Press release from Humboldt Bay Fire:

Shortly after 7 p.m. on Wednesday, May 16th Humboldt Bay Fire responded to a reported garage on fire at the 3400 block of Oregon Street in Eureka. HBF responded with three engines, one ladder truck, and one Battalion Chief. Additionally, two volunteer Fire Support personnel responded and provided traffic control.

The first arriving unit, Engine 8113, arrived on scene and reported a fully-involved detached garage structure with possible extension to the nearby house. The engine company secured their own water supply from an adjoining fire hydrant and quickly applied water to the fire with a heavy stream nozzle. The next arriving unit, Engine 8112, assumed search and conducted a primary search of the house to ensure all occupants were out and safe. The fire was knocked down within a few minutes of the first arriving units. With the fire attack crews transitioning to an overhaul phase to ensure the fire was completely extinguished. Engine 8115 arrived on scene and assisted Engine 8113 with the extinguishment assignment. There was no extension or damage to the house and all occupants were accounted for. No civilians or firefighters were injured during the incident.

Following complete extinguishment of the fire, HBF investigators investigated the fire and determined it to be accidental due to improper extinguishment of smoking materials.

PG&E responded and secured the utility hazards to the detached garage.

The total estimated value of the structure saved is $70,000, with fire and smoke damage estimated to be $50,000.Humboldt Bay Fire would like to thank City Ambulance, Samoa Peninsula Fire, Arcata Fire, and PG&E for their assistance on this incident, and in providing station coverage. Humboldt Bay Fire would like to remind everyone to properly extinguish and dispose of smoking materials, and to make sure they are “dead out!”

The California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments next Tuesday in a case that could change the fate of more than 1 million gig workers in the state — and perhaps the way we hail rides, order takeout or get groceries delivered.

Four years ago, voters approved Proposition 22, a ballot measure sponsored by Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and Instacart that allowed the companies to continue to treat their ride-hailing drivers and delivery workers as independent contractors. Prop. 22 was the industry’s response to Assembly Bill 5, a state law that codified a state Supreme Court decision that would have required the companies to classify those workers as employees.

Treating gig workers as independent contractors is central to the business model of the California-based companies, the middlemen that gave rise to the on-demand, app-based gig economy that has permeated our culture. The companies are fighting to hang on to that model, saying it helps them provide gig workers with flexible schedules. Critics say it lets the companies avoid paying employment taxes and shift financial responsibility to their workers and customers, plus governments.

In 2021, a Superior Court judge invalidated Prop. 22, saying it limits the Legislature’s constitutional power to create and enforce a complete workers’ compensation system because it declares gig workers independent contractors ineligible for the benefit. While the state Supreme Court will be considering this narrow issue, because of a clause in the initiative, it’s possible the whole law will be thrown out because of it.

The gig companies appealed the judge’s decision, and a state appeals court ruled 2 to 1 in their favor last year. SEIU California then appealed that decision, and the state’s highest court agreed to hear the case.

Fifty-eight percent of voters passed Prop. 22 after gig companies spent more than $200 million on the campaign. After it became law, app-based platform workers became eligible for some benefits, such as guaranteed weekly earnings of 120% of minimum wage, health care stipends, and occupational-accident and accidental-death insurance.

Although industry-backed polls show many gig workers voted for Prop. 22 and have benefited from some of its provisions, gig workers continue to complain about their pay and working conditions.

In April, drivers protested, as they have many times, at Uber and Lyft headquarters in San Francisco. They said they were there because of low wages, safety concerns and “deactivations” — getting kicked off the apps and losing their ability to work, sometimes suddenly and without knowing why.

“It’s hard for drivers to make ends meet,” said Cesar Palancares, a field organizer for Bay Area-based worker-advocacy groups Gig Workers Rising and Working Partnerships USA, and a leader of the protests. Nowadays, he said “drivers often have to work 12 hours to earn what they used to earn working six or seven hours.”

