On Tuesday, the Eureka City Council introduced a Vacant Building Ordinance that aims to discourage property owners from neglecting residential and commercial buildings long-term. 

If approved, the ordinance will allow the city to collect a fine of $1,000 per month for every building left vacant for more than 90 days, with some exceptions. After a year, the fine jumps to $5,000 per month. (The first draft of the new rules set that vacancy window at 30 days, but the council extended the timeline on Tuesday after some discussion). The ordinance also outlines a maintenance and monitoring program requiring property owners to keep empty buildings lookin’ spiffy pending occupation. It’s a more heavy-handed policy than the city’s current code for vacant building upkeep.

The ordinance lists several problems associated with empty and neglected buildings: they spread blight, create fire risks, depreciate neighboring property values and discourage economic development. Filling vacant buildings will strengthen Eureka’s neighborhoods and address the housing shortage, the document reads. 

There are a couple of exceptions written into the ordinance. If the owner is diligently working on permitted repairs, rehabilitation or demolition, they won’t have to pay up. Property owners also won’t be fined if they’re actively looking to sell, lease or rent the property “in good faith.” There is some forgiveness baked into the rules for those experiencing a hardship. 

Meanwhile, the monitoring program element of the ordinance would require property owners to submit a “vacant building plan” explaining how long their building will be vacant and why. During that time, property owners are expected to upkeep buildings’ landscaping and exterior appearance and clear away trash and graffiti. The city will monitor vacant buildings quarterly – and collect a monitoring fee – for the duration of the vacancy. 

Tuesday was the council’s second look at the proposed rules, which have been a little tricky to nail down. The council took a first peek during its Aug. 6 meeting but decided to table the item after requesting some changes (council members Scott Bauer and Kati Moulton were absent from that discussion). Tuesday’s draft had an updated definition of “vacant building” to include individual units, with intent to prevent people from sidestepping the rules by filling just one of many vacancies in a multi-unit building.

At Tuesday’s meeting, council members weighed how to achieve the goal of the ordinance – making best use of the city’s buildings – without too heavily punishing property owners and burdening city staff with time-consuming enforcement efforts. 

During public comment, Scott Pesch, a local commercial real estate broker, said he and his clients are concerned about the punitive approach and subjective language of the ordinance.

“You have to understand that landlords and property owners have the same incentive that the city has in respect to getting things leased up and bringing in some income,” Pesch said. “I think that we have to be careful with penalizing landlords for vacancies. I think that we have to realize that these are a little subjective, okay, and it’s a little bit of a slippery slope.”

Pesch said that vacancies are often not due to higher-than-reasonable rent prices; there just isn’t enough demand for some types of rental units. The county’s existing code for vacant buildings does the trick, he added.

Some council members echoed those concerns, worried the ordinance could exacerbate community members’ struggles during an economic downturn. Noting she’d just learned of five downtown businesses closing, Councilmember Renee Contreras-DeLoach said the timelines and fees made her feel “squeamish.” 

“I don’t love the timelines,” she said. “I’m concerned about that, and I’m concerned about taking punitive action when I think that the economy is flagging.”

Others agreed that the timelines are short considering the intention of the ordinance.

“I agree that these timelines should be extended. From what I see – working in Old Town, walking around a lot – to me, the problem is long-term vacancies,” said Councilmember Bauer, referencing buildings he’s seen left empty for years at a time. 

“How is that possible? I want to understand – is there tax reasons, or what are people doing to keep these things vacant for so long? So I don’t see the issue being a 30 day vacancy or 60 day vacancy, I see a year. So I’m more inclined to say, why not 90 days or 120 days? Because the issue is these long-term situations that we see.”

Luna | Screenshot

City Attorney Autumn Luna said that 30 days of notice is pretty standard, and maybe even more lenient than normal. The original draft had an even shorter window of 15 days before the Economic Development Commission suggested extending it, Luna said – but changing it again would be “no problem,” she told the council.

