After years of controversy over state legislators taking trips paid by interest groups, California in 2015 adopted a law intended to bring more transparency to sponsored travel.

Senate Bill 21 requires trip organizers to annually disclose any major donors who travel alongside elected officials, taking aim at the secrecy that often surrounds these policy conferences and international study tours.

Yet in the seven years since the law took effect, disclosure forms have been filed for only two events — despite legislators reporting millions of dollars in sponsored travel and dozens of trips during that period. One form was filed last year and the second only after CalMatters made inquiries.

It’s unclear exactly why the disclosure has been such a failure.

Former state Sen. Jerry Hill, the San Mateo Democrat who pushed for the law, said he was surprised by its infrequent use. He said he crafted qualifications that he believed major travel sponsors would easily meet, requiring them to share more information with the public about who is paying for legislators’ travel — but, in hindsight, the language about when they have to file may not have been specific enough.

Many groups, including two whom Hill cited in arguments for the law, contend that they do not meet the eligibility criteria laid out in the measure, even as they spend tens of thousands of dollars or more to take legislators to far-flung locations.

“It looks like it’s being interpreted in the most favorable light for the nonprofits, and they are looking at that as a way of getting around it,” Hill told CalMatters.

If that is the case, he added, legislators should update the language to ensure the intent is clear.

“It’s frustrating,” he said. “It is law and it should be followed. And it’s disappointing that some have used whatever reason they can find to not follow the law.”

If any organizations are out of compliance, the state’s political ethics watchdog, which is responsible for enforcement, cannot say. The Fair Political Practices Commission has never clarified potentially ambiguous language in the rules and it depends on filers to follow them, investigating primarily if it receives a complaint. None has ever been lodged.

Jay Wierenga, a spokesperson for the commission, wrote in an email that he did not know the specifics of the situation, but “in my experience most of the folks who deal with this are sophisticated enough and/or smart enough to follow the rules and hire legal counsel to make sure they’re following it.”

Different rules for trip sponsors

California law allows elected officials to accept unlimited free travel from a nonprofit organization, as long as the trip is related to policy issues or they are giving a speech or participating on a panel. Officials must report the travel as a gift on their annual statements of economic interest filed with the Fair Political Practices Commission — and, because of the same 2015 law, disclose the destination.

But the nonprofits — often funded by corporations, unions and industry associations that lobby the Legislature and the state — do not have similar reporting requirements. Though some voluntarily share lists of donors, they are not obligated to reveal how much money they receive and from whom.

For nearly as long as these trips have been happening, they have generated criticism from opponents who believe they amount to unofficial lobbying, allowing interest groups to buy privileged access to lawmakers and regulators away from public scrutiny.

/

Then-Sen. Jerry Hill speaks in the state Capitol. Photo by Anne Wernikoff for CalMatters

Hill said he grew more concerned after the 2010 PG&E pipeline explosion in his district that killed eight and destroyed a San Bruno neighborhood, which led to revelations about then-California Public Utilities Commission President Michael Peevey’s close relationship and extensive travel with companies regulated by the commission.

So the law Hill authored was meant to provide greater accountability for which interest groups are paying for travel and how these trips can serve as opportunities for influence-peddling. It requires “a nonprofit organization that regularly organizes and hosts travel for elected officials” to annually report any donors who gave more than $1,000 and also accompanied elected officials on any portion of a trip, if the group meets two criteria:

• Travel gifts to elected officials in that year totaled more than $10,000, or at least $5,000 to a single official.
• Spending for travel, study tours and conferences, conventions and meetings related to elected officials account for at least one-third of its total expenses, as reflected in its federal tax filings.

Over the past two years, 16 organizations exceeded the first threshold at least once, according to a CalMatters analysis of legislators’ statements of economic interest. Just two of them filed the travel sponsor disclosure, known as Form 807.

The California Problem Solvers Foundation, which supports a bipartisan legislative caucus, revealed that in 2021, the year it launched, representatives from the California Medical Association, Edison International, the Associated Builders & Contractors of California, PhARMA, Blue Shield of California, DaVita Inc., PG&E and Sempra Energy donated and attended its inaugural policy summit in Dana Point, alongside nine lawmakers.

The foundation, however, did not file the form again for last year, when it spent another $12,000 taking four legislators to a policy summit in Sonoma. A spokesperson, Nick Mirman, declined to comment.

