Kyle David Avelar, 37, passed away on May 18, 2025, in McKinleyville due to heart complications. Born on October 31, 1987, in Eureka, Kyle brought light and laughter into the world from the very beginning — fittingly arriving on Halloween, his favorite holiday.

A proud graduate of Arcata High School’s Class of 2006, Kyle left a lasting impression both in and out of the classroom. He was a standout athlete during his high school years, playing three years of varsity football and earning both the Circle A and Blanket awards for his dedication and performance. His leadership extended beyond athletics — he served as Regional President of the Future Farmers of America (FFA), where he inspired peers with his commitment to agriculture and community service.

Kyle’s passion for horticulture at an early age blossomed into a celebrated talent. He won multiple awards at the Humboldt County Fair for his flowers—an achievement that reflected not only his skill but also his deep connection to nature. Gardening was more than a hobby for Kyle; it was a way to nurture beauty and share it with others. He even created a memorial garden for his neighbor Emerald, a gesture that spoke volumes about his compassion and thoughtfulness.

His love for the outdoors was evident in his favorite pastimes — camping and river rafting along the Rogue River were among his most cherished adventures. Whether tending to plants or paddling through rapids, Kyle found joy in life’s simple pleasures.

Kyle also gave back to his community in meaningful ways. He built a Little Free Library to encourage reading and connection among neighbors — a small structure that symbolized his generous spirit and belief in sharing knowledge.

He was an avid fan of the Sacramento Kings, San Francisco 49ers and Giants, cheering passionately for his teams through every season. But perhaps nothing brought him more joy than spending time with those closest to him. He deeply cherished his role as uncle to Ayva and Axtyn, forming bonds filled with love, laughter, and unforgettable memories.

Kyle took great pride in his Portuguese heritage, honoring the traditions passed down through generations. His family roots were central to who he was.

He is lovingly remembered by his parents Dave and Anne Avelar, brother Tyler Avelar (Megan), grandparents Darrell and Carol Byard, aunts Mary Furtado, Olimpia Avelar, Kristie Ghisetti (Troy) and Shelley Chau (Will), uncles Carlos Avelar (Ruth) and Doug Byard (Machelle), cousins Diane Sloane (Dave), Steve Furtado (Lorrie), Mario Avelar (Andrea), Victor Avelar, Kris Avelar (Jessica), Michael Avelar (Maria), Trevin Avelar (Brianne), Jordan Kauffman (Sam), Ryan Ghisetti and Luke Chau, niece Ayva, nephew Axtyn, and numerous family members and friends whose lives he touched with kindness and warmth.

He was preceded in death by his grandfather Fernando Avelar, grandmother Lourdes Avelar and uncles Fred Avelar and Angelo Furtado.

Kyle and his beloved dog, Merlin, are now reunited and will continue their journey together forever.

Kyle David Avelar lived with heart, humor, and humility. May his memory bring comfort to those who knew him and continue to inspire acts of kindness in the world he leaves behind.

In remembrance of Kyle’s life, the family asks that any charitable donations be made to the charity of your choice. A celebration of life will be held at a later date.

###

The obituary above was submitted on behalf of Kyle Avelar’s loved ones. The Lost Coast Outpost runs obituaries of Humboldt County residents at no charge. See guidelines here. Email news@lostcoastoutpost.com.

Seemingly the entire community of Bayside came out to the Arcata city council meeting last night to protest against the proposed Roger’s Garage low-income housing project.

Located across the street from Jacoby Creek Elementary School on Old Arcata Road, the Roger’s Garage project would build 53 new units for people making between 30-60% of Humboldt County’s median income. The property has been zoned for the proposed use since 2008. 

The topic came up at last night’s meeting because the council was considering committing $1.3 million Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Income funds to help purchase the property from Danco. The city has to use the Program Income funds soon, before the end of the fiscal year; if they don’t, they may lose access to the CDBG funds, and could be ineligible for this year’s round of grant funding. 

The council didn’t end up voting on the resolution. It’ll be back on the agenda on June 4. 

Because it was once an automobile wrecking yard, the soil is contaminated with heavy metals like copper, lead, zinc, and cadmium, according to a 2005 metals excavation plan about the property. The city plans on working with the Northcoast Regional Water Quality Control Board to clean the property up, but its questionable environmental state brought dozens of people from Bayside out to the meeting last night to convince the city council not to build the units.

“I’m in support of extended housing and expanding our community,” said one commenter that lives on Hyland Street in Bayside. “But to do so while disturbing the deeply toxic construction site and spreading that toxicity around the neighborhood seems like a grave mistake.”

Many parents of children that attend Jacoby Creek Elementary School, worried about their children’s safety, slammed the idea of building on the tainted soil and potentially harming the students. 