The council ended up extending the notice deadline from 30 days to 90 before the monthly $1,000 fine kicks in, and doubled most other timelines spelled out in the ordinance. Staff will add “in good faith” to the section of the policy exempting those trying to rent or sell their property, and will update the definition of “owner” to prevent LLCs from gaming the system.

The council passed a motion to introduce the ordinance with those amendments 3-2, with council members G. Mario Fernandez and Contreras-DeLoach dissenting. The ordinance will come back to the council for adoption at a future meeting. 

###

What else happened at Tuesday’s meeting? 

• The Council approved of a lot line adjustment and the vacating of parts of S and Front Streets to free up space for a proposed resort RV Park near Halvorsen Park on Waterfront Drive.
• The Council received a presentation about creating an EIFD, or Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District, which would redirect property tax increment revenues from a specific geographical area for city projects. Creating an EIFD takes more than a year, and benefits take even longer to kick in. 
• The Council voted to approve the design of a five-plex on Buhne Street, which has been fought fiercely by neighbors of the project.

###

Nearly 20 years after Pacific Lumber Company shuttered the Fortuna mill, city officials are working with a Santa Rosa-based developer to craft a plan that would guide development at the ex-mill site and adjacent properties over the coming years and decades.

Mill District. Image: City of Fortuna.

The Mill District Specific Plan (MDSP) would create new planning and zoning standards for mixed-use development – primarily commercial infill and “high-quality” industrial and distribution uses – across 104 acres of underutilized land on the east side of Highway 101, south of Newburg Road and north of Kenmar Road. The MDSP would work in conjunction with Fortuna’s 2030 General Plan to update the city’s land use policies and zoning regulations to encourage new development within the largely vacant Mill District. 

The MDSP, like most long-range city planning efforts, simply seeks to steer development in a particular direction. In that sense, the plan is quite similar to Arcata’s Gateway Area Plan, but instead of high-density housing Fortuna is looking to infill the Mill District with commercial and industrial uses that would stimulate economic growth.

“[The city] isn’t really gearing up for any one particular use,” Shari Meads, the city’s community development director, told the Outpost during a recent phone interview. “It’s such a large site, there’s potential for commercial, industrial, retail, residential and civic uses. There will also be some open space areas near Strongs Creek. [The Mill District] is really going to be an area for both economic and residential growth in the city. That’s what we’re hoping for and that’s what this plan is geared to do.”

At the center of the Mill District is the 69-acre PALCO mill property, which was purchased last year by Santa Rosa-based design and project management firm Rizzo & Associates. (Shortly after buying the property, Rizzo Associates sold four of the original 73 acres to Wendt Construction.) The site has been rebranded as the Fortuna Mill Commerce Center and is actively being marketed as a business park with easy access to Highway 101 and nearby amenities.

Vincent Rizzo, owner of Rizzo & Associates, has spent the last year working with city staff on a conceptual site plan – linked here – for the future Fortuna Mill Commerce Center. The document includes inspirational color schemes and architectural renderings of industrial and retail buildings to show “what is possible at the site.”

“It won’t necessarily be built out as the concept appears on paper, but it gives a representation of the types of buildings and uses that we want to build there,” Rizzo told the Outpost. “We’re also listening intently to what the market is telling us. It’s a large project in the small market, so we want to be conscious of what the opportunities and the needs are.”

While the site is ideal for small- and large-scale manufacturing and industrial uses, nothing is completely off the table.

“We’re even talking with a couple of multi-family [housing] developers, which was not in the conceptual plan,” Rizzo said. “We’re realizing that there’s a big demand for housing and some of the companies we’re talking to are concerned about the lack of housing, so that may become a component of the project. This is very much a mixed-use project.”

The PALCO mill property was previously listed as a brownfield site by the Environmental Protection Agency due to decades of industrial activity. The previous owner, the Town of Scotia Company, LLC, worked with the Regional Water Quality Control Board to get rid of contaminants at the site. Rizzo said he was optimistic that the site would not require further environmental remediation.

