manager Mike Searcy will oversee the redesign of the tee boxes, fairways and putting greens. Searcy has nearly two decades of golf course management experience. Most notably, he served as the Superintendent of the prestigious Western Skies Golf Course in Arizona and the Assistant Superintendent of Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians-owned Indian Canyons Golf Resort, which he helped build. In these leadership positions, he was intimately involved in all aspects of golf course operations, which included a wide variety of duties, ranging from designing and implementing irrigation systems to preparing golf courses for televised tournaments. In 2011, Searcy moved to Humboldt County, where he worked for seven years as the Superintendent of the Willow Creek Golf Course, the former name of the Bigfoot Golf Course and Country Club, before accepting a position with the Tribe and later the nursery.

“I am extremely excited about this project,” said Yurok Agricultural Corporation President Toby Vanlandingham. “We have assembled an amazing team to transform this property into a truly special place for visitors and the local community. Like all of our companies, this business will embody the highest standards when it comes to the environment.”

The Yurok Economic Development Corporation will manage the mobile home and RV parks. YEDC operates several businesses as well as multiple mobile home and RV parks including the Riverside RV Park and Bluff Creek Resort.

“I am particularly proud of the collaboration between our tribal corporations. We are working hard to build a brighter future for our Tribe,” said Raymond Bacon, the Yurok Economic Development Corporation’s Executive Director. “In addition to producing new jobs, this project will result in a revenue stream that will serve the Yurok people for many years to come.”

Ranging from the Lindgren Mill to Redwood Yurok Canoe Tours, the Tribe currently owns more than a dozen businesses in a variety of industries and employs more than 600 personnel. The Tribe’s economic footprint includes Del Norte, Humboldt and Trinity Counties. On the coast, tribal corporations operate the Mad River Brewing Company, Shoreline Market and Redwood Hotel Casino as well as Klamath Jetboat Tours, Weitchpec Nursery and additional companies. To the east, the Yurok Tribe Construction Corporation puts tribal operators to work on large scale river restoration projects, while Condor Aviation occupies the skies of Northern California collecting survey data.

###

Press release from the unified command of the Six Rivers Lighting Complex:

The Six Rivers Lightning Complex remains in unified command with California Interagency Incident Management Team 14, California Highway Patrol, Trinity County Sheriff, and Humboldt County Sheriff. The Six Rivers Lightning Complex is currently 39,274 acres with 64% containment and 1,815 personnel assigned to the incident.

CURRENT SITUATION

With thick smoke laying over the fire, vertical lift was limited and fire activity remained below the anticipated levels on Wednesday. This smoke was a positive for operations on the fireline, but unhealthy for sensitive groups.

The fire fight did not stop because of poor visibility in the smoke. On the Ammon Fire, firefighters worked near Madden Creek to tie together control lines through heavy timber blowdown. In other areas of the fire they were assigned to strengthen containment and carry on with suppression repair projects.

In the north, east, and south sides of the Campbell Fire, the full suppression efforts of firefighters are making great progress. Wednesday, containment increased by ten percent, control lines were tied together, and defensive firing operations continued to take away the fire’s ability to make large destructive runs and greatly reduced the threat to the Hoopa Valley Reservation. In preparation of the fire’s potential, firefighters once again were assigned to the Trinity Village and Hawkins Bar areas to defend structures if necessary.

Overnight the level of fire activity was low on the Ammon Fire and moderate on the Campbell Fire. Aside from one spot fire across the line on the Campbell fire, which was quickly contained, operations consisted of holding control lines and creating greater depth on containment lines.

Thursday, the critical area is the southern portion of the Campbell Fire. Firefighters will once again stage in the areas of Trinity Village and Hawkins Bar as a structure protection task force, while control lines north of their location are tied together. Elsewhere on each fire, containment lines will be strengthened and fire suppression repair work will continue.

Please check this link for air quality resources.

FOREST CLOSURES

Forest order NO. 22-10-06 Six Rivers Lightning Complex is currently in place, which includes river access at Kimtu Park.

To view this closure and map, please visit this link.

ROAD CLOSURES

Due to a large presence of fire personnel and machinery working to build containment lines for the Ammon Fire, residents are asked to limit travel on Titlow Hill Road/Route 1 in zones HUM-E052 and HUM-E062 to essential traffic only. Residents may still use roads to travel out of evacuation order zones:

The following roads into evacuation zones have been closed.

- Forest Route 7n15 at Six Rivers Forest Boundary

The following roads are restricted to local traffic only:

- Horse Linto Creek Road at Saddle Lane (Open to residents only)

State Route 299 remains open to through traffic. Residents are encouraged to visit the Caltrans Quickmap to check for state highway closures.