“Members of the Arcata city council, I stand before you today with a simple question,” said Michelle Warner, a parent of three Jacoby Creek School students and an employee there. “Are you willing to poison our children for the sake of grant funding?…If you approve this project, you’re telling us that meeting these housing quotas matters more than our children’s health…If this project moves forward, my family’s health is at risk.”

Arcata Director of Community Development David Loya said in an interview with the Outpost today that the comments about toxic dust were “a reasonable concern,” but he also said that the pre-development cleanup of the site included methods designed to contain contamination and remove it safely, as well as ways to prevent “fugitive dust” from leaving the property. The top 12-18 inches would be removed before any construction started.

Many commenters also criticised the project because of its potential negative effects on traffic congestion and parking.

“I have to thank the town for finally repaving Old Arcata Road,” said Bayside resident Miriam Amber. “It’s great. But it’s still pretty crowded…even with the turning lane that goes into Jacoby Creek School, it’s still crowded…It’s going to get a lot worse very soon if a project like this goes through.”

Only two speakers, a representative from Danco and an anonymous Zoom attendee willing to play “Devil’s Advocate,” spoke in favor of the project, citing the need for more affordable housing and the jobs building it would provide.

“Definitely the proper steps need to be taken to protect people’s health and the environment,” the anonymous commenter said. “But we need jobs, we need housing…these are also things that are important.”

###

Press release from the Humboldt County Civil Grand Jury:

The Superior Court of California, County of Humboldt is requesting that the public submit more applications for the 2025/2026 Humboldt County Civil Grand Jury (term of July 1st -June 30th). To date we have not received enough applications to proceed with our normal member selection process and timeline.

The primary work of the Civil Grand Jury is to investigate and review citizen complaints concerning the operations of city and county government, as well as other tax supported and non-profit agencies The Humboldt Superior Court empanels 19 citizens to act as an independent body of the judicial system each fiscal year. The Court accepts applications from citizens representing a broad cross-section of the Humboldt County community. The Civil Grand Jury is currently meeting in-person one day a week and via Zoom one day a week (their weekly meeting schedule and time commitment may vary from 10-30 hours).

The civil grand jury does not consider criminal indictments.

To learn more about the application process, please visit the Court’s web site: https://www.humboldt.courts.ca.gov/general-information/jury-services/civil-grand-jury.

The application can be found by using the QR code or it can be filled out and submitted at: https://cty-lf-web.co.humboldt.ca.us/Forms/grandjuryapps. Eligibility requirements can be found on the first page of the application.

You may complete a paper application at Jury Services in Room G03 (4th Street entrance of the Courthouse).

Thank you for your interest in your community!

###

PREVIOUSLY:

• These Future Farmers From Eureka Damn Near Out-Talked Everyone at the Regional Speaking Competition, and Now They’re Headed to a Showdown at State

###

The Eureka High FFA club continues to make Humboldt proud on the big stage. Below, please find a report on their recent strong showings at the Career Development Event State Finals in San Luis Obispo a couple of weeks ago.

As always — or at least until he graduates — this report is from official club reporter Michael German:

FFA (Future Farmers of America), is a High School organization that focuses on teaching students about agriculture, as well as preparing them for the workforce. For the last four months, members at Eureka High School’s FFA chapter have spent numerous hours studying and preparing for their CDE (Career Development Event) competitions, all leading up to their State Finals.

Rabang

On May 3rd, twelve Eureka FFA members traveled to San Luis Obispo to compete in the State Finals for the CDEs. We were lucky enough to have three teams compete, which were Milk Quality and Dairy Foods, Veterinary Science, and Forestry.

After seeing immense success throughout the year, our Milk Quality and Dairy Foods team has been killing it, placing top five high teams at every competition they have participated in, and many of our members placing in the top five high individuals! State Finals had a great turnout for them, with Makela Rabang placing 5th high individual in the whole state.

This was also our first time having a Forestry team in over 10 years, and our team made us so proud, placing 4th high team at State Finals.

The members of all of these teams have put an immense amount of effort and time into studying for their contests throughout the last multiple months, and have all grown exponentially since the beginning of the competition season. We are so proud of you all!

###

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

###

Under scrutiny from state and federal lawmakers, California’s community colleges are trying to crack down on financial aid fraud. Scammers have increasingly infiltrated the state’s 116 community colleges, posing as students in an effort to steal financial aid from the state and federal government.

At a meeting Tuesday, the board that oversees California’s community colleges voted to require all students to verify their identity, which is currently optional for most applicants. The board also considered asking the Legislature for approval to charge students a nominal application fee — which many said should be no more than $10. But after more than two hours of debate, the board rejected that proposal and instead asked staff to “explore” a fee policy.