Palancares said pay is still low because workers’ eligibility for the earnings guarantee is based on the time they agree to take on a gig and the time they spend on that ride or delivery, but not on the time they spend waiting for a gig.

Los Angeles-based Rideshare Drivers United is so concerned about gig-worker pay that it plans to push for pay standards, like those in New York City and Seattle, even if Prop. 22 is overturned.

“We want to build pay regulation on top of labor rights, specifically catering to how we work in this industry,” said Nicole Moore, president of Rideshare Drivers United, which plans to advocate for legislation or ordinances that would establish a rate card with a minimum rate based on miles and minutes driven.

“What we’ve learned from NYC is you can set a rate card, and you can have data from the companies that ensures that pay is high enough so your expenses are being covered,” Moore said.

The gig industry’s current estimates for average worker earnings differ widely from labor groups’ estimates: A DoorDash spokesperson said delivery workers’ average earnings were $36 an hour last year; an Uber spokesperson said its drivers’ average earnings were $33 “per utilized hour” as of the fourth quarter of last year. Industry-wide, Molly Weedn, a spokesperson for Protect App-Based Drivers + Services, said that in 2022, ​​California drivers earned an average of $34.46 per “active hour,” including tips, an increase of 26% compared with pre-Prop. 22 times.

But labor groups and academics have long disputed those figures, including in the legal briefs they submitted ahead of the Supreme Court hearing, because companies do not count the time gig workers wait for an actual ride or delivery. They also say the industry figures don’t factor in workers’ costs for fuel, maintaining their vehicles, health care costs — not all gig workers are eligible for the stipends — and more. A study by National Equity Atlas and others, done in 2021 after Prop. 22 took effect, found that the workers’ average earnings were as little as $6.20 an hour.

Oral arguments’ focus

The SEIU and the four gig-worker plaintiffs will argue that the state constitution grants the Legislature “unlimited power to enforce a complete workers’ compensation system.” The Legislature already spoke when it passed AB 5, they say. So they contend that “the Legislature’s exercise of that power can be withdrawn only by a constitutional amendment.”

The interveners and appellants — the gig companies and the state, which is required to defend the law — will argue that the Legislature’s “plenary,” or absolute, power over workers’ comp is not exclusive. And they will say no subject is beyond the scope of the initiative process.

“The legal issue is actually pretty straightforward,” said Kurt Oneto, a lawyer for the gig companies. Oneto said a constitutional amendment adopted by California voters in 1918 that gave the Legislature power over workers’ comp “unlimited by any provision” in the constitution was “only enacted to prevent courts from invalidating workers’ comp” — not to limit voters’ power over it.

This decision could set a national precedent in the nagging issue of worker classification. So despite the narrow focus of what the Supreme Court is set to consider, a wide array of legal briefs in the case rehash the pros and cons of the gig economy.

Prop. 22 proponents’ arguments

Those urging the court to uphold Prop. 22 stress that the Legislature doesn’t have exclusive reign over workers’ comp. They say the people — through the ballot initiative — have just as much say. They also say the gig economy helps marginalized workers and communities.