“What we do know from the testing and the reports that we’ve received is that those pollutants have been dissipating over the years,” he said. “We don’t see it as detrimental or a major hindrance to the development of the property, but it is certainly something we have to address and adhere to the covenant [issued by the water board] when we work there in certain areas.”

Asked whether he had accepted any applications for tenants at the Fortuna Mill Commerce Center, Rizzo confirmed that he is “in negotiations with a number of prospective tenants, and even a couple of companies that would prefer to own the property,” but couldn’t say who.

Naturally, the social media rumor mill has churned out its own theories. A few folks on the Fortuna Happenings Facebook group said they had heard Home Depot was going to build a new store at the site. “No it’s legit lol,” one group member wrote to another, more skeptical individual.

Asked if there was any truth to the rumor, Rizzo confirmed that his firm “had been talking with Home Depot,” but said, “I don’t think it’s going to happen.”

“We know they wanted to be in the area … but, unfortunately, they view Fortuna as being too far south of Eureka, which is very odd to me,” Rizzo said. “You know, our site is a 16-minute drive from Eureka. It’s not very far, but for whatever reason these corporate entities like Home Depot … they look at demographics and various things and that’s been a common view. I think it is a misconception, but that’s the view that they currently have.”

Before Rizzo & Associates bought the site, FedEx had expressed interest in using it as a regional distribution facility. However, negotiations fell through and Rizzo & Associates was able to secure the purchase of the site in 2023.

“As I understand, that’s not really what the city wanted,” Rizzo said. “It’s such a key piece of property for the City of Fortuna and they’re hoping the site will be developed in ways that will benefit the city and the whole area. … This project is going to take years to build up, but I think we’re going to end up with something that’s going to be really good for the community.”

The city is in the process of finalizing the draft MDSP. Next, the plan will go through environmental review per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Members of the public will have a chance to submit written comments on the draft plan through that process. 

“As we move forward, the city will keep citizens informed on what’s going on through postcard notifications and town halls,” Meads said. “We know we’re going to share the plan at upcoming planning commission and city council meetings at least a couple more times, so that will also be an opportunity for folks to provide feedback.”

The plan is slated for approval by the end of this year.

###

Alice Marie Furber (nee Pire), age 85 of Eureka, passed away peacefully August 7, 2024 at the Hospice House in Eureka. On December 8, 1938, she was born in Grass Valley, the daughter of Josephine Buckingham and Lawrence Pire. On December 10, 1955, she married Billy Ray Rist in Eureka. Together they shared 38 years and their daughter, Natalie Ann Rist. After separating, Alice married Glen “Mike” Furber on September 16, 2001.

She was preceded in death by Glen Furber after 16 years of marriage. They together gracefully participated in the Thelma Rebekah Lodge No. 103 International Order of Odd Fellows. She claimed the title of Noble Grand and carried it with pride. Alice found great joy in following the word of God, expressing her love through song within her church chorus at First Baptist Church and Calvary Baptist Church. She had the most beautiful, unique voice, one could always tell when she was blessing the stage with her gift.

Alice was known to be rather quiet and reserved, dawning the trucker handle “Shy Lady” when she and Billy were involved in the Terrific Trucker’s Association. She thrived when she was surrounded by family. She would host brunch after church of which the family got rather competitive playing billiards. Her and Glen would keep notebooks noting who won each game. She grew quite fond of playing cribbage and loved teaching family how to play with her.

She is survived and lovingly remembered by family including her brother Johnny Pire and his wife Pauline; her daughter Natalie Ann Rist; her step daughter Mary Celeste Aisert and her husband John; her grandson Johnny Ray Rist; and her granddaughter Angelia Marie Rist.

We would like to thank and express our appreciation to Hospice of Humboldt for showing compassion and kindness to our family in these difficult times.