“Some of you were asking questions, ‘Why is this happening so fast?’” said California Community Colleges Chancellor Sonya Christian. “Because on April 8, CalMatters ran an article that got national press. Guess what happened after that? Nine of our congressional leaders emailed the Secretary of Education of the United States and emailed the Attorney General asking them to start an investigation of the California Community Colleges.”

State representatives from both parties have since called for an audit of the community college system’s financial aid process. Christian said those audits are likely to happen. “We’re on a national stage right now.”

Students from across the state told board members that they were against imposing a fee, sharing stories of times when they were so poor that they didn’t have a bank account or $10 to buy lunch. Many had personal experiences with fake students.

“A bot once took my seat in a class that I needed to graduate and transfer. That fraud almost cost me my future,” said Flo Cudal, a student at Santiago Canyon College in Orange County. “I understand the need for strong protections, but they must not come at the expense of excluding a real student.”

When Love Adu, a student and board member, tried to enroll at Moorpark College, she said she was unable to verify her identity online, so she had to drive five hours to present her documents in person. Incarcerated students, undocumented students, homeless students and students under 18 all struggle with the current ID verification software, she said. “These proposals would make it harder for students to get the very education that we’re trying to serve to them.”

Application fee delayed

California’s community colleges have a mission to serve every Californian and they’re funded primarily based on the number of students they enroll. When applying, students sign an affidavit affirming that their personal information is true. But besides that, only a few college districts mandate online identity verification. There is no fee to apply to community college and tuition is free for low-income students. Once enrolled, a student can obtain thousands of dollars in financial aid, money that can be used to cover the cost of books, housing, food and transportation.

That aid has become an easy target for scammers, who often submit dozens or hundreds of applications at a time, using real California addresses and Social Security numbers in order to create fraudulent college accounts. Last month, CalMatters reported that roughly one-third of community college applicants were fake. The state chancellor’s office said it removed all the fraudulent applicants it detected but many scammers evaded detection and stole taxpayer dollars. In the last 12 months alone, colleges have lost more than $10 million in federal aid to fraud and $3 million in state aid, according to state reports, which CalMatters obtained through a public records request.

Allowing fraud to continue to rise is “irresponsible,” said board member Amy Costa before voting in favor of Christian’s proposal. These “bots” are after government entitlement programs, such as Pell Grants and Cal Grants, and it’s the state’s job to help steward the use of those taxpayer dollars, she said. “We need somebody to say ‘I’m a real person,’ and payment is sort of one of the ways we do that.”

In the proposal, Christian said her office would consider refunding or crediting the application fee to any student with “a demonstrated financial hardship.” Roughly 40% of California’s community community college students qualify for free tuition because they’re considered low-income, according to state data.

Even if the fee proposal had passed, Christian would still need the Legislature’s approval. It would have taken a year and involved many more discussions, including at the board level, Christian said.

But if lawmakers continue to keep the spotlight on this issue, changes could still happen, said Chris Ferguson, an executive vice chancellor with the state chancellor’s office. “If financial aid fraud were to continue to increase, I assure you, at a certain point, there will be measures, whether it’s at the state level or the federal level, that are implemented on us.”

###

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

Story by Alejandro Lazo and Alejandra Reyes-Velarde

###

The U.S. Senate voted today to block California’s landmark mandate phasing out gas-powered cars, dealing a substantial blow to the state’s aggressive transition to electric vehicles.

The decision to revoke a waiver that the Biden administration granted to California could upend the state’s decades-long efforts and authority to clean up its air pollution — the worst in the nation — and reduce greenhouse gases that cause climate change.

The move by the Senate — following a vote in the House last month — sets the stage for what is likely to become a high-stakes legal and political battle between California and the Trump administration.

Republicans in the Senate and some Democrats in the House who voted in favor of blocking California’s electric car mandate said it is costly and impractical, and prevents consumers from making their own choices.

But Democrats in the Senate who voted against it, including California’s Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff, said the tactic used by Senate Republicans is illegal and that the state’s mandate is vital to cleaning up polluted air.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has made the adoption of zero-emission cars and trucks a top priority, has denounced the move by Congress, vowing that “zero-emission vehicles are here to stay.”

“The United States Senate has a choice: Cede American car-industry dominance to China and clog the lungs of our children, or follow decades of precedent and uphold the clean air policies that Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon fought so hard for,” Newsom said in a statement on Tuesday, before the vote.Under California’s mandate, 35% of new 2026 model cars sold in the state must be zero-emissions, ramping up to 68% in 2030 and 100% in 2035. It builds on decades of tightening emissions standards for cars sold in the state.

California officials may now have to rely, at least temporarily, on voluntary efforts to clean up cars and trucks in order to meet federal health standards for smog and soot. For instance, state officials could offer financial incentives or rebates to persuade manufacturers to make electric cars and consumers to buy them. The state, however, faces a $12 billion deficit.