• Former state Sens. Robert Timothy Leslie and Stephen James Peace: Based on their experience as lawmakers, they say “the state Legislature is far from powerless when it comes to amending an initiative” and that lawmakers can amend Prop. 22 if they want.
• David A. Carrillo and Stephen M. Duvernay (California constitution scholars): “Excluding workers’ compensation (or any subject) would partly invalidate the electorate’s lawmaking power by creating a new subject matter exemption from the initiative.”
• Crum & Forster, a holding company of various insurance underwriting companies: Occupational accident insurance, which is based on individual use, is cheaper to provide than full workers’ comp, which is charged per employee and based on a formula. The former makes more sense for gig workers because many of them work part time. “Because the risks confronted by app-based drivers are few and easily defined, premiums need not reflect potential exposure to the myriad risks confronted by employees working in offices, factories, warehouses, agriculture, and other occupations.”
• Independent Drivers Alliance of California: This group of 400 gig workers said the benefits under Prop. 22 are “something that many of them have come to expect and even need.”
• Citizens in Charge and The Initiative and Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California: “Large corporations are not the only type of special interest that can forestall the will of the People.” They say the SEIU is a special interest that influenced the Legislature to pass AB 5.
• California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce, California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, NAACP California Hawaii State Conference, National Action Network Los Angeles, National Action Network Sacramento Chapter Inc., and National Diversity Coalition: The independent contractor model provides not just marginalized workers with earning opportunities, it also helps “the provision of transportation, food, and delivery services to communities of color that have been historically underserved.” If Prop. 22 is overturned, they say gig companies will reduce the number of gig workers on their platforms and there will be fewer earning opportunities for “communities of color,” which according to a Pew survey are “more likely to have earned money in the gig economy than White counterparts.”

Prop. 22 opponents’ arguments

Those asking the court to declare the law unconstitutional warn of a slippery slope. They say allowing corporations to carve out their own labor laws could lead to a continued gig-ification of work in other industries, which will affect not just the workers who will largely be without a safety net, but also the government and the rest of society.

• State Sen. Dave Cortese and Assemblymember Liz Ortega: The “minimal insurance benefits” offered by Prop. 22 — occupational accident insurance and accidental death insurance — are not a complete workers’ comp system, and “the wholesale removal of app-based drivers from the system established by the Legislature over the past century runs contrary” to the power the state constitution gives lawmakers to enforce a complete workers’ comp system.
• California Applicants’ Attorneys Association: The group also said the occupational accident insurance offered under Prop. 22 is limited compared to what workers’ comp offers: medical treatment; temporary or permanent payments depending on the injury; and supplemental job retraining benefits. “The likely result is more injured app-based drivers will seek benefits through public systems” like state or federal disability systems.
• City and County of San Francisco, the City of Oakland, the City of San Diego, and the County of Santa Clara: “The wholesale elimination of worker protection laws (including minimum wage protections for all hours worked, overtime, and expense reimbursement laws) can mean the difference between needing to visit a food pantry or not.” The municipalities say they administer such programs, and therefore taxpayers end up subsidizing “what the law asks employers to contribute through wages and benefits.”
• Law professors Sameer Ashar, Veena Dubal, Catherine Fisk, Charlotte Garden, Joseph Grodin, William B. Gould IV, Stephen Lee, Leticia Saucedo, Reuel Schiller, Katherine Stone, and Noah D. Zatz: This group writes that the law lacks a “provision for an administrative body or system to adjudicate claims or disputes. Instead, as is well-known, they are consigned to asserting their claims in the companies’ secret arbitration system.”
• National Employment Law Project, California Labor Federation, Rideshare Drivers United, Gig Workers Rising, Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Asian Law Caucus, Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California, PowerSwitch Action, Worksafe, Action Center on Race & the Economy, the Economic Policy Institute, Bet Tzedek, and the California Immigrant Policy Center: Gig workers have few legal protections against opaque, “powerful, algorithmically-driven pay systems, and ‘the possibility remains,’ in the words of one scholar, that on-demand companies… (are offering) vulnerable workers lower wages based on their willingness to accept work at lower prices.” They cite a recent Uber earnings call during which its CEO said the company is “offering the right trip at the right price to the right driver.” Along the same lines, the fact that gig workers are from marginalized groups and communities is unsurprising, they say: “It is no accident that Prop. 22 reinforces and legalizes a second-tier workforce (composed) disproportionately of people of color.” They also cite federal data that shows app-based driving is “one of the most dangerous jobs in America” that includes risks of violence, harassment, injuries and even death on the job.
• Teamsters Locals 396, 542 And 848 and Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO: “Already, a growing number of secure jobs across the state are being replaced by app-based drivers — including jobs where Amici Curiae have fought for decades to ensure a living wage and strong benefits.” Those include delivery drivers formerly employed by Albertsons.