###

Last night, the Eureka City Council resolved the fate of a controversial five-plex proposed for a property on Buhne Street, which has stirred up controversy in the neighborhood. Last night’s meeting unearthed bad blood between the neighbors of the project and its developer, Adams Commercial General Contracting (ACGC) Inc.

After bouncing between review authorities – initially being denied by the Design Review Committee but later earning approval from the Planning Commission – ACGC’s five-plex landed before the City Council after neighbors appealed the commission’s approval. The two-story building will fill a vacant 9,000 square-foot parcel with five apartments (one one-bedroom unit, two two-bedroom units and one three-bedroom unit), each with its own garage. 

Neighboring owners of an old Victorian house claim the project will be detrimental to their health and safety, primarily by shading their home and exacerbating mold conditions. 

The Design Review Committee was tasked with approving or denying design review for the project at its May 8 meeting. The committee is only permitted to deny a project if it is found to be harmful to public health and safety, or if it does not meet the seven criteria of design review (which inform design consciousness around stuff like the fitting in with the neighborhood, landscaping and pedestrian environment). The committee opted to deny the project based on the neighbors’ concerns over their own health and safety. 

Eureka Director of Development Services Cristin Kenyon appealed the denial due to conflicts with the Housing Accountability Act, which directs local governments to approve all housing developments that satisfy local objective design standards. Because Eureka has no objective standard related to sunlight or shading on neighboring properties, the City cannot legally deny the design, Kenyon explained at last night’s meeting. The City has found that the design is consistent with the zoning code, which was written to protect public health, safety and welfare. 

“So in our eyes, if it’s consistent with the code […] then we feel that the development is consistent with protection of health, safety and welfare,” Kenyon said.

When the issue came before the Planning Commission on June 27, members voted to overturn the committee’s denial and conditionally approve the design.

On July 8, Dan Reid, owner of the adjacent Victorian, appealed the conditional approval. Reid argued that a standard objective has been met because shading over his home will be inevitable if the project is approved. Reid also argued that design review criteria state that design applications must minimize adverse impacts on neighboring properties where possible, which ACGC could do by decreasing the height of the building or flipping the design. 

At last night’s meeting, Councilmember Leslie Castellano asked whether the City Council has ever required a developer to change a design that met all objective standards. Staff couldn’t recall such an event. Design review for residential projects rarely escalates to the City Council, City Manager Miles Slattery said, adding he couldn’t remember this happening over the decade he’s regularly attended council meetings.

Council member Scott Bauer asked what the legal implications might be if the council opted to reject the design. 

Because the project is in “complete compliance” with the city’s guidelines, City Attorney Autumn Luna said, “to deny at this point, I think, could subject the city to a challenge.”

During the public hearing, the couple – Reid and Stacia O’Neil – made their case to the council. Their arguments are spelled out in letters and Reid’s appeal – see those documents here and here – but during public comment the couple reiterated their interpretations of the relevant laws, codes and processes. In sum, they argued that changing the design would not jeopardize the Housing Accountability Act, and that the council has an obligation to deny or require a change to the design because of safety hazards, from mold risk to fire safety to mental health.

The design poses a fire hazard to the house, O’Neil said, because shutting off the power and cutting through both property’s fences in an emergency would take time. 

“[We’re] looking at a 20-minute delay. Our Victorian will burn to the ground, my children will not be able to escape. That’s going to be on you,” O’Neil said.

“They are going to shade my property for all eternity, which will cause problems: mental health problems, well-being problems, mold problems, desirability for being onto my property and resale problems.”

During his turn, Reid said he would be entitled to compensation from the City for damage to his property.

“In this instance, the City of Eureka is making a decision that will have a negative impact on the use and enjoyment of our property.” Reid said a realtor has confirmed that his property value will drop following development of the five-plex. 

“I see that the council is being encouraged to steamroll my property rights because the proposed building will only impact my residence, as opposed to the buildings on the other side of the proposed project,” Reid said. “As a longtime resident of Eureka and the owner of a 132-year-old home, this really hurts.”