Culminating a late-night, marathon session on Wednesday, the Senate vote highlights the growing political division over electric vehicle and air pollution policy as concerns over cost, charging infrastructure and accessibility prevent many consumers from buying them, even in California, which leads the nation in sales.

For almost 60 years, California’s standards for vehicle emissions have been central to cleaning up the air, particularly in the smoggy Los Angeles basin and San Joaquin Valley. Vehicles are still the largest sources of smog-forming gases and fine particles of soot, which can cause respiratory disorders, heart attacks and other serious and deadly health problems.

Because of its highly polluted air and large population, Congress gave California the power to set its own, more stringent vehicle standards under the 1967 Clean Air Act. But before those standards can take effect, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency must grant the state a waiver for each one.

Before today, over the past six decades, the EPA and Congress have never blocked any of California’s dozens of car and truck rules. Eleven other states and Washington, D.C. have already adopted a version of California’s electric car mandate, according to the Air Resources Board.

“This is a major blow to the decades-long public health protections delivered under the Clean Air Act,” said Will Barrett, the American Lung Association’s senior director for nationwide clean air advocacy. “It is more important than ever that California and all other states…continue to cut tailpipe pollution through homegrown, health-protective policies.”

Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, of Wyoming, said Republicans reversed a highly unpopular move by the Biden administration.

“They were losers going out the door and they said ‘we’re coming after you — the American people — with our leftist dreams,’ ” Barrasso said. “This is a whole new meaning in California of fantasy land…America can’t meet these impossible standards, not next year, not in 10 years, and the American people don’t want to meet those standards.”

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, a Republican from West Virginia, called California’s zero-emission standards for both cars and diesel trucks extreme and a threat to the economy. “I want to be clear, I have no problem with electric vehicles. Consumers should be able to purchase the vehicle of their choice, but I do have a big problem with electric vehicle mandates that replace the will of the consumer and the will of the government,” she said on the Senate floor on Wednesday night.

The Senators mostly voted along party lines. Fifty-one senators voted to rescind the electric car mandate waiver, while 44 voted against it. Some Democrats joined Republicans in voting for it.

A view of the Los Angeles skyline during wildfires on February 14, 2025. The region’s poor air quality comes not just from fires but also cars, trucks and industries..Residents in inland parts of the LA basin breathe unhealthful air more than 100 days a year. Photo by Joel Angel Juarez for CalMatters

“I wonder if any other member of this chamber grew up like I did, where on a pretty regular basis, we would be sent home from grade school because of the intensity and dangers of smog that settled over the San Fernando Valley, the city of Los Angeles,” Padilla said during a Senate session on Tuesday, ahead of the vote.

Schiff said on X Wednesday night that Senate Republicans are “doing the bidding of the oil industry,” after Trump promised to help them if they donated $1 billion to his campaign. He said it will mean “Californians and others will be breathing dirtier air, as will others around the country.”

The Senate today also plans to vote on blocking two other California rules approved by Biden’s EPA. One is the Advanced Clean Trucks rule, which was enacted in 2020 and requires manufacturers to meet ramped-up targets for zero-emission heavy and medium-duty trucks for 2024 through 2035. The other is a regulation reducing nitrogen oxides — a key ingredient of smog — emitted by trucks and buses.

President Donald Trump has long opposed California’s unique authority to set its own limits on emissions from cars and trucks. On his first day in office, Trump issued an executive order that aimed to eliminate federal and state electric car regulations and subsidies and restore “consumer choice in vehicles.”

“Trump and his congressional allies have declared war on the environment and this is the first major legislative battle,” said Dan Becker, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Safe Climate Transport Campaign.

The Senate action follows an April 30 vote in the U.S. House of Representatives that shocked environmentalists because 35 Democrats joined Republicans to block California’s electric car mandate.

Included were two California House Democrats, both of whom represent districts in the smoggiest part of the state: Rep. Lou Correa of the 46th District in northern Orange County, and newly elected Rep. George Whitesides, from the 27th District in northern Los Angeles County.

“As Americans, we all want to do our part to protect the environment. As a lawmaker, my primary job is to listen to my neighbors and respect their choices to do what is best for their families and their circumstances. That means protecting consumers’ rights to drive whatever vehicle makes sense for them and their pocketbooks,” Correa said in an emailed statement.

California’s mandate has come under fire from auto dealerships and some car manufacturers who once were more in line with the goals of aggressively requiring more sales. Sales of electric cars have undergone a bumpy road, taking off in the post-pandemic years, but they did not increase last year.

About 23% of all new cars sold in California were zero emissions during the first three months of this year, compared to 25% for all of 2024 and 2023, mostly because of a drop in Tesla sales. Californians own 2.2 million zero-emission cars; about 150 models are now sold in the state, 40% more than a year ago, according to the California Energy Commission.

