###

Tuesday’s meeting of the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors brought a bit of good news to groups who haven’t had much of that recently — namely, the local homeless community and the salmon and steelhead populations in a pair of impacted SoHum waterways. They all stand to benefit from grant money that’s soon to be distributed.

Influx of Funds to Address Homelessness

Like countless other communities across the state, Humboldt County has a major homelessness problem. (Don’t worry; that’s not the “news” part of this report.) Thanks in part to a state budget surplus, local agencies will soon have more funds to address this ongoing crisis.

The latest state budget has dedicated nearly $2 billion to the Homeless, Housing Assistance and Prevention (HHAP) Grant Program, which is aimed at helping local jurisdictions and Continuums of Care address their most pressing homelessness-related challenges.

At Tuesday’s meeting, Dawn Arledge, executive director of the California Center for Rural Policy (CCRP), told the board that the latest round of HHAP funding represents a $1 billion initiative to support regional coordination and a unified response to reduce homelessness across the state.

The local Continuum of Care, a collaborative, multi-agency endeavor known as the Humboldt Housing & Homeless Coalition, was required to submit a local homelessness action plan. Arledge explained that the local plan has been completed and is ready to be submitted to the California Homeless Coordinating and Financing Council by the end of the month as part of the application for the next round of grant funding.

Humboldt County and its partner agencies are set to receive nearly $5 million, and the state has another $380 million in “bonus funding” available to grantees that meet the goals and objectives of the homelessness action plan.

Arledge said the state wants to see those funds invested in programs and services that follow the housing-first model, including projects offering low barriers for entry into permanent shelter, rapid rehousing, interim shelter and street outreach efforts. 

“They’re also really committed to wanting to find ways for people with lived experience of homelessness to meaningfully engage and inform not just the program planning but implementation as well,” Arledge told the board.

Lots of local organizations are working to address homelessness, she continued, noting that the board of the Humboldt Housing & Homelessness Coalition has identified 15 to 20 funding sources (besides HHAP) accounting for more than $43 million that the county has secured to address houselessness in the last three years.

Darlene Spoor, co-chair of Humboldt County Continuum of Care and executive director of Arcata House Partnership, encouraged the board to support the homelessness action plan and said they can help the neediest local residents “by approving zoning and projects that support the development of housing for people with very low income, safe parking and shelter programs and permanent housing projects.”

Local homelessness activist Janelle Egger urged the board to embrace campgrounds as a means of providing shelter under the housing first model. 

Third District Supervisor Mike Wilson, meanwhile, suggested that some of the funding could be used for pre-development work to streamline the process of creating new housing. 

The board accepted the presentation. (No vote was required.) The Humboldt Housing and Homeless Coalition will apply for the grant funding before the end of the month. 

Cannabis Industry Grants

Later in the meeting, the board set about trying to decide how to distribute the first round of grant funding stemming from a 2019 settlement agreement between the county and environmental nonprofit Friends of the Eel River (FOER). 

In the lawsuit, Friends of the Eel argued that the county hadn’t done enough to mitigate the impacts of commercial cannabis operations on local watersheds. Sediment deposits from increased traffic on rural roads have had devastating impacts on the region’s waterways, including Redwood Creek and Sprowel Creek, both of which offer critical habitat for salmon and steelhead.

Per the terms of the settlement agreement, the county is tasked with disbursing up to $1 million in grant money per year, through 2023, to local landowners for culvert replacements and road repairs. Funding for the grants comes primarily from civil enforcement fines and penalties on commercial cannabis operations, and grant funding decisions are made in collaboration with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the Northcoast Regional Water Quality Control Board. 

For this first round of funding, county staff had recommended approving just two of the 10 applicants — for improvements on Cobb Road, near Dinsmore, and Samuels Ranch Loop Road, along Salmon Creek — for a total award amount of just $138,395. Any unallocated funds can be rolled over for use in future years.

Applicants who weren’t approved this go-round showed up at the meeting to argue their cases.

Before they had a chance, Second District Supervisor Michelle Bushnell questioned Planning and Building Director John Ford about the reasoning behind staff’s proposed rejections.

“Did we not take into consideration rising costs?” she asked.

Ford explained that CDFW had objected to certain applications because the grant amounts being requested were well above the cost estimates applicants had provided in their Lake and Streambed Alterations (LSA) permit applications. In other cases, he said, the applicants had already completed the work and were applying for grant funding to get reimbursed, which is not allowed under the settlement. 

“We’re just trying to be true to the settlement agreement that was signed,” Ford said.

Fifth District Supervisor Steve Madrone also spoke in defense of local growers, saying it’s not uncommon for applicants to underestimate project costs when those costs are coming out of their own pockets.

“It’s just human nature … ,” he said.

He also pointed out that costs for materials have risen dramatically recently. 

During the public comment period, the growers and their representatives gave fervent speeches about the merits of their applications and the nobility of their “legacy farmer” operations. 

Several growers addressed the crash in cannabis flower prices and the simultaneously skyrocketing costs of distribution, labor and materials. Others spoke about the sensitivity of their operations and their stewardship of the land. Many urged the Board of Supervisors to reconsider staff’s recommendations and approve their applications, even if the work had already been completed or their applications hadn’t been approved by the state.

The deliberations took a turn, though, with a call from Scott Greacen, conservation director at Friends of the Eel River. He reminded people that this money is not like other cannabis grant opportunities.

“First,” he said, “the funds are not a gift. They’re a settlement between the county and Friends of the Eel River, the purpose of which is to reduce the watershed and fisheries impacts of the cannabis industry. That may be consistent in some situations with helping legacy farmers continue to grow, but that is not their purpose.”

From his group’s perspective, consistency with state and agency requirements is a condition of the settlement agreement.”It’s not okay to fund projects that are already done,” Greacen said. “We are looking for water quality improvements going forward. It’s not okay to fund projects that don’t have all their permits, and it’s not okay to fund projects that misrepresent costs.”

In response to the public feedback, Ford suggested a compromise, of sorts, saying the board could conditionally approve six more of the 10 applications, with the grants contingent upon the applicants updating old cost estimates to match their LSA permits.

Bushnell promptly made a motion to that effect, but Wilson pumped the brakes. He reiterated that this grant program is in relation to litigation, and so Friends of the Eel should probably be considered a partner. 

Ford said he wished he’d had time to consult with the group’s representatives before the meeting, but he hoped they would understand that the county was working with its other partners, CDFW and the regional water board.

After some discussion, Greacen came back on the line.

“I would just reiterate,” he said. “Our understanding of our settlement agreement is that consistency with state requirements and the recommendations of the [permitting] agencies is a specific condition of the settlement agreement. We do not support any additional funding at this point … .”

With that point clarified, Ford suggested a motion to approve the other six applications “subject to further consultation and approval” by the regional water board and CDFW.

“We’ll set up meetings with them,” he said.

Bushnell made the motion and Madrone seconded. It passed unanimously.

###

If, for some reason, you’d like to watch any or all of Tuesday’s meeting, you can! Enjoy the whole thing below in video captured and uploaded by our friends at Access Humboldt.