After hearing from the public, Councilmember Renee Contreras-DeLoach asked whether ACGC has considered flipping the design of the building as its neighbors are requesting.

ACGC’s Real Estate Development Director & Community Liaison Raelina Krikston said that the current design orientation creates the least impact on surrounding neighbors, noting that there are five other families near the site. 

That said, flipping the design isn’t as simple as it sounds, Krikston said. “To flip the property would be asking us to re-engineer the whole entire project. There’s grading, there’s surveying, there’s every single design aspect that’s made… it’s not just a quick copy/paste.”

Before making those points, Krikston said something else: there was never any discussion between ACGC and these particular neighbors because the residents allegedly threatened the developer years ago over a different project. 

“Ten years previously, when another development was built, the owner of the company was physically threatened by the property owner,” Krikston said. “So any initial conversations with the neighbor was avoided, just because we knew that the nature would be combative.”

Mayor Kim Bergel invited the neighbors to respond. 

“That’s an absolute lie,” O’Neil said, clearly shaken, adding that the only contact she’s ever had with ACGC founder Will Adams was at the May 8 commission meeting, after the design was initially denied. 

“I saw him in chambers and I turned around when it was denied. I said, ‘Please work with us,’” O’Neil said. “He said, ‘F you, lady.’ That’s the only contact. Then we got a restraining order in place against him and this woman here [Krikston] for harassing us. That’s the story.”

O’Neil said the situation has been extremely stressful, time consuming and expensive (filing the appeal fee was $800, she said) for the family.

The turn toward accusations between the two parties shifted the rest of the council’s conversation. 

Councilmember Contreras-DeLoach said it is frustrating to see the situation escalate – with the couple investing time, money and emotions into the appeal process – when the City’s hands are essentially tied. 

“I think we need to be a lot more transparent about that as a city,” Contreras-DeLoach said. 

“There needs to be some kind of discussion about that so that this type of thing doesn’t really occur, because we knew the end from the beginning. And they are in here, obviously very distressed and very upset, hoping that we’re going to make a different decision – but we’re not, because we’re in alignment with state law, and if we make an alternative decision then we open ourselves up to litigation where we would probably lose. And I think that’s frustrating for me.”

Contreras-DeLoach and other councilmembers said it’s disappointing to see the complete absence of communication between the two parties. 

“I think there’s a right way and a wrong way to do things like this. I don’t think that not engaging the people around a project is an appropriate way to do it,” she said. “I also think it’s incredibly inappropriate to have gotten up here and to make an accusation against this couple that’s here.”

Councilmember G. Mario Fernandez echoed Contreras-DeLoach’s comments, saying that there aren’t grounds to deny the design and the city must abide by state law. He also agreed that the process and communication should be improved. 

“I think we can improve this process overall,” he said. “I think there needs to be some sort of mediation before we get to this level of decision.”

Councilmember Castellano made a motion to uphold the Planning Commission’s conditional approval of the design and to exempt the project from the California Environmental Quality Act. It passed unanimously.

The Outpost will publish a report on the rest of last night’s meeting, which included a discussion on a proposed Vacant Building Ordinance, tomorrow.

California lawmakers are abandoning an ambitious proposal to force Google to pay news companies for using their content, opting instead for a deal in which the tech giant has agreed to pay $122.5 million to support local media outlets and start an artificial intelligence program.

The first-in-the-nation agreement, announced today, promises $135 million for local journalism across California over the next five years, but represents a significant departure from the bill pushed by news publishers and media employee unions earlier this year.

Instead of Google and Meta being forced to negotiate usage fees with news outlets directly, Google would deposit $55 million over five years into a new fund administered by UC Berkeley to be distributed to local newsrooms — and the state would provide $70 million over five years. Google would also continue paying $10 million each year in existing grants to newsrooms.