###

The CalMatters Ideas Festival takes place June 5-6! Find out more and get your tickets at this link.

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

Mitchel “Mitch” O. Morrow was brought into this world January 30, 1954 and left this world February 20, 2024 at the age of 70. Mitch was raised a majority of his life in Carlotta. He attended Fortuna High School and graduated in 1973.

After graduation he continued to support the Fortuna Huskies by helping with coaching and attending multiple sports events. He worked for Carlotta and Scotia sawmills.

Mitch enjoyed spending time and sharing his passion for hunting with his friends and only child, Logan, in Ruth. When he wasn’t hunting, you could find Mitch volunteering at many events throughout the county. He was a longtime member of the Moose Lodge. He also enjoyed bowling with his friends and winning multiple trophies.

He was a kind man who loved to tell his stories to everyone he met. He was always willing to help others the best that he could. He will be missed by so many. His memory will remain bright with everyone that knew him.

Mitch was preceded in death by his parents, Belva “Jean” and Grady Morrow. He is survived by his son and daughter-in-law Logan and Melissa Morrow; his grandkids Bryan, Camrin, Elektra and Kymbur; sister and brother-in-law Terry and Tim Wilson, niece Jammie, nephew Timmy, great-nephew Michael, and great-nieces Autumn and Kaitelynn.

A celebration of life will be held at the Rio Dell Fire Hall on August 10, time TBD, and the family is asking everyone to please bring a side dish and a story of Mitch. Please reach out to Logan (707-496-5858) or Melissa (707-496-5857) with any further questions.

###

The obituary above was submitted on behalf of Mitch Morrow’s loved ones. The Lost Coast Outpost runs obituaries of Humboldt County residents at no charge. See guidelines here.

###

The Arcata Planning Commission on Tuesday approved a final draft of the Gateway Area Plan, the city’s long-range planning effort to make way for high-density housing and mixed-use development on underutilized land on the west side of town — north of Samoa Boulevard and west of K Street. The plan will be sent to the Arcata City Council for final approval in the coming months.

“This is a major milestone in this process,” Arcata Community Development Director David Loya said during Tuesday’s meeting. “We’ve been working on the General Plan [and] Gateway code for seven, close to eight years now – from a concept to where we are now.”

The commission’s action came in the form of two resolutions: one certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Gateway Area Plan and another updating the 2045 General Plan and Gateway Code. The action was approved in a 5-1 vote, with Commissioner Abigail Strickland dissenting and Commissioner Daniel Tagney absent.

During a brief presentation on the findings of the FEIR, Loya said the document had identified “unmitigated impacts” to historic resources and air quality in the Gateway Area, but said such impacts would be addressed in the city’s Statement of Overriding Considerations.

“Any large project that’s contributing particulate matter is going to have a significant environmental impact,” he said. “What a Statement of [Overriding] Considerations allows you to do is to say, even though there’s this unmitigated impact, the social benefit that we garner from approving the project outweighs the environmental impact, and so we’re going to go ahead and make findings to do that.”

During the public comment portion of the meeting, a few community members asked the planning commission to pump the brakes on the Gateway Area Plan to give local agencies and residents more time to look over the final EIR, which was released for public review on May 10. 

Another commenter, Arcata resident Fred Wise, said there are “dozens of errors” in the Gateway Code, including one section about inclusionary zoning. “It has the information from … before you and the council came up with numbers,” he said. “These can all be fixed, [and] they have to be fixed.”

Following public comment, Commissioner Peter Lehman said he was under the impression that the section on inclusionary zoning was correct. The language was previously approved by the commission, Loya said, but the city council had since decided to pull the section out of the Gateway Code and add it to the Land Use Code “because it will apply citywide.”