John Bozzella, CEO of an alliance of automakers, in a statement earlier this month welcomed the move by Congress, saying it would “prevent the inevitable jobs and manufacturing fallout from these unachievable regulations.”

The Biden administration’s EPA granted the waivers for California’s electric car mandate and nitrogen oxides truck rule late last year, and for the zero-emission truck rule in March 2023. Under the federal Clean Air Act, the EPA can only legally reject a waiver if it’s “arbitrary or capricious,” unnecessary for addressing air pollution or technologically infeasible due to inadequate lead time.

“Congress voted decades ago to allow California, with the nation’s most smog-choked cities, to adopt stronger vehicle air pollution standards,” Becker, a clean-air advocate, said. “This vote will set a dangerous precedent of overturning state law protecting tens of millions in California and 11 other states that have adopted its strong clean air protections.”

The Senate’s votes could set up a legal challenge from the Newsom administration. Experts say the state could sue claiming improper use of the Congressional Review Act.

That law is meant to allow a new administration to revoke rules recently enacted by the previous administration. But it applies only to regulations, and experts say the waivers are not regulations so they cannot be revoked by Congress. In addition, the three waivers are already in effect, and one was issued more than two years ago, outside the time limits of the review act.

The U.S. Senate’s Parliamentarian and the Government Accountability Office said Congress cannot review Clean Air Act waivers. The Senate voted to evade their Parliamentarian’s ruling in a 51-46 party line, procedural decision on Wednesday night.

“We’re just in a completely new territory…Congress seems to be willing to use a statute that doesn’t apply, which is highly unusual. We’ve never seen this before.”
— Ann Carlson, UCLA law professor

UCLA law professor Ann Carlson said Congress is violating its longstanding practices. She called the decision “totally norm-busting.”

“We’re just in a completely new territory,” she said. Congress “seems to be willing to use a statute that doesn’t apply, which is highly unusual. We’ve never seen this before.”

Carlson said by using the Congressional Review Act, lawmakers are seeking to move fast — bypassing the courts and a potential filibuster.

During the first Trump administration, California sued to reverse other actions that blocked air pollution regulations for cars.

Big rigs exit the Port of Los Angeles in San Pedro. Heavy-duty trucks are a major source of soot and smog in the region. Photo by Joel Angel Juarez for CalMatters

Combined, the three regulations are designed to eliminate tons of soot and gases from cars and diesel trucks that pollute California’s air by requiring manufacturers to switch to cleaner vehicle technologies.

The stakes are high: The state still has some of the worst air pollution in the country, and failure to meet federal health standards for smog and soot could trigger economic penalties, including the loss of highway funding. People in low-income communities of color are particularly exposed to the unhealthiest air.

California is also considered a leader on climate policy, and zero-emission trucks and cars are critical to meeting its targets to phase out nearly all fossil fuels to achieve carbon-neutrality by 2045, which are mandated by state law.

Congress’ repeal of the rules follows an earlier blow to California’s efforts to clean the air. Days before Trump’s inauguration, the state Air Resources Board abandoned two of its groundbreaking standards because Trump’s EPA was unlikely to grant waivers for them.

One of them would have amped up California’s earlier zero-emission truck rule by ending the sale of new diesel trucks in 2036 and requiring large companies to convert their fleets to electric or hydrogen models by 2042.

The other abandoned rule would have required railroads in California to transition new diesel locomotives to ones powered by electricity. Under that rule, only locomotives less than 23 years old could operate in California after 2030 unless they were zero emissions.

###

Eureka’s controversial homeless encampment ordinance is dead. 

Following three-and-a-half hours of public comment at another marathon Eureka City Council meeting, the council voted 3-2, with Councilmembers Scott Bauer and Kati Moulton dissenting, to deny an ordinance that would have increased penalties for some people living in unauthorized homeless encampments, and upgraded certain crimes from infractions to misdemeanors. 

The now-discarded ordinance — linked here — was a streamlined version of two existing city policies that restrict unlawful camping, sitting, lying and loitering in public spaces. The proposal sought to redirect offenders to community-based rehabilitative services, rather than jail, through the city’s Law Enforcement Alternative Diversion (LEAD) program. Penalties could have resulted in one year in jail or a fine of up to $1,000. 

In the months since it was first presented to the council, the ordinance has drawn sharp criticism from homeless advocates and allies who argued that the “police-centered” ordinance would cause undue harm to unhoused community members and create additional barriers to housing and supportive services. Supporters of the ordinance hoped it would have the opposite effect by steering people struggling with substance abuse off the street and into treatment.

A little bit of background: The city council took its first look at the consolidated ordinance during a grueling seven-and-a-half-hour meeting on March 18 that included hours of impassioned public testimony. At that meeting, the council directed staff to form a working group with local stakeholders and people with lived experience, incorporate their feedback into the ordinance and bring it back for discussion sometime in the near future. 

