The faculty union of the California State University is planning a week of strikes across the 23 campuses Jan. 22 – 26 after the system said yesterday that it would provide 5% raises to members, far below what the union is seeking.

The California Faculty Association is asking for 12% raises this fiscal year, plus other other benefits, like extended parental leave and higher minimum salaries for the lowest-paid workers. But the 5% is an amount other employee unions in the system accepted last year as Cal State fought to stave off an even larger labor walk off. From Cal State’s perspective, its latest and final offer concludes contract negotiations. For the faculty union, it reaffirms its plans, broadcast in December, to strike in late January.

“Management’s imposition gives us no other option but to continue to move forward with our plan for a systemwide strike,” the faculty union told its members this afternoon. Planning to join the faculty union on the picket lines is the smaller Teamsters 2010, a labor group of 1,100 skilled maintenance workers.

The whiplash in messaging — raises on one hand but a vow to strike in pursuit of higher pay and benefits — is yet another flare-up in the months-long standoff between leaders of the nation’s largest public four-year university, home to more than 400,000 students, and the faculty union that represents 29,000 professors, lecturers, librarians, counselors and coaches. The union had already staged strikes at four campuses in December, cutting off instruction a week before students’ final exams.

“Management’s imposition gives us no other option but to continue to move forward with our plan for a systemwide strike.”
— California Faculty Association

The university’s decision also precedes tomorrow’s unveiling of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s spending plan for 2024-25. He’s expected to spell out the state’s deep budget hole, which one analysis says will be a $68 billion deficit.

“Throughout the bargaining process, the CFA never veered from its initial salary demand, which was not financially viable and would have resulted in massive cuts to campuses — including layoffs — that would have jeopardized the CSU’s educational mission,” a Cal State press release stated.

The 12% the union seeks is a response to the soaring inflation the nation experienced since 2021, when prices rose and the purchasing power of paychecks withered. An independent factfinder in December recommended that the two sides agree to a 7% raise, plus other compromises. But an offer of above 5% would have reopened salary negotiations with other unions because of terms agreed to in those contracts — something Cal State has wanted to avoid.

Throughout negotiations, the system was offering faculty 15% raises across three years, but the 10% for the last two years were contingent on the state continuing to grow Cal State’s funding by 5% annually. The union balked at raises predicated on conditions.

Dispute over Cal State finances

Cal State since last May has been signaling that its finances are rocky. The system said at that time its revenues fall $1.5 billion short of what it needs to adequately educate its students. That finding prompted the system’s board of trustees last September to approve five years of consecutively escalating tuition hikes — increases totaling 34% over that time. Those will kick in this fall, but will only affect about 40% of undergraduates. The remaining 60% of students don’t pay any tuition because they receive enough state and institutional financial aid. While those tuition hikes will bring more revenue to the system, it’s not enough to fully fund Cal State’s mission, its senior leaders have maintained.

The faculty union opposed those tuition hikes, arguing instead that Cal State has enough in reserves to afford the raises the union seeks and to spend more money on students without increasing what they’re charged. Cal State has pushed back on that analysis, noting that it needs to build its reserves so it has the equivalent of at least three months of its operating budget as cash on-hand in case of economic emergencies. Currently, it only has about a month’s worth of funds.

Monday was supposed to be the start of a week of bargaining between the faculty union and Cal State leadership to come to a deal and avoid the strike. But that ended poorly, union leadership said in a statement. “After 20 minutes, the CSU management bargaining team threatened systemwide layoffs, walked out of bargaining, canceled all remaining negotiations, then imposed a last, best and final offer on CFA members,” wrote Charles Toombs, faculty president and a professor at San Diego State.

“Throughout the bargaining process, the CFA never veered from its initial salary demand, which was not financially viable and would have resulted in massive cuts to campuses.”
— California State University system

The breakdown in negotiations was consistent with the tenor of relations between the two camps, which has been marked by frustration and a lack of trust.

Professors at Cal State earn on average between $91,000 and $122,000, full-time lecturers make ​​$71,000 on average and the 23 campus presidents have an average base salary of about $417,000, according to 2022 data compiled by CalMatters. Most lecturers are part time and earned the equivalent $64,000 on average in 2022.