The Legislature and the governor would still need to approve the state money each year; the source isn’t specified yet. Google would also contribute at least $17.5 million toward an artificial intelligence “accelerator” program, raising labor advocates’ anxieties about the threat of job losses.

Publishers who supported the bill said it was still a win.

“This is a first step toward what we hope will become a comprehensive program to sustain local news in the long term, and we will push to see it grow in future years,” Julie Makinen, board chairperson of the California News Publishers Association, said in a statement.

But unions representing media workers accused the news companies and lawmakers of settling for too little.

The agreement replaces two bills lawmakers had pursued the last two years as they tried to secure a cut of tech money to prop up California’s struggling local news industry. Following a nationwide trend, media companies have hemorrhaged jobs over the past two decades as advertisers fled print media for the internet and technological advancements reshaped how readers consume news.

To try to keep their readers, publications increasingly rely on social media and online search. Google controls the lion’s share of search in a way the U.S. Justice Department and one federal judge have said violates antitrust law.

The proposals to impose fees on Google’s use of news content in its search results prompted a flurry of tech company lobbying. In 2023, for instance, Google spent more than $2.1 million lobbying lawmakers against those bills and others — more than double what it spent in the Legislature two years prior, according to a CalMatters review.

The first bill, introduced in February 2023 by Oakland Democratic Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, would have required platforms such as Google and Meta to either pay a fee or negotiate with news outlets for using their news content.

It was sponsored by the California News Publishers Association, whose members include major newspapers including the San Francisco Chronicle and the Los Angeles Times. Australia and Canada both passed similar measures in recent years. The bill passed the Assembly last year, but Wicks paused it to try to bridge a split among media companies over how the money would be divvied up.

Google has argued the bill would unfairly force it to pay for sending free traffic to news sites, and disadvantage smaller sites. In a legislative hearing in June, the company’s vice president of global news partnerships, Jaffer Zaidi, called the proposal “profoundly unconstitutional and problematic” since it could compel platforms to show content that they were forced to pay for.

The second bill, introduced this February by Orinda Democratic Sen. Steve Glazer, would have imposed a fee on major tech platforms to provide news outlets a tax credit to employ local journalists.

In response to the Wicks bill, Google temporarily removed links to California news websites from its search results and in response to the Glazer bill, Google said it might stop funding nonprofit newsrooms nationwide. At the time, Senate Democratic leader Mike McGuire called the threats “an abuse of power.”

Glazer shelved his bill in May, after failing to scrounge up the two-thirds majority he needed, and said he would focus on trying to improve the Wicks bill.

Negotiations ramped up over the summer.

Tech companies doubled down on threats to stop linking to news sites in California if Wicks’ bill passed, and publishers had an incentive to reach an agreement that would give them the money quicker. In Canada, the government has estimated Google is paying $73 million a year to news outlets under its new journalism industry law, but proponents of California’s deal say the money has been slow to be distributed.

Another factor: Some proponents said it was unlikely Gov. Gavin Newsom, who pledged no tax increases this year, would sign Wicks’ bill, which could be seen as a tax on tech companies. Newsom in a press release today praised the deal, though his spokesperson Alex Stack on Tuesday denied the governor was involved or had taken a position on the bill.

“This agreement represents a major breakthrough in ensuring the survival of newsrooms and bolstering local journalism across California — leveraging substantial tech industry resources without imposing new taxes on Californians,” Newsom said in a statement.

By committing to pay into the new UC Berkeley fund, tech companies succeeded in killing the bill they opposed while appeasing both legacy print media and some digital-only news outlets with five years of support. The agreement is similar to a deal Google cut in France more than a decade ago, creating a “digital publishing innovation fund” when publishers there pushed for regulations.

Wicks, in a statement announcing the deal, called it “a cross-sector commitment to supporting a free and vibrant press.”

But the Media Guild of the West, which represents newspaper reporters in Southern California, slammed the agreement and accused publishers and lawmakers of folding to Google’s threats.