The California Legislative Jewish Caucus Leadership Foundation, which spent more than $213,000 to take 14 legislators to Israel in July, said it wrongly forgot to submit a disclosure for the trip.

After CalMatters reached out, a representative for the foundation said its compliance attorneys discovered the error while completing its taxes. She provided a Form 807 that the foundation planned to file, showing two donors that also traveled to Israel: the Koret Foundation Donor Advised Fund at Stanford University and the Jewish Federation of Los Angeles. The Fair Political Practices Commission confirmed Wednesday that it received the form.

Over the last week, CalMatters surveyed the 14 other groups about why they did not file the disclosure form.

• Three asserted they did not meet the eligibility requirements of the law, but did not specify how in follow-up inquiries: the Governor’s Cup Foundation, which organizes an annual golf tournament in Pebble Beach; the Shared Energy Future Foundation, the charitable arm of the oil and natural gas industry; and The Climate Registry, which spent more than $37,600 to bring lawmakers to United Nations climate conferences in Scotland and Egypt over the past two years.
• Two said they are trade associations, which are exempt from the law: the Association of California Life and Health Insurance Companies and the California Independent Petroleum Association.
• Five did not respond to questions, despite repeated inquiries: the California Biotechnology Foundation, the California Latino Legislative Caucus Foundation, the Climate Action Reserve, the Council of State Governments-West and the Foundation for California’s Technology and Innovation Economy.
• The California Environmental Voters Education Fund suggested that five lawmakers had incorrectly reported the organization as the sponsor of their travel to a United Nations biodiversity convention in Montreal, saying it had raised the money from another group called the Resources Legacy Fund.

Ambiguity in the law

A possible issue is how broadly to construe “activities with regard to elected officials,” as the law states, when determining expenses for the one-third of total spending threshold. Hill said his intent was for that calculation to cover the entire cost of trips and conferences attended by legislators, but nonprofits may be counting only their direct payments to lawmakers.

“Hindsight is 20/20, and if the nonprofits are using that as a way around following the law, that needs to be clarified or it needs to be enforced in a way that requires them to follow the law,” Hill said.

Wierenga said the Fair Political Practices Commission has no formal advice about how to complete the form because “nobody files them, so we’ve apparently never really been asked.”

Two prominent organizations mentioned by Hill at the time as inspirations for the 2015 law — the California Foundation on the Environment and the Economy and the Independent Voter Project — told CalMatters they had never met the one-third of expenses threshold.

The California Foundation on the Environment and the Economy, which sends lawmakers to policy conferences across the state and on international study tours, is by far the biggest source of sponsored travel that lawmakers annually report. In 2022, the foundation accounted for about 40% of the nearly $1 million in trips that California legislators took, according to a CalMatters analysis published this month.

A tax filing for last year is not yet publicly available. But in 2019, for example, the foundation reported spending $423,114 on study travel projects and $385,949 on conferences, conventions and meetings — about 43% of its nearly $1.9 million in expenses. Other recent years have comparable figures.

Spokesperson PJ Johnston declined to explain how the foundation calculates its expenses under the criteria laid out by the disclosure law. In an email, he wrote that “your approach may not take into account the full provisions,” but did not elaborate.

“Addressing your ‘calculations’ is not our responsibility, that is not our burden,” he wrote. “Your ‘calculations’ are imbued with no official weight, verification or concurrence from any agency with jurisdiction.”

He added that the foundation has never received any questions or guidance from the Fair Political Practices Commission about the disclosure law.

“It’s frustrating. It is law and it should be followed. And it’s disappointing that some have used whatever reason they can find to not follow the law.”
— Former state Sen. Jerry Hill, who pushed for the transparency law

Each November, the Independent Voter Project organizes a conference where dozens of legislators and corporate sponsors gather for a week of policy discussions and schmoozing at a luxury hotel in Maui. The event has long been a lightning rod for concerns about the close relationship between lawmakers and interest groups that have business before the Legislature.

Last year, the nonprofit spent $38,856 to bring 13 legislators to the Maui conference. But Dan Howle, the chairperson and executive chairman, said that event is a small fraction of the Independent Voter Project’s work — which also includes public education on the rights of no party preference voters and court challenges to laws restricting the participation of these voters in primary and general elections.

