Supervisor Natalie Arroyo’s presentation to the Board of Supervisors.

We’ve heard a lot about Nordic Aqafarms’ plans to build a state-of-the-art onshore fish farm on the Samoa Peninsula but the question remains: What would the facility’s day-to-day operations entail once it’s up and running? 

Seeking answers, Fourth District Supervisor Natalie Arroyo – a self-proclaimed “vacation nerd” – took it upon herself to visit Sashimi Royal, the Norway-based seafood company’s onshore fish farm in Hanstholm, Denmark, on a recent trip to Europe.

“I was able to make it work [with my schedule] and I thought it would be really informative,” Arroyo noted during this morning’s Humboldt County Board of Supervisors meeting. “It was not a proposal by the company that I come and visit. … They didn’t sponsor my trip. I asked for it and [paid for it] on my own dime.”

Nordic staff walked her through the various operations of the facility, from the hatchery, where yellowtail kingfish naturally spawned eggs grow into fingerlings, to the juvenile-rearing area and, finally, to the grow-out facility, where they stay until they reach market size. 

“The goal is to rear healthy fish that are bred in captivity,” she said. “These are really fish that are being bred to be grown out for food. They’re not impacting wild stocks of this species. … They’re selecting the healthiest fish to gather fertilized eggs from and rear them in the hatchery.”

Arroyo added that the facility was remarkably odor-free with only “a little bit of notable funk” near the settling tanks in the hatchery.

“But they’re quite far from any neighborhoods,” she said. “It was only really [when I was] standing that close to the tank that I could smell it, so the smell was really minimal. … Where the adult kingfish are grown to scale it smelled like a freshwater aquarium. You could kind of smell that fish food smell, but it was so faint. Even inside the facility.”

Unfortunately, Arroyo said she didn’t have time to chat with locals about how they felt about the fish farm, but she did carve out some time to visit a local restaurant and sample some raw kingfish. “The fish was very tasty,” she said.

Following the presentation, Third District Supervisor Mike Wilson said he also appreciates “nerdy side trips” on his vacations abroad. “It’s good for us to get some perspective about where the rest of the world is on some of these issues,” he said. “It’s interesting to see how much effort goes into these facilities, in the energy it requires and the treatment that it requires to meet those effluent standards and the challenges around that.”

First District Supervisor Rex Bohn asked Arroyo if she had learned anything about the status of the proposed fish farm on the Samoa Peninsula and whether that facility would be built ahead of another proposed facility in Belfast, Maine.

Arroyo said the CEO of Sashimi Royal, Søren Mattesen, is clued into company-wide projects to an extent but isn’t fully aware of what’s happening at other project sites. He has tentative plans to visit Humboldt Bay at some point in the future “to help advise or make recommendations about the [Samoa] facility and incorporate lessons learned,” she said, but he didn’t specify when that visit would occur. 

“I don’t know what the timing is going to be, whether they’re going to put our project before the Maine project or not,” Arroyo added.

The Board of Supervisors approved development permits and certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project last September. One month later, a group of local residents dubbed Citizens Protecting Humboldt Bay filed a lawsuit against the county and the Board of Supervisors alleging that, as the lead agency, it had violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by approving the project. 

Planning and Building Director John Ford did not comment on the status of the lawsuit but said Nordic is “very actively pursuing permits” with the California Coastal Commission, the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

The board unanimously agreed to accept the report but did not take any further action on the item.

Evergreen Exotics Zoning Amendment

The board also reviewed and approved a zoning code amendment petition, brought forth by Evergreen Exotics, LLC, to allow for indoor cultivation in the Evergreen Business Park between Redway and Garberville. 

The site is currently zoned as a major business (MB) zone. Indoor cannabis cultivation was previously authorized in MB zones under the Commercial Medical Marijuana Land Use Ordinance (Ordinance 1.0) but it is not authorized under Commercial Cannabis Land Use Ordinance (Ordinance 2.0).

“There was some anecdotal evidence that there was concern that if indoor cultivation was allowed in MB  zones, there might be odor in passing in buildings that had multiple tenants or suites,” Senior Planner Steven Santos explained. “If the board does move forward with this process, one of the things the board may want to consider is looking at specific performance standards related to odor if indoor cultivation is allowed.”

Santos added that the zoning amendment “wouldn’t change any of the eligibility criteria for housing development currently allowed in MB zones,” including caretaker units allowed on upper floors and transitional housing.

Wilson asked if the project would exacerbate ongoing issues with the county’s electrical capacity or interfere with PG&E’s ability to provide power to the business park.

Ford | Screenshot

“At this point, we have to be aware of power [with] everything that we do in Southern Humboldt, whether it be land use and zoning or a project-specific impact,” Ford said. “The property owner believes that they would be able to have adequate power to support this [project] at that location. That’s something we can look into more, but at this time, it’s our understanding that it would not affect other properties or the ability of other users on this property.” 

Second District Supervisor Michelle Bushnell emphasized that “PG&E isn’t going to hook anybody up until there is a solution to the power issues in Southern Humboldt” and urged Ford to continue conversations with the property owner and with PG&E to address capacity issues.