EVACUATION UPDATES

For the latest evacuation information go to Humboldt County Office of Emergency Services or Trinity County Office of Emergency Services. For an interactive map of evacuation zones visit: Zonehaven Aware To sign up for alerts visit this link.

EVACUATION ORDERS remain in effect for zones: HWK480, HUM-E058 and HUM-E061-A.

EVACUATION WARNINGS remain in effect for zone: HWK481, HWK483, HWK482, HUM-E032, HUM-E061-A, 483 - Fisher Road and all residences off of Fisher Road, Trinity Village, Wallen Ranch Road.

Zone 482 - Suzy Q Road and all roads off of Suzy Q Road

Zone 480 - Ziegler Point Road / Forest Service Road 7N04

An EVACUATION WARNING remains in effect for Campbell Ridge Road from Salyer Heights to Seeley McIntosh Road. Salyer area, including Galaxy Road, and the area of Ziegler Point Road/Forest Service Road 7N04 have been reduced to an Evacuation Warning.

LARGE ANIMAL EVACUATION CENTER

Hoopa Rodeo Grounds
1767 Pine Creek Rd., Hoopa, CA 95546
Phone: (707) 492-2851

A highly contentious bill intended to allow some California teenagers to be vaccinated without parental consent has been shelved by the author, who said there were not enough votes to get it through on the final day of the legislative session.

San Francisco Democratic Sen. Scott Wiener’s bill, SB 866, was one of several bills that grew out of a legislative Vaccine Work Group created to focus on bills related to COVID-19 and vaccination. Of those eight bills, four died, three have been sent to Gov. Gavin Newsom and one is still in play in the Legislature.

Wiener’s legislation would have allowed teens 15 and older to get vaccinated, including against COVID-19, without parent permission. Originally, the bill aimed to include those as young as 12, but that was changed in the face of opposition.

On Wednesday morning, the last day of the legislative session, Wiener tweeted: .

“While the votes are very close, we are several votes short of 41, and we don’t see a viable path for those final few votes.”

“Sadly, months of harassment and misinformation — including death threats against me and teen advocates — by a small but highly vocal and organized minority of anti-vaxxers have taken their toll,” he said in his statement. “The health of young people will suffer as a result. SB 866 did nothing more than empower young people to protect their own health, even if their parents have been brain-washed by anti-vax propaganda or are abusive or neglectful.”

In the end, Wiener didn’t have enough votes from other Democrats in the Democratic-majority Legislature. He and his staff spent the last week trying to muster enough support to put the bill to a vote. In earlier votes on the bill, more than a dozen Democrats voted no or chose not to vote.

Weiner told CalMatters he talked to many of his legislative colleagues and said they all had different reasons.

“There were some who were just philosophically opposed to it and others who were concerned about the politics and some who had a heartfelt opposition to the bill,” he said. “But there was also really intense, badgering harassment of the legislators.”

Democrats who opposed the bill said they were concerned about excluding parents from making medical decisions for their children.

Long Beach Democratic Assemblymember Pat O’Donnell said he considers himself a pro-vaxxer and supports vaccination requirements — but he called the bill an “overreach.”

“First, parents have the primary role in raising their children and participating in their medical decisions; the state should be very cautious when attempting to infringe upon that,” he said in a statement. “Further, we must ask ourselves if this bill is the beginning of a slippery slope…will more laws come forward to disallow parental involvement in making decisions about their minor children?”

“Sadly, months of harassment and misinformation — including death threats against me and teen advocates — by a small but highly vocal and organized minority of anti-vaxxers have taken their toll.”
— San Francisco Democratic Sen. Scott Wiener

It’s not unusual for Democrats to not be in agreement, especially over this kind of legislation, said Jim Newton, editor of Blueprint Magazine, a politics and policy publication at UCLA.

“On one hand, you can see the obvious public health implications but it’s always a little rough to say to parents that they’d allow children to do things that are against their wishes,” Newton said. “It doesn’t surprise me that there would be some Democrats that would break.”

Some lawmakers may have felt pressure from the opposition but others likely opposed it because of how they think about how children fit into families, Newton said.

But this isn’t a loss that can simply be chalked up to anti-vaxxers, harassment of the author or other legislators breaking ranks, Newton said.

“I suspect there is a more legitimate caucus who are concerned about this for families that is not under the spell of anti-vaxxers,” Newton said. “Members of the Legislature who themselves are parents or imagine themselves as parents and who would want to be involved in the health care decisions of their children and would do so in good conscience of their children and that doesn’t make them anti-vaxxers or cuckoos.”

Not to say there aren’t anti-vaxxers or “cuckoos” out there who protested this bill and had an influence on the outcome, Newton said. But when it comes to children and families there are many issues that transcend party affiliation.