Speaking to concerns that the city has not provided enough time for the public review process, Commission Chair Scott Davies emphasized that the city has had “more than 100 meetings about this project, [and] many, many hundreds of hours of discussion.”

“Whatever else people may think about how this process has evolved, it has certainly not been [a] rushed or a quick process,” he continued. “I can personally attest to that.”

After a bit of additional discussion, Commissioner Joel Yodowitz made a motion to approve staff’s recommendation to certify the FEIR and approve the update to the General Plan and Gateway Code, with a small amendment to remove the following paragraph from page 31 of the code:

Inclusionary Zoning. For projects with 30 dwelling units or more, the project provides a minimum of 4 percent of the units affordable to very low income households or 9 percent of the units affordable to low or moderate income households as defined in Chapter 9.100 (Definitions). Moderate income units shall be for sale units consistent with State Density Bonus Law. 

The motion was approved 5-1.

### 

The Arcata City Council will review the proposed changes to the Gateway Area Plan and Gateway Code at tonight’s regular meeting – agenda here – but the council is not expected to make a final decision on the plan until July. 

The council will hold a public hearing on May 29 to consider the adoption of the FEIR and the Statement of Overriding Concern. At another public hearing on July 17, the council will consider final approval of the Gateway Area Plan.

Above: The boundaries of the Gateway Area. Zoom in and around if you like.

###

The development of a floating wind energy installation 21 miles off the Humboldt County coastline could wind up being the most significant industrial project in our region’s history. It’s a key component of the Biden administration’s Energy Earthshots initiative, which seeks to address the climate crisis through a variety of investments and innovations in clean energy production over the coming decade.

But what will it mean for us here in Humboldt County?

That’s the question addressed in the latest episode of “Reimagining Rural,” a podcast series produced by nonprofit public policy think tank the Brookings Institution.

Host Tony Pipa recently visited our shores, and over the course of the nearly hour-long episode he speaks with a cross-section of locals, including Humboldt County supervisors Natalie Arroyo and Rex Bohn, Economic Development Director Scott Adair, Hoopa Valley Public Utilities District General Manager Linnea Jackson, county Planning Commissioner/Cal Poly Humboldt INRSEP+ Coordinator Lonyx Landry and more. 

The episode reflects on our region’s long history of resource extraction and exploitation, and the panel of local sources discusses efforts to ensure that doesn’t happen this time around. Those efforts include the Redwood Region Climate and Community Resilience (CORE) Hub, a coalition of local stakeholders aiming to reach community benefits agreements with the wind energy developers who will soon be our neighbors.

You can listen to the episode via Apple, Spotify, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. 

Over the next few weeks, Lost Coast Communications — the Outpost’s parent company — will be doing some work in conjunction with the California Department of Health and Human Services’ “Never a Bother” campaign, which exists to help teens and young adults recognize their power to make a difference in the lives of people experiencing crisis. And also to remind those people that they are never a bother.

Radio hosts from our four sister stations — KHUM, KSLG, KWPT and KLGE — will be talking to local people whose work and whose presence in our community exemplifies this mission, and we’ll be sharing those interviews here on the Outpost.

First up: Chuck Rogers of KWPT (“The Point”) recently had the good fortune to sit down with the wonderful Florence Parks, executive director of the local chapter of Big Brothers Big Sisters and general all-around mover/shaker in Eureka, especially in kid-related matters.

What has Parks learned about being there for kids experiencing suicidal thoughts or other types of mental health crises? What kinds of resources does Big Brothers Big Sisters have to offer?

“Young people, what we’ve learned is they need five positive adults in their lives to thrive,” Parks says. “So that could be a great mom and dad and a grandparent, maybe an auntie or uncle, but maybe that fifth person just isn’t there in tune to what they need. And so a formal program like ours offers that opportunity to families.”

Below: Chuck and Florence. Funding for this project comes in part from the California Department of Health and Human Services.