Faculty groups have inveighed against the higher jumps in salaries top Cal State campus and system officials were awarded in recent years. A CalMatters analysis last month showed that while lecturers saw raises of 22% on average since 2007, presidents in that time saw base pay raises of 43% on average. The system’s new chancellor earns just shy of $800,000 in base pay and about $1 million when adding housing, auto and other perks.

But even if faculty and the system resolve the current labor dispute, a wider set of contract items will be up for negotiation this June.

###

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

Dad passed away in the early evening on December 19, 2023

Dad was born on May 18,1928 to Harley and Florette Hurst in Alhambra, California. The family moved to Fortuna in his early teenage years. Dad graduated from Fortuna High School in 1947. In 1951 he married Elizabeth (Betty) Frescholtz. They had three children, Cheryl, Michael and Walter.

Dad worked for Beacom Construction for 35 years. He was a great outdoorsman. Hunting and fishing were his passion. In his later years he enjoyed caring for the environment. He could be found most mornings at the Riverwalk cleaning trash and debris from the walking trails.

He was preceded in death by his father, Harley; his mother, Florette Andrews; stepfather, Vernon Andrews; brothers, Verden and Donald Hurst; sister, Barbara McKay; our mom, Elizabeth (Betty) Hurst; son Michael; grandson John Hurst; and son-in-law Curtis Wood.

He is survived by his son Walter (Sherrie) Hurst, daughter Cheryl Hurst, daughter-in-law Jerry Hurst; grandchildren Cory Price, Jack Hurst, Saunda McDaniel, Brandon Hurst and Dustin Hurst; 13 great-grandchildren; six great-great-grandchildren; along with many nieces and nephews.

Per Dad’s request, no service will be held.

###

###

It was a shorthanded Board of Supervisors for the first meeting of 2024, with both Fourth District Supervisor Natalie Arroyo and Fifth District Supervisor Steve Madrone absent for personal reasons.

Here’s a rundown of what was discussed:

Safe parking program

In an effort to increase options for people experiencing homelessness, the Board of Supervisors today extended its “Safe Parking – Safe Shelter Pilot Program” for an extra two years. 

First approved in June 2022, the program allows a government agency, religious institution, nonprofit or for-profit organization to provide people with a safe place to park and/or sleep at no cost while accessing services. However, to date, no organization has stepped forward to establish such a facility.

Ford

Humboldt County Planning and Building Director John Ford said county staff did some research to find out why there’s been no interest expressed thus far and found that, among the organizations typically involved in such endeavors, nobody was aware that the program exists.

Over the next 24 months, Ford said, his staff plans to conduct a public outreach campaign in hopes of drumming up interest while also searching for grant funding to help open such a facility, which could be granted over-the-counter permit approval with a sufficient operations plan.

The City of Arcata currently has the only Safe Parking Program in Northern California, and Third District Supervisor Mike Wilson invited Arcata House Partnership Executive Director Darleen Spoor to speak about the program’s challenges and highlights.

She said that while there was a “big learning curve,” the program has become a big success. Since launching in late April of 2022, Arcata’s Safe Parking Program has provided 14,625 “bed nights,” which count individual dates on which a client is present in the safe parking area, located off of Samoa Boulevard. Nine percent of clients have exited the program to temporary shelter while 30 percent have exited to permanent shelter, according to Spoor.

Spoor

The program offers a variety of services, and Spoor highlighted a couple of success stories, including that of a 71-year-old woman who suddenly found herself homeless and frightened with various health issues. The program, which works with various partner agencies, helped her to get into permanent housing, where she remains today.

But Spoor emphasized the importance of funding. 

“For us, this Safe Parking Program costs us $478,000 a year,” she said. “That’s $45 a night per person,” which is less than the cost of typical homeless shelters and “certainly less than what it costs us, I think, to have people on the streets and in and out of emergency rooms.”

First District Supervisor Rex Bohn, who is serving as board chair this year, said funding is “the big elephant in the room,” given the state’s $68 billion budget deficit.