“We want children to be free of mistreatment by their parents but we recognize that children as a group don’t have the same experience and wisdom that older people do,” he said. “And we also recognize that they have a different level of capacity than adults. We generally trust their parents to look out for their best interest and when they don’t we want children to have an escape from that.”

“On one hand, you can see the obvious public health implications but it’s always a little rough to say to parents that they’d allow children to do things that are against their wishes.”
— Jim Newton, editor of UCLA publication Blueprint Magazine

Wiener points out that the state allows children 12 and up to decide about their sexual and reproductive health without parental consent. High schoolers, he argued, have the capacity to decide about vaccinations.

“Of course, we want kids to have a healthy relationship with their parents but the truth is a lot of kids can’t because they are afraid or their parents have been brainwashed against vaccines,” he said. “Right now, we are saying tough luck to these kids.”

Supporters of the legislation included teenagers who sought freedom to make up their own minds about vaccines, especially when their parents don’t support vaccinations or the COVID-19 vaccine in particular. Others said that more often their parents were too busy working or with other children to take them to a vaccine appointment.

Saanvi Arora, chief partnership officer with GENup, an advocacy group run by students that helped conceive the bill, said her biggest concern was the bill losing due to what she calls “anti-vaccine extremists.”

“We’re in a state like California where you would assume that pro-public health policies wouldn’t be that difficult to pass,” said Arora, 18. “Everything is getting so politicized.”

The state already allows minors, as young as 12, to get vaccinations against sexually transmitted diseases, and children of reproductive age can get birth control or an abortion without their parents’ consent. Otherwise, under state law, a child needs parental permission to be vaccinated.

Wiener said, “The anti-vaxxers may have prevailed in this particular fight, but the broader fight for science and health continues.”

Historically, bills related to vaccines have attracted opponents to the Capitol in droves. They have been loud, interrupted meetings, been removed from hearing rooms and, in one highly publicized 2019 instance, thrown blood from a menstrual cup onto the legislative floor during session.

Wiener said this session didn’t see that same level of aggressive or violent opposition in the Capitol but that the “pervasive atmosphere of harassment,” especially online, complicated the discussion.

“It created a very toxic political moment around a very reasonable bill,” he said.

Next week, Wiener will testify in the case against a San Ramon man facing eight felony counts who allegedly left death threats on Wiener’s website in January about the vaccine bill. Also, earlier this summer, Wiener received a bomb threat at his home because of his work on LGBTQ issues.

Parents and advocacy groups who opposed the teen vaccine bill argued that the proposal would infringe on parents’ right to make decisions for their children, but still hold them responsible if their child were to have a serious reaction or need medical care.

Parents who opposed the bill celebrated its defeat Wednesday but also took umbrage with Wiener’s description of them as anti-vax.

Laura Powell, a Contra Costa parent who opposed the legislation, tweeted: “#SB866 opponents are not a minority, and we are not anti-vaxxers, but it’s nice that he acknowledges that we succeeded in stopping a bad law, with nothing more than our voices.”

She said she is COVID-19 vaccinated and boosted but believes the state should not interfere with family medical decisions.

“This is part of a trend I see where it feels like the government is stepping into things that should be parental choice,” she said in an interview. “I got vaccinated myself. I don’t think my younger kids need to get (COVID) vaccinated. The other vaccines are already required for school, they have a long track record and the risks and benefits are known for those. I don’t spend a lot of time worried about those. We are less certain about the COVID vaccine.”

Denise Aguilar and Tara Thornton, founders of Freedom Angels, an organization focused on human and civil rights, were at the Capitol on Wednesday to oppose the bill.

“It was Democrats and Republicans both saying this bill went too far,” Aguilar said. “We need to support parental rights not just for California but for the whole nation.”

Aguilar and Thornton have spent months urging legislators to vote against the bill.

“It’s a sweeping forced medical emancipation of all children of California,” Thornton said. “It’s stepping between the sacred bond of parent-child relationship. We should never be alienating parents in a situation like that.”

Aguilar said it seems state legislators contradict themselves by supporting bills like this that would give teens power over medical decisions while also arguing in favor of other legislation to protect teens and youth. She points to bills that would keep teens and youth from certain interrogations during criminal investigations or to protect them from marketing from gun and tobacco companies because their brains are still developing and they are not mature enough to make those decisions.

Thornton called it a “double standard.”

John Rogers, professor of education at UCLA, said the arguments against the bill were especially strident and representative of an especially contentious time in America. He said he has seen growing rhetoric around the issue of parental rights since the pandemic began, especially when it comes to schools, children, masking and the vaccine.

But this issue is especially complicated given there are reasonable arguments on both sides, he said.

“It’s a complex question of how you move forward in a way that acknowledges the voice and agency of young people, meanwhile being attentive to the broader medical needs, the knowledge that parents have, the general disposition of the state to defer to parents on medical issues,” he said.

###

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