On its 2021 tax filing, the most recent that is publicly available, the Independent Voter Project reported spending $169,530 on conferences, conventions and meetings and $43,372 on travel and entertainment payments for public officials — just under a quarter of its $882,122 in total expenses for that year. Travel accounts for another $384,614 in spending, though it’s unclear whether those costs relate to “activities with regard to elected officials.”

Howle said the costs for the Maui conference — which include a dinner at the hotel restaurant, opening and closing receptions and the sponsored travel for legislators — are not as much as they may seem. His organization does not count hotel rooms for sponsors, which they pay for as part of their registration, curtailing spending that would qualify for the one-third threshold.

“We haven’t felt required to report it because we don’t reach that threshold,” Howle said. He said that the Independent Voter Project came to that conclusion after discussing the law with the Fair Political Practices Commission the year it took effect. The commission has issued no official advice.

A third organization, the California Issues Forum, also maintains that it hasn’t filed the form because it hasn’t spent enough to cross the disclosure threshold. Chris Tapio, a spokesperson, wrote in an email that the nonprofit’s “activities and expenditures have not met the statutory criteria” for filing a report.

The organization spent $15,634 to take 15 legislators to Napa, Los Angeles, and Marina Del Rey in 2022, according to lawmakers’ statements of economic interest, and $13,454 to take 13 legislators to La Jolla, Monterey and Lafayette in 2021.

Tax returns for those years are not yet publicly available. But in 2019, the organization reported spending $323,032 on conferences, conventions and meetings, and $15,072 on travel, accounting for about 27% of its nearly $1.3 million in expenses.

Yet in a separate category of the 2019 tax form, the California Issues Forum reported that it spent more than $1 million that year for seminars, meetings, and conferences that “brought experts, speakers and legislators together to educate each other on current issues” — or more than 80% of its total expenses.

Tapio said “that amount is inclusive of many expenses not pertinent to Form 807, such as grants, salaries, and postage.” He did not clarify what spending California Issues Forum does count under the disclosure law.

###

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

Richard Roy Rollins passed away in his home on April 27, 2023 after a hard-fought battle with pancreatic cancer. Rick was a sixth-generation Humboldt County resident born February 14, 1965 in Garberville. He was related to early settlers of the Mattole Valley and surrounding areas.

Rick attended school in Fortuna and attained his GED in 1981. He met his wife, Kim, in 1987 and they later married in 1992. Together they had two children, Levi and Taylor, whom they raised in Honeydew until later buying a home in Carlotta in 2002.

Rick worked many jobs until he found his passion being a farm manager and master grower in the cannabis industry. This career later took him and his wife Kim on an adventure to Oklahoma for 13 months. He was a hard worker who rarely took a day off, even through chemotherapy and other health issues. Rick loved hunting, fishing, mounting biking, going to sporting events and spending time with family and friends at the beach cabin.

Rick is preceded in death by his father, Hollis Rollins Jr; grandparents Paul and Anne Smith, and Hollis and Mod Rollins; uncles Larry Smith and Bud Rollins.

Rick is survived by his wife, Kim Rollins; children, Levi Rollins and Taylor Rollins; mother, Jeanne Rollins; sister and brother-in-law Cindy Carter and Frank Carter; aunt and uncle Linda and Bill Franklin; and numerous step-siblings, half-siblings, nieces, nephews and cousins.

A celebration of life is to be held on June 24, 2023 at 12 p.m. at the Mattole Grange: 36512 Mattole Rd, Petrolia. All family and friends are invited and welcome. This will be a potluck-style event and we would ask attendees to please bring a side dish or dessert if able.

###

Daniel J. Flanagan
October 11, 1949 – May 13, 2023

Dan was born October 11, 1949 in Washington D.C. to Daniel J. Flanagan Jr. and Agnes Mae Briggs Flanagan. Dan’s early years were spent between Washington D.C and the family town of Erie, Penn. In August 1953, Dan moved with his family to San Mateo, Calif.

Dan graduated from Serra High School, Class of 1968. After graduation, Dan enlisted in the Air Force, serving four years. While in the service, he married his high school sweetheart, Margie Gantvoort.

Upon discharge from the Air Force, Dan gained employment with PG&E. He was employed with PG&E from March 5, 1963 until retirement November 1, 2014.

Dan was a member of the Redwood Gun Club, Simpson Gun Club (Long Prairie Gun and Archery Club) as well as a Board Member of the Humboldt Trap and Skeet Club.