Sheriff William Honsal said he used to think safe parking programs were “an absolutely terrible idea” but changed his mind after seeing the success of Arcata House Partnership’s example, among others.

“If we have nowhere to send people then we can’t actually enforce laws about people camping on public property or infringing on the rights of others,” Honsal said, though he emphasized the importance of such programs being properly managed.

Undersheriff Justin Braud also vouched for Arcata’s program as “a lifesaver for us” and a problem-solver for the Sheriff’s Office, getting people out of backyards, greenbelts and public spaces.

Connie Beck, director of Humboldt County’s Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), said Arcata House Partnership is a wonderful referral source for the county’s housing program along with other programs from community partners that work with the homeless population. Beck said she’d love to see a safe parking program in Southern Humboldt. 

Wade

Second District Supervisor Michelle Bushnell agreed, saying communities in her district are “begging for solutions” but people experiencing homelessness there often don’t want to leave the area for services.

Nezzie Wade, a founder of local nonprofit Affordable Homeless Housing Alternatives, emphasized the difficulty of running such a program, saying it requires both coordination and collaboration among a variety of community partners. County outreach will be key, she said.

A motion to extend the program’s timeline for two more years was approved unanimously.

Nitrous oxide

Later in the morning, the board discussed the rising popularity of nitrous oxide — aka “laughing gas,” often sold in little metal canisters called “whippits” — as a recreational drug. When inhaled it can cause euphoria and giddiness, but its use has been linked to serious health problems, including neurological issues, loss of blood pressure, organ failure and heart attack.

Regulation is complicated by the fact that these canisters have legitimate uses, including as a propellant for whipped cream and an engine performance booster in automobiles.

Bushnell said she and Wilson have been working with DHHS to address the growing threat of recreational use in the county.

Pereira

Sofia Pereira, the county’s public health director, provided an overview of the issue, noting that it’s already illegal to sell or possess whippits for the purpose of getting high, and illegal to sell to minors, and yet the canisters are often sold in smoke shops.

The county submitted a legislative proposal to its state public health association that would have banned the sale of nitrous oxide for tobacco retailers, but the group chose not to sponsor that legislation, Pereira said. The county is now exploring the possibility of including a nitrous oxide ban in its tobacco retail licensing ordinance, which is in the process of being implemented.

Shelter Cove resident Stephanie Andrews called in with a story about the “great damage and harm and heartbreak” nitrous oxide abuse has caused in her family. Many in the mental health and family services field underestimated the drug’s “emotional” addictiveness among people experiencing stress and anxiety, she said.

“I have a son in rehab for this. I have a brother that’s recovering from nerve damage. I’m living with the effects of this,” Andrews said. “So to have it available in gas stations and tobacco shops is totally irresponsible.”

Wilson said comprehensive scientific data about the drug’s public health impacts are lacking, and sometimes legislation can help spur such research, though he said that can be a frustratingly slow way to address such issues. He also talked about the pollution aspect of the issue, with people seeing piles of these cartridges discarded in the environment. He said he would lean toward greater regulation.

“If I had to choose a society where it was a little harder to make whipping cream but I had less damage to the youth in my community, I would choose” that option, Wilson said.

He again emphasized that state legislators may be in a better position to enact change but said he’s fully in support of the proposed resolution, which identifies nitrous oxide as “an important local issue” that “can negatively impact children and youth.”

The resolution also advises the Board of Supervisors and the Public Health Branch of DHHS “to address the illicit sale, distribution and use of nitrous oxide through education and policy approaches and bring back such recommendations at a later date.”

The board unanimously approved the resolution.

Partnership HealthPlan

Roughly 44 percent of Humboldt County residents are enrolled in Medi-Cal, according to Nancy Starck, DHHS’s legislative and policy manager, and here in rural Northern California the program’s health care benefits are provided by Partnership HealthPlan of California.

On January 1, the nonprofit organization expanded to an additional 10 counties, from 14 to 24, which required the county to amend some sections of its government code. It also means that Humboldt will have fewer spots on Partnership’s board of commissioners – just two rather than the current three.