Everyone seems to agree that Arcata’s population is going to grow. The Arcata School District is wondering if it needs to update its two main campuses to accommodate a future enrollment spike. But at the moment, it doesn’t have the money to do so.

The district could start collecting developer fees, a one-time charge to builders of new homes and commercial buildings located in the school district, paid during the permitting process. That funding would be for updating and expanding schools to accommodate the new students who would be a direct result of new development. So, for instance, if a new subdivision brings a few dozen school-age children into the area, the local elementary school district would be ready to absorb them. 

Most school districts in California collect these funds, including Eureka City Schools and other local districts. Citing upcoming development in Arcata – like the Sorrel Place Project, Gateway Area Plan, and Cal Poly Humboldt expansion – Arcata School District Superintendent Luke Biesecker told the Outpost that the district has been considering collecting these development fees for a while. At the moment, there is no urgent need: In March, Arcata voters passed Measure B, awarding the district $12.5 million in bonds. But the idea did percolate to the surface at a meeting this week.

On Monday, the Arcata School District board considered a resolution to levy a fee of $3.11 per square foot of residential development and $0.50 per square foot of commercial development. If, as predicted, 375 new homes are built in the next five years, these fees would amount to more than a million dollars, according to a justification study the company SchoolWorks completed for the district. 

The few community members and builders who commented at Monday’s meeting said that the district would be asking too much.

“Developers will be forced to pass on the additional cost to homebuyers or tenants, further contributing to housing affordability challenges,” said a representative of Adams Commercial General Contracting. 

Kyle Boughton, owner of North Star Development, suggested that families would be pushed out of the district due to higher living costs, decreasing enrollment rather than increasing it. He also speculated that most new housing in Arcata will be rented to incoming Cal Poly Humboldt students who might not have school-age kids. 

The City of Arcata seems to be of two minds about the fee. “While the City has concerns regarding how this fee will affect much needed housing production, we also understand the need to ensure revenue to support critical programs and education,” Arcata Mayor Meredith Matthews wrote in a letter to the school board.

“The City requests that prior to your final consideration to enact a developer fee that you attend and share the District’s vision for this fee with the community at a City Council meeting. This opportunity would allow the District to explain why this fee is preferable to a bond/parcel tax measure, the necessity for the funds, the process that you will use to calculate and collect the fees and how you propose to communicate these transactions with the City to best serve the developers in our City.”

Sarah Kollman, a lawyer whose firm represents the North Coast Home Builders Association, suggested on Monday that the district’s intended use for the funds might be unlawful. This interpretation may be based on the five-year parameter of the SchoolWorks study, which identified the need to modernize existing facilities to accommodate a predicted 5-year increase of 55 students, rather than build new buildings. Kollman said that her understanding of the law was that development fees cannot be used for maintenance.

“The law around the imposition of developer fees is very clear, that developer fees cannot be used to address deferred maintenance and long-term maintenance items,” Kollman said. “For a school district, they have to be directly tied to increased student capacity and an additional level of service.”

Biesecker later told the Outpost that despite the SchoolWorks study’s time frame, the district is looking beyond the next five years. “Looking long-term, our concern has been mostly with the potential need for new facilities,” he said. 

On Monday, the board decided to table the item for now, with plans to consult legal counsel next month and attend a city council meeting in the meantime. School districts don’t legally need city or county approval to levy developer fees.

If the Arcata School District does ultimately charge a fee, it might enter an agreement with the Northern Humboldt Union High School District to split funds. If they did, builders would probably pay $5.17 per square foot of residential development and $0.84 per square foot commercial development, which is the maximum amount districts can currently charge for developer fees (this number adjusts every two years to reflect inflation).  

For now, no action. But that could change soon. 

“At some point I think the board’s serious about this,” Biesecker said on Monday. “But there’s a timing element, and knowing that it’s the right time for students and the community I think is important.”