Dan was an avid outdoorsman and loving father. He enjoyed hunting, fishing, and cutting firewood. He shared his love of the outdoors with his boys; together they made lifelong memories that will be forever cherished. Dan was a family man first and foremost. He lead by example in life; always putting family needs before his own wants and desires. He always made sure the family never did without. He built a strong work ethic in his sons and many of their friends throughout the years, something he was extremely proud of. The door was open to all who came as well as the kitchen: “One rule, don’t eat off my plate!”

Dan is survived his wife of 53 years, Margie; by his three sons, Brian (Amy), Michael (Kelli) and James. He is survived by 10 grandchildren: Lane, Tanner, Brenna, Noel, Jaron, Ace, Brilyn, Rilyn, Mathew and Henry. He is survived by two great-grandchildren: Jasper and Bella. Dan is also survived by his two sisters, Anne Pinkston and Kathleen Benker, and numerous nieces and nephews.

The family would like to thank the following people for walking by Dan’s side through his difficult battle with cancer: Dan’s friends, Dr. Iberri and assistant Kate at Stanford Medical Center, and the entire staff at Providence Health Chemo Infusion Suite. We would like to extend a special thank you to his nurses – Barbara, Ivy, Jade, Jovone – the ones who “drew the short straw.”

Dan was interred at Ocean View Cemetery. A celebration of life will be held at a later date.

###

###

After decades of dreaming, planning and lots of work to overcome bureaucratic hurdles, Humboldt County will soon have a paved multi-use trail connecting Eureka and Arcata along the banks of Humboldt Bay.

At a joyous ceremony this afternoon, held atop a berm overlooking the bay from the California Redwood Company sawmill property, state and local officials gathered with community members and other stakeholders to celebrate the start of construction on Humboldt Bay Trail South, a project that will connect the gap between the Eureka Waterfront Trail and the southern terminus of Humboldt Bay Trail North, near the Bracut Industrial Park.

###

Leading off the ceremony was Hank Seemann, Humboldt County’s deputy director of public works, who everyone in attendance seemed to agree has been one of the primary driving forces behind the project. 

“It has been a long journey to get to this point,” Seemann said, triggering a round of knowing laughter from the assembled crowd.

After noting that everyone was standing on un-ceded Wiyot territory, he went on to note that, until about 25 years ago, most of the shoreline development between Eureka and Arcata was dedicated almost exclusively to cars, the railroad and private industry. But the community had a vision to restore public access to the shoreline while connecting people with each other and the natural world.

That vision has largely come to fruition, Seemann said, thanks to work from employees and officials at the City of Arcata, the City of Eureka and, lately, the County of Humboldt, not to mention “vital support from our community and state partners.”

###

Construction of the trail is set to begin next month and be completed before the end of 2024. The main contractor is Arcata-based McCullough Construction. Ghirardelli Associates, which has its headquarters in San Jose and an office in McKinleyville, will provide construction management services while international engineering firm GHD, Inc., will provide engineering support.

The cost of construction on this section of trail alone will amount to nearly $20 million, according to Brandon Larson, deputy director for planning and local assistance with Caltrans. Funding has been provided by the California Transportation Commission, the State Coastal Conservancy and Caltrans District 1.

The majority of this new trail segment will be situated between the defunct railroad and Highway 101, while a one-mile portion will be placed atop the levee around the bay side of the Brainard Mill site. This route was made possible thanks to an easement from Green Diamond Resource Company to the county. 

Construction will involve widening the railroad prism, major modifications to the Eureka Slough railroad bridge, construction of three new trail bridges and removal of the northernmost stretch of eucalyptus trees along the highway. The project will also entail what the county calls “urgent repairs” to erosion damage along the railroad as well as raising the elevation of the railroad between Brainard and Bracut to address flood hazards.

###

“I have to say, being here today, my face hurts from smiling,” said Humboldt County’s Fourth District supervisor, Natalie Arroyo. “This is such an exciting moment.”

She said that, looking around the crowd, she recognized “the faces of so many people who have been essential to making this happen,” including folks she worked with on the Humboldt Trails Council and the Redwood Community Action Agency (RCAA).

“And now here we are today about to build this trail, and I could not be more thrilled,” Arroyo said.

Fifth District Humboldt County Supervisor Steve Madrone, who also serves as the vice-chair of the Great Redwood Trail Agency, said it has been 37 years since RCAA, the County of Humboldt and the state Coastal Conservancy formed a partnership to start looking at trails in this region.