“This will accommodate representation from Partnership’s 10 new counties while maintaining a functional-size governing commission,” Starck explained to the board.

According to a staff report, Tory Starr, the president and CEO of Open Door Community Health Centers, will wrap up his four-year term on April 22 and the ensuing vacancy will not be filled. Humboldt’s other two members are Starck, representing the county, and Liz Lara O’Rourke, the CEO of United Indian Health Services, Inc.

Odds and ends

• An appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval, back in November, of a 19-lot subdivision in McKinleyville was postponed to the meeting of Jan. 23 so that the entire board can be present.
• Today is National Law Enforcement Day. Bohn thanked goodness for folks in that line of work. Bushnell took a moment to “recognize what law enforcement does for our community and for our nation” and to thank “the men and women that have lost their lives … serving us and protecting us.”
• After proclaiming January 2024 National Mentoring Month, the board thanked Big Brothers Big Sisters of the North Coast, CASA of Humboldt and Boys and Girls Clubs of the Redwoods for their work in that regard, and several people spoke to the powerful impact mentorship has on young people. 

Mulder

• Planning Commissioner and cannabis farmer Thomas Mulder, dressed casually (right), was “bummed out” about having “dragged” his son to the meeting in order to “show him his constitutional rights” only to find two of the five supervisors absent. (He did not explain how his son’s rights were infringed upon by said absences.) Mulder also thanked the board for approving a payment plan for people delinquent on their Measure S taxes and said his own grow operation was misclassified as mixed light rather than outdoor, costing him extra.

A dispute between a 72-year-old retiree in Placerville and El Dorado County over a $23,420 building fee got its day before the country’s highest court this morning, in a case with potentially seismic consequences for local government budgets and housing markets across California and the country.

At issue is just how far cities and counties have to go to justify “impact fees”: fees slapped on new construction projects in order to offset the toll new developments take on local infrastructure.

The stakes are especially high in California, where impact fees can tack on hundreds of thousands of dollars to new housing projects that are already among the most expensive to build in the nation.

The plaintiff in this case wants to put new guardrails on those fees. But that would come at a sharp cost: Local governments, restricted by California law from raising property taxes and borrowing funds, disproportionately rely on impact fees to pay for infrastructure like roads and sewer lines.

The justices waded deep into the legal weeds of the case during oral arguments today and seemed alternately frustrated and bemused as they grappled with whether El Dorado County’s fee should be treated like the government were seizing a homeowner’s property, a simple tax or something in between.

The legal saga began in 2016 when George Sheetz, a retired engineering consultant, built a small manufactured home on a vacant tract in the Sierra foothill city of Placerville. The county stuck Sheetz with the five-figure “impact fee” to fund local roads, highways and bridges. Sheetz paid up, but then sued.

With the backing of a conservative legal nonprofit, the Pacific Legal Foundation, he argued that, contrary to a four-decade old Supreme Court precedent, the county had failed to prove that the fee accurately reflected the wear and tear his small project would likely leave on local roads.

“Everyone loves good roads and schools and public infrastructure, so the government certainly has many tools at its disposal, including taxes to pay for those,” said Paul Beard, Sheetz’s attorney, in presenting his case before the court today. “What we’re saying is that the government can’t select a few…property owners who happen to need a permit at any given time — to select them to bear the burdens of paying for that public infrastructure.”

The lawyer representing the county countered that officials had done the legally required due diligence to justify the fee. But even if they hadn’t, they added, fees passed by local elected bodies that apply equally to all applicants — as opposed to one-off exactions levied on a specific development — don’t warrant such close judicial scrutiny.

Requiring cities and counties to enact fees only after they’ve done a thorough, property-specific analysis of the impact a proposed development would have on local roads, for example, “would disrupt if not destroy their ability to fund capital intensive infrastructure necessary to serve new development, bringing such development to a grinding halt,” said Aileen Marie McGrath, the attorney for El Dorado.

With so much potentially at stake, the case has drawn the attention of a wide array of competing interests. Building industry groups, conservative property right defenders and Yes In My Backyard advocates have all filed briefs pleading with the court to force local governments to clear a higher bar before charging for the right to build.