“Google won, a monopoly won,” said Matt Pearce, the group’s president. “This is dramatically worse than what Australia and Canada got … I don’t know of any journalist that asked for this.”

The guild said it was particularly concerned the deal involved a program promoting artificial intelligence technology, which it saw as a concession to the tech industry that could result in a further loss of reporting jobs.

The AI program appears to only be partly related to journalism: In its announcement, Wicks’ office said the program will give businesses, nonprofits and researchers “financial resources and other support to experiment with AI to assist them in their work” addressing challenges such as environmental issues and racial inequities. It would also create “new tools to help journalists access and analyze public information.” OpenAI will contribute tech services, said former lawmaker Bob Hertzberg, who helped negotiate the deal, and proponents expect other tech companies to join in.

Others, including an association of mostly smaller, digital news outlets, said the threat of tech platforms refusing to link to news articles would have been devastating.

Chris Krewson, president of Local Independent Online News Publishers, pointed to Canada, where Facebook no longer links to Canadian media in response to the new law there. That caused readership and ad revenue to plummet for small news outlets, Krewson said.

The organization gets significant grant funding from Google and Meta; CalMatters CEO Neil Chase, an association board member, last weekend urged member publications to support the deal.

“I just don’t know that this industry should be in the position of saying no to any help it can get,” Krewson said. “And I don’t think it makes us more or less reliant (on tech platforms) than we already have been.”

###

CalMatters data reporter Jeremia Kimelman contributed to this story.

CalMatters CEO Neil Chase has been involved in the deal as a board member for Local Independent Online News Publishers. His views do not necessarily reflect those of the organization, newsroom or its staff. The CalMatters staff is represented by the Pacific Media Workers Guild, which is separate from the Media Guild of the West and says it has not been involved.

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

###

UPDATE, 5 p.m.:

Mad River Community Hospital issued the following press release:

Leadership at Mad River Community Hospital has made the difficult decision to suspend labor and delivery services in October 2024. In the interim, MRCH will continue to offer labor and delivery (L&D) services for both scheduled and unscheduled deliveries. The suspension of L&D services will not affect non-L&D gynecological services, such as hysterectomies, laparoscopies and tubal ligations, services that MRCH will continue to offer.

”This is one of the hardest decisions I have made in my tenure as CEO,” said Douglas Shaw. “Mad River has been the premier L&D provider for Humboldt County for many years. However, over the past four years, volumes have declined significantly to the point where we are performing, on average, less than 25 births per month. We used to average 60-plus births per month, which was necessary to fund the service line. At our current volume, the L&D has been sustaining a seven-figure annual loss for the past several years. When the decline in volume is combined with inadequate and stagnated reimbursements rates under Medi-Cal, unfunded mandates for seismic compliance, and other significant challenges for rural healthcare, the continuation of L&D service will jeopardize the hospital’s continued viability in the community. We are working with local hospitals and clinic providers to facilitate the absorption of our L&D volume.”

Mad River Community Hospital will pivot to offer other critical services to the community. These services include:

• Inpatient and outpatient psychiatric services, including breaking ground on a crisis stabilization unit in partnership with the County of Humboldt and Cal Poly Humboldt
• Re-opening of home health services
• Other specialty services in partnership with regional health systems.
  

“We are excited to offer additional services to the community, as each of the above listed services will help to fill a void in our local healthcare system,” said Chief Nursing Officer Melissa Long. “Mental health and Cardiology and Urology services are desperately needed in Humboldt County.”

“We are working with our L&D staff to transfer them to other areas of the hospital,” Said Long. “We have many talented staff members that can be utilized in other important departments within the hospital as we continue to grow.

###

Original post:

Mad River Community Hospital announced at a staff meeting today that its Trillium Birth Center will be closing its doors after the first week of October, according to several employees.