The modified ordinance was brought back sooner than expected at the urging of Bauer, who, at the council’s April 15 meeting,  expressed concern that the council would continue to “kick the can … down a long and apparently endless road.”

Ahead of last night’s meeting, a large crowd gathered at Eureka City Hall to protest the ordinance, wielding signs that called for “TRUST NOT TICKETS” and “HOUSING NOT HANDCUFFS,” among others. The crowd was greeted by several police officers as people filtered into City Hall and ascended the stairs to council chambers on the second floor, where several other police officers were chatting. Humboldt Bay Fire Chief Tim Citro helped folks find seating and directed people to the overflow viewing room when all the seats were taken.

Speaking via Zoom, Eureka City Manager Miles Slattery presented the changes to the draft ordinance, which clarify certain aspects of the LEAD program. The modified ordinance includes additional reporting requirements and notes that the LEAD program would be administered by mental health and social work professionals, not law enforcement.

“The LEAD program is limited to 10 active participants and 10 individuals on the waitlist at any given time,” Slattery explained. “When capacity is reached, LEAD staff will communicate with EPD staff, sergeant, or their designee to temporarily suspend referrals and enforcement of this ordinance except in outstanding or exigent circumstances. … The goal of LEAD is to intervene before involvement with any judicial system, whether it’s an attorney, a judge or a courtroom.”

Slattery emphasized that the ordinance would target problematic individuals, not everyone living in encampments. “[This is] a tool to address those community members — a very small population of community members [who] are not accepting those services — and to help them to realize that what they’re doing is not good for themselves or the community.”

“According to who?” someone shouted from the audience, prompting Mayor Kim Bergel to ask attendees to be respectful and wait for their opportunity to speak. Several times throughout the meeting, the audience drowned out city officials in mid-sentence with boos and jeers, laughing when Slattery underscored the importance of taking a compassionate approach to addressing homelessness.

Slattery provided an overview of city-led programs and services, adding that the city has helped rehouse 230 people in the last five years. The city recently opened the Crowley Site, a long-awaited transitional housing project on Hilfiker Lane, that will supply 33 modular housing units with shared restrooms, kitchens and laundry facilities to people living in encampments in the greenbelt along the Hikshari’ Trail. 

“We have the property manager on-site, and we’re starting to enroll tenants in there five at a time,” Slattery said. “We’ll continue to enroll until we’re at capacity. As we’ve discussed previously, we’ve been establishing a waiting list for folks along that trail segment who are on that waiting list, and they’ll start being enrolled into the program.” 

The city is also working with Betty Chinn to relocate Betty’s Blue Angel Village from its current location on Washington Street to a larger property to facilitate another 40 units, doubling capacity.

“The Betty Kwan Chinn Foundation is receiving a donation to replace the containers that are there on site,” Slattery said. “Relocating those to another location would allow for 40 more of the housing first principle, very low-barrier space for individuals.”

At the end of his presentation, Slattery shared two accounts of anonymous individuals with particularly pervasive encampments and a history of violent behavior who he believed could have benefited from the LEAD program. He also read letters submitted by Chinn and Bryan Hall, director of the Eureka Rescue Mission, both of whom expressed support for the ordinance.

“We needed to help [the unhoused community], work with them and support them in getting a better quality of life,” Chinn’s letter stated. “I really trust this proposal and believe that it is needed now. When I need help, when I need someone, when I need a professional to show up, the CARE team shows up; that’s what I need. … I really hope that people support this.”

In his letter, Hall recounts his own experience with recovery, noting that his arrest was “the best thing that ever happened” to him.

“I want to be clear, I’m not in support of punishing anyone who is struggling,” Hall wrote. “Many of the people who are living on the streets outside our facility are unwilling to come inside. It’s not because there’s no room, it’s because we have standards. … While this may seem like a hard line to some, it is one we hold because we believe in healing, not enabling. We believe that recovery starts with accountability.”

‘I’m not comfortable with it being so vague.’

Turning to questions from the council, Councilmember G. Mario Fernandez asked a series of questions about existing programs and future plans to increase shelter space and access to services in Eureka. Responding to a question about the ratio of outreach workers to unhoused people, Slattery said the city’s Uplift team has two full-time homeless outreach workers and four part-time workers, which drew laughter from the crowd. 

“There are other workers that are out there doing this,” Slattery continued. “We guesstimate that about 80 percent of the population that is unsheltered participate in the dining facility program, so a good portion of their time is concentrated there, as well as out in the field and where they’re at. There is a Point-in-Time count … that guesstimates that there are 600 unsheltered individuals [in Eureka]. I can assure you that there’s not 600 unsheltered individuals. We do surveys every two years with an actual meet and greet, face to face with those under sheltered individuals, and they’ve ranged anywhere between 180 and a little over 220.”