A decision against Sheetz would only encourage “unconstrained exactions on new development, further adding to the crushing costs of housing in California and other jurisdictions that refuse to require governments to show any proportionality between the amount of fees demanded and the alleged impacts of new development,” the California Building Industry Association wrote in its brief from June.

“Unless you want a dirt road and like, you know, bandits out there because we don’t have a sheriff, we need to have some level of an assessment done.”
— Mark Neuburger, legislative advocate, California State Association of Counties

City and county government groups, along with the governments of both the state of California and the United States, have come to El Dorado County’s defense.

Many court watchers expect the court’s conservative majority to side with the burdened property owner and require the cities and counties to work a bit harder to justify the fees they impose on new home construction. It remains unclear for now just how far such a ruling could go and whether it might place fresh limits on other widely used housing and revenue-raising policies.

“It seems kind of like a nightmare to figure out where the line should be drawn,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett said.

A uniquely California case

Though today’s debate took place in the ethereal clouds of abstract constitutional consideration, for California developers, the issue at hand is plenty concrete. As a group, they’ve spent a generation griping about impact fees.

As of 2015, the average impact fee on a single family home in California was more than quadruple what it was in other states, according to a survey. While such fees were found in a “minority” of jurisdictions outside of California, they were “virtually universal” here.

In a 2018 study from UC Berkeley’s Terner Center, impact fees in a survey of California cities ranged from between 6% to 18% of the local median home price.

It’s not especially surprising that California cities and counties have come to rely so heavily upon this particular form of financing.

During the high-growth decades of the 1950s and ’60s, local governments could easily assume that new development would pay for its own added toll on publicly funded roads and pipes through increased property tax revenue. That changed in 1978, when voters passed Proposition 13, capping local property taxes and muzzling the ability of local governments to borrow or raise new taxes.

That’s led to some frustration from El Dorado County and its defenders. If impact fees are intolerable, some have asked, what are the alternatives?

“Unless you want a dirt road and like, you know, bandits out there because we don’t have a sheriff, we need to have some level of an assessment done,” said Mark Neuburger, a legislative advocate for the California State Association of Counties. “It’s unfortunate when it’s a noticeable size of your project, but we live in a modern society and this is just part of the expense of paying for it.”

Sheetz and his supporters contend that these fees aren’t justified solely on meeting specific, related infrastructure costs and point to the wide variability in fees from one city to the next — even between neighboring jurisdictions.

As the city of Oakland noted in a recent report, its typical fee on large apartment projects comes out to $39,264 per unit. The neighboring city of Berkeley, sets the tab at $66,594. Across the Bay in San Francisco, the fee is $74,597.

At the more extreme end, the 2018 Terner Center study found that the city of Fremont imposed a single-family home impact fee of $157,000.

“You look at places like Fremont and they have these immaculate parks that are funded very significantly by impact fees,” said David Garcia, the center’s policy director. “There’s a question whether it’s reasonable to want to have top notch services and infrastructure, but for that to come on the backs of new residents.”

A fee or “out-and-out” extortion

The origins of this particular debate date back to another legal dispute brought by Californians trying to build a new house.

In the early 1980s, James and Marilyn Nollan, a Ventura County couple, decided to convert their coastal bungalow into a two-story home. The California Coastal Commission, which regulates land use along the state’s coastline, issued a construction permit, but only on the condition that the couple give up a slice of their property to allow for a public walkway to the beach.

In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Coastal Commission had overstepped. If the government wants to take someone’s private property in exchange for granting them a land-use permit, there has to be some obvious connection between the property being seized (in this case, a slice of land for a walking path) and the government’s purpose in restricting development in the first place (capping a building for the preservation of ocean views), the court held. Because there was no “essential nexus” between the two in this case, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his majority opinion, taking the Nollans’ property was “not a valid regulation of land use,” but amounted to “an out-and-out plan of extortion.”