The closure of Mad River’s labor and delivery unit will leave St. Joseph Hospital as the only birthing center left in Humboldt County. Redwood Memorial Hospital in Fortuna closed is obstetrics program in 2021, citing declining birth volumes and operational challenges, including difficulty hiring and retaining women’s services physicians and support staff. 

“Very bad news for our community,” said one nurse, who asked to remain anonymous, via email. “St Joes will not be able to absorb all the births. Well they will but it is not good.”

The pending closure of Trillium Birth Center fits into a nationwide trend that’s been described as a crisis in rural maternity care, as more than half of rural U.S. hospitals now lack labor and delivery services.

“Experts and other stakeholders said it is difficult for hospitals in rural areas to recruit and retain maternal health providers,” the U.S. Government Accountability Office reported in 2022, adding that “a higher proportion of rural patients rely on Medicaid, which doesn’t fully cover obstetric services.”

Two sources report that Mad River Community Hospital’s birth center will close on or after October 6. The Outpost has reached out to hospital administration to request more information. We will update this post once we know more.

###

PREVIOUSLY: Partly Built New Acute Rehab Building at Redwood Memorial Scrapped, and Providence Employees Say Inpatient Rehab May Be Eliminated Altogether

###

Care providers at St. Joseph Hospital have suspected this move for weeks, but on Tuesday Providence made it official: The award-winning acute inpatient rehabilitation unit in Eureka will soon be shut down, and patients who need help recovering from strokes, surgeries, physically debilitating accidents and the like will instead be sent to Granada Rehabilitation and Wellness Center, a skilled nursing home whose owner has a long track record of problems and a reputation for short staffing and insufficient care.

As we reported last month, Providence has also canceled previously announced plans to build a new 12,000-square-foot Acute Inpatient Rehabilitation addition at Redwood Memorial Hospital in Fortuna, citing “several external factors.”

A press release issued by Providence yesterday doesn’t offer much clarity on the situation. For example, it doesn’t explain how rehab services will be impacted or how many jobs will be eliminated, if any. James Ladika, a registered nurse and union rep for the California Nurses Association, told the Times-Standard that the impacts will be widespread.

“There are very complex surgeries that we do at our facility at St Joe’s that require the best rehab care that can be provided,” he was quoted as saying. “And not having that rehab locally is going to result in people needing to either be sent out of the area or to have their recovery without that level of high-quality care.”

We sent some follow-up questions to Providence spokesperson Christian Hill and will update readers once we have more information. 

Here’s the press release from Providence:

Providence St. Joseph Hospital is announcing the closure of the acute rehabilitation unit (ARU) on the campus of General Hospital in Eureka. Providence will be collaborating with Rockport’s Granada Rehabilitation and Wellness Center in Eureka to deliver rehabilitation services in Humboldt County starting on November 18.

Currently, acute rehabilitation services are located at the General Hospital campus in Eureka but due to the state’s mandated seismic (earthquake) structural standards, the General Hospital campus does not meet those standards and will no longer be able to provide inpatient services after 2024. It was our plan to move the ARU to a new building at Redwood Memorial Hospital. Construction began in 2018 but due to various external factors, the project is no longer feasible.

Providence maintains close relationships with many organizations in California that collaborate in providing rehabilitation care for patients. Rockport’s Granada Rehabilitation and Wellness Center has been a long-standing provider of skilled nursing care for Providence patients in Humboldt County and cares for hundreds of Providence patients every year.

“As a health care provider founded over a century ago, we’re committed to serving the community in a responsible and sustainable manner, allowing us to continue our Mission for the next 100 years,” said Michael Keleman, chief executive, Providence Humboldt County.   “With that in mind, and with input from local stakeholders and community members – we’ve identified an innovative solution that will best serve patients. We’re excited to announce this critical collaboration with Rockport’s Granada Rehabilitation and Wellness Center to provide rehabilitation services that align with the needs of our community.”

Providence is committed to a smooth transition for all our impacted caregivers. To that end, we will work with their unions as required by current contracts on impacts to their roles including internal or external opportunities that may exist.