“That’s because they’re hiding,” someone shouted from the audience.

During a particularly testy exchange, Fernandez asked Slattery to explain how the city’s public spaces are unsafe and how the community would benefit from the ordinance. Slattery pointed to the anonymous account of John Doe that he had shared “clearly demonstrates that the amount of assaults going on down there is unsafe.” Fernandez pushed back, asking why John Doe wasn’t arrested. 

“Because there weren’t people, as I stated in the memo, who were willing to file charges. When these things happen and somebody’s hit with a metal bar and somebody’s arm gets broken, that person whose arm got broken wasn’t willing to press charges,” Slattery said, adding that one of the local volunteer trail steward groups no longer provides clean-up services out of safety concerns. “Whether it’s a perception or reality … or whether it’s just uncleanliness, they don’t feel safe.”

Fernandez noted there are “other public nuisance laws in place regarding smell, taste, etc,” and asked why, if the pervasive issue is violence, the ordinance is focused on homeless encampments rather than enforcement and reporting. “How does camping get rid of John Doe?”

“Because we can remove him … from the area where he’s causing the problem,” Slattery said, emphasizing again that many of the people living in the encampment near St. Vincent de Paul’s dining facility are reluctant to report violence to the police. “The idea would be, look, dude, you can’t be here anymore, and we’re going to arrest you under this [ordinance] — and not for violence, because nobody’s going to file charges against you — and remove him from the area that he’s causing that problem.”

Councilmember Renee Contreras-DeLoach sought clarity on what qualifies as “outstanding or exigent circumstances” in which someone would be admitted to the LEAD program when it’s at capacity. EPD Chief Brian Stephens said “exigent circumstances” referred to “anything that threatens public safety” and requires an immediate response from law enforcement.

“It can be an issue on the trail where we have an encampment that is creating a safety issue, where we get complaints that people are being threatened, or something that doesn’t quite fit or fall into probable cause for a crime but it’s unsafe for folks to use the trail,” Stephens continued. “That’s something we need to address immediately because of the number of complaints we’re getting. We can use [the ordinance] at that point, based on the discretion of the sergeant, to resolve that public safety issue.”

Contreras-DeLoach said she could understand the spirit of his sentiment, but felt the ordinance should include clearer language. 

“In order to enforce something, it has to [have] clarity, and it doesn’t seem that there is a real fine point on what’s going to be considered,” she said. “It’s going to be something that is interpreted there in the moment of what they consider it, and I’m not comfortable with it being so vague.”

Chief Stephens attempted to explain further, noting differences between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. While the letter of the law may state that it is illegal to jaywalk and anyone who does so is subject to a ticket, police officers rarely do so, and most often let people off with a warning, he said. 

Contreras-DeLoach also asked how the ordinance and LEAD Program would benefit people. Chief Stephens emphasized that the hope is to get people into assistance programs and “where we want them to be, and that’s not in jail.”

“It’s not that the charge goes forward and they’re automatically going to either face the fine or jail time,” he continued. “There are other options through probation … it just comes from a different avenue, which we have no control over. That’s the issue with sending [these cases] to the district attorney’s office versus dealing with it in-house is we lose that control over those resources when it goes to the district attorney’s office.”

At one point in the discussion, Councilmember Leslie Castellano said she was stuck on “the idea that we are creating or reestablishing a misdemeanor in order to address a problem in the DA’s office with prosecuting other existing crimes,” and asked if the city was working with the county on solutions.

Slattery emphasized again that the “main impetus” behind the ordinance was to give staff a tool to deal with problematic encampments and violent individuals. 

Jacob Rosen, the city’s managing mental health clinician, added that the LEAD program is meant to prevent someone from being referred to the DA’s in the first place. 

“By implementing the pre-bookings diversion or pre-arrest diversion, we’re able to bypass that whole system,” he said. “A positive impact of that is that it would relieve some of the impact on the DA. However, this gives us the ability to work with clients directly, and it’s a better quality of care. … We can go straight from enforcement contact and create another referral source.”

‘Please don’t do this to us.’

As the council wrapped up its questions ahead of the public comment period, Fernandez asked for “clarity and understanding” about the city-issued press release sent out last week that announced public comment on the ordinance would be limited to three hours. He asked whether the call was issued by Mayor Bergel, noting that the council had not weighed in on the item. She confirmed that she made the call.

“Then, with that being the case, I would like to appeal the decision of the mayor,” Fernandez said, promptly making a motion to that effect, which was seconded by Contreras-DeLoach.

Moulton asked for a quick head count on attendees, which was roughly 230 people, including those on Zoom. “So, that is 11-and-a-half hours if everybody gets three minutes,” she said. “We’ve heard eight hours of public comment on this issue before … and we need to get into the actual process.”