“Why is a fee attached to a development any different from any other kind of tax? No one has a good explanation for that.”
— Chris Elmendorf, Law professor, UC Davis

In subsequent rulings, the Supreme Court laid out further limits on this kind of public-sector “extortion.” In the 1990s, the court found that the cost of getting a permit also has to be roughly proportionate to the impact a development is likely to have on the public. In 2013, the court ruled that these “nexus” and “proportionality” standards don’t just apply to the taking of physical property, but monetary fees made in lieu of giving up land, too.

Sheetz and his legal supporters argue that it’s time for the court to apply the “nexus” and “proportionality” rules to El Dorado — and to local impact fees across the country.

The California exemption

In response, El Dorado County and its cavalcade of legal allies put up a double-barreled defense.

First, California courts, along with those in many other blue states, have carved out a major exception to the Supreme Court’s rules. Fees slapped on individuals on an ad hoc basis — by say, by the Coastal Commission in adjudicating a single permit — might lack transparency, political accountability and be ripe for abuse. But fee schedules — voted upon by city councils or county boards of supervisors and that apply to all applicants across the board — don’t deserve such special treatment, the state’s courts have found.

The logic for that distinction, in part, comes down to political accountability.

“A city council that charged extortionate fees for all property development, unjustifiable by mitigation needs, would likely face widespread and well-financed opposition at the next election,” the California Court of Appeal noted when it ruled against Sheetz in 2022.

The fee that El Dorado County levied on Sheetz was passed as part of a general road and highway funding program. Sheetz’s specific fee was based on the size and location of his single family project, as listed on a menu of such fees on the county’s website.

In bringing the case, Sheetz’ legal team asked the U.S. Supreme Court to do away with this “California’s judicially-created exemption.” Some members of the court’s conservative majority appeared ready to do exactly that.

“There’s just no categorical exemption from legislative enactments — what would be wrong with that holding today?” said Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Treating such a set of fees as comparable to the seizing of an individual’s private property could open a whole can of constitutional worms, said UC Davis law professor Chris Elmendorf.

“Why is a fee attached to a development any different from any other kind of tax? No one has a good explanation for that,” he said. He also pointed to local inclusionary zoning rules, in which cities permit new housing projects in exchange for a developer making a certain share of the units affordable, as another policy that could find itself on the chopping block if Sheetz succeeds at the Supreme Court.

Another local policy that could find itself ensnared in a ruling for Sheetz: Requirements that large developments set aside space for public art or pay a fee if they don’t.

Many of the justices, especially the court’s three-member liberal minority, seemed to have a hard time identifying a distinction between across-the-board impact fees and other types of taxation that don’t require a court’s fine-toothed once-over.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor likened El Dorado County’s impact fee system to a set of user fees, building permits or even a road toll.

“If you’re going to start saying, as you did, that you’re reserving the right to say that a toll could be an unconstitutional taking, I bet New York City is going to be sued very soon on that on that toll to come down into Lower Manhattan,” Sotomayor, who was born in the Bronx, told Sheetz’s counsel. “At what point do we stop interfering?”

Already complying

If the court doesn’t buy that particular argument, the county put up a second one: It is already abiding by the court’s prior rulings.

A state law, known as the Mitigation Fee Act from 1987, requires local governments to justify the fees that they impose with detailed studies that show a connection between the fee levied on a new development and the financial impact that development is likely to impose on local infrastructure.

In conducting those analyses, they argue, California counties are already complying with the Supreme Court’s standards.

For Sheetz’s proponents, those “nexus studies” are a paltry substitute for heightened judicial scrutiny.

These studies often amount to “high-level black boxes” that can justify a wide range of potential charges, said the Terner Center’s Garcia. In California, state courts have historically been reluctant to second-guess those analyses.

If the high court does ultimately decide that a more rigorous, project-by-project analysis is required, the implications could be dramatic — and not in the way that plaintiffs either imagine or hope, warned Jennifer Henning, a lawyer with the California State Association of Counties.

“I don’t think it’s going to result in zero fees,” she said of a possible Sheetz victory.

What it would almost certainly do is “really slow down and make more expensive the process of pulling permits and doing other kinds of development projects,” she said. “We’re just concerned, particularly in the middle of a housing crisis.”