“Also, you know, with the decline of things that are going on around Southern Humboldt, this area is largely empty,” Bushnell continued. “There are a lot of empty buildings up there. … We could use some additional stuff going on in Southern Humboldt and I think this [zoning] change could open up something that doesn’t have to be cannabis … even something for heavier industrial. … I, frankly, would welcome any kind of growth.”

Bushnell made a motion to move ahead with staff’s recommendation and approve the zoning amendment. Bohn seconded.

Before voting, Wilson brought up the possibility of changing the zoning designation to accommodate mixed-use development in the business park to allow housing in the future.

“If the point is to allow more flexibility and thus more economic opportunity within that space, this potential change would only do one thing,” he said. “Maybe this is an opportunity to take a look at how we might expand opportunity through other changes within that space, in terms of flexibility. … The trend these days is to make zonings more flexible and around creativity and mixed-use and maybe this is an opportunity to take a look at that because this is only looking at one opportunity.”

Ford expressed interest in Wilson’s proposal, noting that it is “always opportune to take a look at doing things like allowing mixed use” when considering a zoning amendment. “That’s typically not something that’s in the business park vocabulary just because some of the uses aren’t necessarily always compatible with residential uses, but I have no objection to take a look at that if that’s the will of the board.”

Bushnell was hesitant. 

“The [business park] was built to keep away from the residential and [allow for] the loud noises, the industrial type activities that people in residential areas don’t really care for,” she said. “I don’t want issues to come forward with people that have bought properties up there for the intent of commercial activities to have to deal with. … Mixing it with housing for a residential person to say, ‘I don’t like that noise. I don’t like that logging truck starting at three in the morning.’ How would you see that play out?”

Ford acknowledged her concern and said the mixed-use designation would “create opportunity and not a requirement” for properties in the business park.

“If it’s not conducive to developing a mixed-use common environment, typically people won’t do that,” he said. “We could create a process or even performance standards by which the mixed-use would be deemed acceptable, and if it’s acceptable under those circumstances, then it could be a by-right use or it could be a discretionary use. There are several different ways to look at it.”

After quite a bit of back and forth among board members, Ford suggested they “split the baby” and create two separate motions to appease everyone. 

The first would approve the petition to modify Ordinance 2.0 to allow for indoor cannabis cultivation in the MB zoning district. The second action would direct staff to evaluate the MB zone to determine whether or not there are other economic development opportunities through an additional modification that would give flexibility for mixed-use and other related uses.

The amended motion passed 5-0.

Abbey Road Farming, LLC, Appeal

The board also considered an appeal to the Zoning Administrator’s recent denial of a conditional use permit for an existing 15,236 square-foot outdoor cannabis farm in the Bridgeville area. The conditional use permit, brought forth by Abbey Road Farming, LLC, was denied by the Zoning Administrator earlier this year due to the applicant’s unresponsiveness throughout the application process. 

“I scheduled this item for denial in front of the Zoning Administrator because [staff has] made nine requests for information since February of 2017,” Santos explained. “We’ve had no contact with anyone since day one and there was insufficient evidence in the objective record to approve the project. … We try and put things in referrals as close to when we receive the application, but if an application is so incomplete that we don’t have an adequate project to describe, it’s just a waste of time for the county and for referral agencies to receive a project because they don’t have enough to actually review.”

The Planning and Building Department received an appeal to the Zoning Administrator’s decision on March 15. The appeal was signed by Kathy Moley, environmental division manager of Pacific Watershed Associates, on behalf of the applicant. 

Moley | Screenshot

Speaking to the board on Tuesday, Moley described her tumultuous relationship with the previous property owner, who apparently fled the country after being made aware of numerous violations on the property.

“When Pacific Watershed [Associates] was first on the property in 2017 – and for the series of years afterward – I just want to say that the applicant at that time was what I would deem a bad player,” she said. “There was not a lot of forward motion. There was not a lot of progress. There were large amounts of refuse on the property – things that were completely unacceptable to Pacific Watershed Associates.”

The current applicant took over the property in September 2020. Moley said she was previously unaware that there was an incomplete application transfer packet associated with the property. Without it, the project application cannot move forward. “That’s something that I can then go back to my client and pretty much enforce that this needs to happen,” she said.

But her main question was whether the application would stay open despite the Zoning Administrator’s denial of the permit. 

After a bit of back and forth between planning staff and Moley, Bohn suggested the board extend the Zoning Administrator’s ruling and revisit the subject in six months to give the applicant time to complete the application.

Ford said that would be acceptable but suggested Bohn also include in his motion that the applicant must “provide a minimum of $3,000 [to] the Planning and Building Department to continue processing the application.”

Bohn went ahead with the motion, which was seconded by Arroyo.

Wilson questioned whether there were “capacity issues” within the Planning and Building Department, noting “when that happens it really puts a strain on everybody.” He also asked if $3,000 would be sufficient to cover the remainder of staff’s time on the project application.

“It probably will not finish the permit,” Ford said. “Normally a permit like this would run in the neighborhood of $9,000 to $12,000. I think they’ve probably put down about $3,500. So another $8,000 to $9,000 is likely water will cost to finish this.”

After a bit more discussion, the board voted 3-2, with Wilson and Fifth District Supervisor and Board Chair Steve Madrone dissenting, to extend the Zoning Administrator’s ruling and return to the matter in six months.