After a bit of additional discussion, the council voted 3-2, with Bauer and Moulton dissenting, to toss the three-hour limit, which drew applause from the crowd. 

However, some members of the council weren’t thrilled at the prospect of 11 hours of public comment, including Castellano, who said she had to be in Sacramento at noon the following day. She made a motion to allow for four and a half hours of public comment, which was seconded by Bauer. The motion passed 4-1, with Fernandez dissenting.

Contreras-DeLoach floated the idea of restricting each speaker to one minute so everyone would have an opportunity to speak, which was seconded by Bauer. The motion passed 4-1, with Fernandez dissenting.

The vast majority of speakers at last night’s meeting urged the council to deny the ordinance on the basis that it would criminalize homelessness. 

One man, who only identified himself as Ray, said he’s been homeless for 25 years and is newly sober. He called on the council to deny the ordinance and offer more compassion to people living on the streets. 

“You know, the hardest part about that is finding people who are willing to look at me like I was a person … and not have people look at me like I was an animal,” he said, adding that some of the local shelters are too selective in their admission process. “Sometimes they’re kicking people out for small things … and I know some people just don’t want to have to deal with certain rules or guidelines, but they just want to be accepted into a shower or bathroom.”

“If you sit and talk with some of them, a lot of times they have a coherent conversation with you,” he continued. “Why? Because you addressed them as a human. … You just took that moment to say, ‘Hello, how you doing?’ and actually mean it.”

Another woman named Crystal described her experience living in an encampment and asked the council to have empathy for people who “can’t walk the line” in the way society expects them to. 

“Maybe someone’s got a broken foot or someone’s got some twitches or whatever. We can’t all walk the same line,” she said. “We should not put everybody in the same basket and try to condemn us for just one or two people that are having a hard time, who don’t know how to express themselves in public or to people. Please, don’t do this to us. … Just help us. Don’t condemn us [or] put us in jail. Just help us.”

Dozens of other speakers echoed the same sentiment, calling for the council to provide sanctioned camping and increase access to public bathrooms and showers, not increased enforcement that could put vulnerable people at risk.

Public comment wrapped up as the meeting approach the five-and-a-half-hour mark. Castellano quickly made a motion to deny the ordinance, which was simultaneously seconded by Contreras-DeLoach and Fernandez. 

Before voting on the item, Castellano read aloud a pre-written statement detailing her reflections on the ordinance and her “deep responsibility to the community.”

“I’m voting no on this position because I believe that we are capable of changing the systems that we participate in,” she said. “For what other reason would I, an artist and community organizer, have run for office and been elected by the people of Eureka? … I want to acknowledge the work of staff in bringing this item before us for consideration. I recognize and intend to do something to change people’s lives, but I think that this strategy will erode the trust that is needed to build long-lasting change while only having limited successes.”

In his closing statement, Fernandez said he still couldn’t identify the compassionate element of the ordinance, adding that it is incongruent with previous actions of the council, including its decision to declare Eureka a Sanctuary City.

“Given that our laws are often [intended] to ensure public safety and mitigate and deter behavior, I challenge the necessity and belief that this ordinance deters the behavior of camping, given that the behavior isn’t generally out of wanton disregard or malfeasance,” he said. “Rather, it comes from economic conditions. Homelessness isn’t a behavior, it’s an environmental and social condition that can’t be easily regulated with fines in jail.”

Contreras-DeLoach said she, too, had experienced homelessness in her life, and felt that the proposed ordinance would inadvertently “target status, not conduct.”

“I swore that if I was ever in any kind of position of power, I would defend the weak,” she said. “I’ve also been homeless. I grew up in poverty. I’m not impoverished now, and I spend my resources and my time trying to help other people. … My commitment extends through to this, and that’s why I’ve made my decision.”

Moulton emphasized the importance of holding people accountable for their actions, but felt the ordinance itself should never have been presented to the council.

“This is a bad ordinance. It needs to be rewritten, but it is not a completely useless tool,” she said. “This ordinance was not ready for publication, and it shouldn’t have ever been published in this condition. It is far too broad for what staff brought us. … It would make it illegal to, as many of you have said, sit on a blanket in a park and eat a picnic with your friends. … It should have had accountability written into it, not for the folks experiencing homelessness, but for the people making the judgment decisions about who would or would not be put into this system.”

Bauer echoed Moulton’s statement and acknowledged the lack of trust in the authority. Still, he felt something should be done. 

“This ordinance isn’t perfect, but it was something,” he said. “I still think we should do something, and I hope that we can all learn to trust each other in the future and trust our government, because there’s a lot lack of trust with our federal government.”

The council voted 3-2, with Bauer and Moulton dissenting, to deny the ordinance. 

Reached for additional comment about what happens next, City Clerk Pam Powell confirmed that the “ordinance is dead,” adding that the council did not provide direction to work on it in the future.