Even Trump-appointed Justice Brett Kavanaugh worried about the practical workability of that requirement in his back-and-forth with Beard, Sheetz’s lawyer.

“Your way is going to be more time consuming (and) administratively burdensome,” he said.

“It very well may be,” said Beard. “But this is a constitutional standard.”

###

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

###

Well, it’s Tuesday.

And that usually doesn’t mean much. But this Tuesday, Jan. 9, 2024, was supposed to be THE Tuesday, the Tuesday when the famed Little Caesar’s in Fortuna was going to finally open its doors. 

But alas, the Friendly City will have no Crazy Bread™ today. As some of you Little Caesar’s die-hards have surely already noticed, the chain pizzeria at 898 Main Street in Fortuna, is still not open, though your Lost Coast Outpost had told you that today would be the day. We deeply apologize for misleading the, no doubt, hundreds of people who flocked to the location today for shockingly low-priced pizza and sides. 

In case you’re in the dark about why we at the Outpost are making such a big deal about the Fortuna Little Caesar’s, here’s a little background: The Little’s Caesar’s was built more than two years ago, prompting some people to naturally ponder when it would open and start serving those Hot-N-Ready™ pizzas. The location did open briefly a little more than a year ago, but quickly shuttered again, leaving the community puzzled. The question of “when will the Fortuna Little Caesar’s open?” has since become a running joke within the online community and even prompted the start of a Facebook group “Fortuna Little Caesar’s ‘when will they open’.” 

So the Outpost sought answers, eventually getting in touch with the business’s new owner, Gurbrinder Sandhu, who said that the plan was to open the location on Tuesday, Jan. 9. Of course, unforeseen circumstances can cause plans to change, and now Sandu said he’s not entirely sure how soon the restaurant can open. 

“Due to some pending legal documents issues, we couldn’t open the store today,” Sandhu wrote to the Outpost. “But [I] will let you know in advance for the possible opening date.” 

Sandhu added that he has everything else he needs to open up the spot, including obtaining all the necessary permits and passing inspections. He just needs the previous owner to complete the document before everything can be final. As Sandhu mentioned in a previous article, the old owners are going through some family difficulties, and have been difficult to pin down. 

It’s a little deflating, we know. But, because this ongoing story is so very important, the Outpost will keep the pizza-hungry community posted on any new developments. In the meantime, you can grab some local pizza, and continue to speculate and share lore on social media, which is clearly the best part about this whole story anyway. 

“It’s really depressing that they’re not open yet still,” Kyle Holberg, founder and administrator of the “Fortuna Little Caesar’s ‘when will they open’” Facebook group told the Outpost. “But really I’m in it for the jokes and [I’m] glad I live in a community with a sense of humor.”

PREVIOUSLY:

•  LoCO Interview: Meet the Folks at RWE, One of the Energy Companies Working to Bring Floating Offshore Wind Facilities to Humboldt’s Coast

###

Press release from RWE:

RWE, a world-leading developer of offshore wind, released the official name of its Northern California project today — Canopy Offshore Wind Farm (Canopy). Coming near the one-year anniversary of RWE’s successful bid in the 2022 federal offshore lease auction where the company secured the right to develop an up to 1.6 GW project 28 miles off the coast of Humboldt County, the announcement marks another key step for one of the first commercial-scale floating offshore wind farms that will deliver sustainable power and help firmly position the North Coast as a hub for the floating offshore wind industry on the West Coast.

“The name, Canopy, is our nod to the region’s iconic redwoods and a look forward to a future where Humboldt is home to a world-class offshore wind project that will provide new economic opportunities, including green jobs for the region, and power a clean grid,” said Canopy Offshore Wind Farm Project Director Rob Mastria. “The project name symbolizes RWE’s commitment to planting roots in this unique community and to developing a project that will bring generational investments to the region while moving the state closer to net-zero.”

RWE’s track record of successful project development in offshore wind and other renewable technologies has been built on its understanding that a proactive, inclusive approach is what ensures communities are informed, projects are safe, sustainable and generate positive economic impact.

To support this inclusive approach and its long-term investment in the Humboldt region, RWE plans to open an office in downtown Eureka in early 2024 for its local team, which recently expanded with the addition of three new hires focused on building relationships, providing transparent project updates and continuing to engage the community during every step of Canopy’s development.

“Offshore wind presents tremendous opportunity and potential for the communities of the North Coast. To be successful, the process must be inclusive and well understood from the start, working with all stakeholders, including partners in higher education, Tribal nations, labor unions and local governments to bring responsibly developed projects online. RWE’s investment in its community presence will support the type of collaborative, collective effort needed to achieve California’s climate goals with transformational clean energy projects,” said Assemblymember Jim Wood (D-Healdsburg).

Canopy will have the potential to power more than 600,000 homes and is expected to be in operation by the mid-2030s. Ushering in an innovative new industry to Humboldt, the project will bring with it significant infrastructure investment, jobs and local benefits for generations to come. For the Canopy project, that will mean a skilled workforce for construction and the long-term operation and maintenance of Canopy’s floating turbines.

“The Office of Economic Development is excited to partner with RWE to harness the significant opportunities that California’s emerging offshore wind industry offers. Canopy will breathe new life into Humboldt’s economy with local workers being trained to build and operate groundbreaking clean energy technology right here in our own backyard,” said Scott Adair, director of the Humboldt County Office of Economic Development.

“We’re thrilled to have RWE as our neighbor in downtown Eureka. Canopy represents a significant, long-term endeavor for Humboldt and RWE’s expanding local team demonstrates their commitment to a project that will provide economic opportunity and clean energy to the region for decades to come,” said Nancy Olson, President and CEO of the Greater Eureka Chamber of Commerce.

“It is great to see RWE’s Canopy project progressing in Humboldt. Offshore wind will be a win for labor, bringing decades of meaningful, middle-class jobs in construction and ongoing operations and revitalizing regional supply chains,” said Jeff Hunerlach, Secretary-Treasurer of the Humboldt-Del Norte Building & Construction Trades Council.

A pioneer of floating technology and one of the world’s most prominent offshore wind companies, RWE is active across the entire value chain, from project conception to development, construction, operation and maintenance Working collaboratively with industry partners and local institutions, RWE’s experience will help Humboldt develop into an offshore wind energy hub while protecting the area’s coastline and ocean ecosystem. Through ongoing, extensive conversations with regional governments, constituents, Tribal Nations and fishermen, the Canopy team will ensure this critical project is developed in a responsible, equitable manner.

Press release from the Bureau of Land Management:

Falk, a historic town and lumber mill site nestled in the Bureau of Land Management Headwaters Forest Reserve, has been named to the National Register of Historic Places.

Listed officially as the Falk Archaeological District, the designation recognizes the site as an area of national significance and worthy of preservation. Remnants of the townsite are visible and marked with interpretive signs along the first half-mile of the Elk River Trail. The most impressive remnant is a fully restored locomotive barn that now serves as an education center.

Archaeological investigations conducted by Humbolt State University (now Cal Poly Humboldt) over 14 years yielded the information that led to approval by the National Park Service, which oversees the National Register of Historic Places, for the Falk listing.

“Credit also goes to our staff and Friends of Headwaters who have found creative ways to explain the history of

Falk through interpretation and restoration,” said Collin Ewing, manager of the BLM Arcata Field Office which oversees the Reserve. “Signs highlighting town remnants make it possible for visitors to visualize life in Falk.”

Falk was a busy logging and mill town from 1884 to 1937. Workers toiled deep in the now-protected redwood stands, felling trees, shipping them on Falk’s very own railroad to the mill, and finally sending the lumber to worldwide markets via a port at present day Eureka. Falk had housing for workers, supported work camps and featured infrastructure, including a mill pond, to keep the lumber operation going. After work stopped, the site fell into decline and decay. The property owners razed the buildings in the 1960s due to safety concerns.

The Reserve was established in 1999, after the BLM and California State Wildlife Conservation Board purchased the 7,400-acre Headwaters Forest. Information on access can be found online.