“And it was in 1997 that our first report on possible trail options around the bay was put together,” Madrone said.

First District Supervisor Rex Bohn recalled riding his Schwinn bicycle from Eureka to Arcata to meet up with a girlfriend some 55 years ago. He rode home along Old Arcata Road and said he looks forward to a better route. Bohn also thanked state Senator Mike McGuire and Assemblymember Jim Wood for being “so instrumental” in getting trails built.

Jason Liles, McGurie’s chief of staff, was on hand. He noted that his boss was attending a wind energy hearing in Sacramento and thus, regrettably, could not attend the trail groundbreaking ceremony. He went on to say that in his office there’s a rule that you should only thank elected officials because they get their feelings hurt if you don’t. But in this case, he made an exception.

“I’m just gonna thank one person in particular on behalf of Senator McGuire, and I’d like to see a big round of applause for Hank Seemann,” Liles said, and the crowd complied with enthusiasm.

Caryl Hart, chair of the Great Redwood Trail Agency, emphasized the economic benefits of trails, and she noted that this trail will eventually be part of her agency’s namesake, a planned 320-mile multi-use rail-to-trail project connecting San Francisco and Humboldt bays.

“One of the things that I hear most often is, ‘Will [the Great Redwood Trail] happen in my lifetime?’” Hart said. “I’m so glad that I can say, ‘Go to Humboldt Bay. You will see the Great Redwood Trail as it is being created, as it is connecting around the bay … and that is thanks to all of you.”

Several other folks addressed the assembled crowd. Arcata City Manager Karen Diemer, for example, said, “This is what government looks like when it is following the deep will of your people.”

Eureka City Manager Miles Slattery also commended the broad community collaboration and cracked a joke: “I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I can’t wait for Eureka to be hooked up to Arcata,” Slattery said, getting a big laugh.

Karen Underwood, a board member with the Humboldt Trails Council, said research indicates that when trail gaps between two cities get connected, use of the trails can increase from 40 to 80 percent, but this connection will likely be an outlier. 

“After 25 years of waiting Humboldt Trails Council believes that usage of these bay trails will more than double,” Underwood said.

At the conclusion of the ceremony there was a ribbon tying — rather than the traditional ribbon cutting — to emphasize the upcoming new connection between Arcata and Eureka.

Youngsters Asher Bergel (son of Eureka Mayor Kim Bergell) and Nigella Bauer (daughter of Third District Humboldt County Supervisor Mike McGuire Wilson), who was in Washington, D.C.) did the honors, hooking the two ends of the ribbon together, but only after noting that the project has been in the works since before they were born.

Today’s newscast! Press play above, read below, take the poll even further below.

FURTHER READING:

• Samoa Cookhouse Closes Temporarily for Major Renovation to Create Hostel Rentals, Cabins, Dog Park and Picnic Area
• Anticipating Big Economic Growth, Board of Supervisors Explores the Idea of Impact Fees for New Development. Plus: Preserving Public Access, and More
• Kamome Foundation Delegation to Celebrate Mural’s Arrival in Rikuzentakata
• With ‘Chalk Talk,’ an Unknown Author Addresses Eureka’s Homelessness Issues One Word at a Time

HUMBOLDT TODAY can be viewed on LoCO’s homepage each night starting at 6 p.m.

###

As several major projects move steadily ahead throughout the Humboldt Bay region, county officials are looking for ways to offset potential impacts associated with future development. The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors, prompted by Fourth District Supervisor Natalie Arroyo, revisited the topic of development impact fees during Tuesday’s meeting as a strategy to better accommodate incoming residents.

In a nutshell, development impact fees are fees that are imposed on specific projects to mitigate costs associated with new or additional public facilities – including fire and public safety, parks and transportation – that are needed to serve those developments. They must be based on the impact of new development and the cost of providing additional facilities or improvements.

Humboldt County is the only county in California that does not have development impact fees, largely due to the county’s historically low growth rate, but that may be about to change.

Cal Poly Humboldt is rapidly expanding to accommodate its increasing student population. Nordic Aquafarms is furthering its plans to build a land-based fish farm on the Samoa Peninsula. Crowley Wind Services is working with the Harbor District to build a full-service terminal on Humboldt Bay to support a 200-square-mile offshore wind development off the North Coast. There are also a couple of high-speed fiber optic lines being built in the region that will feed into a big data center in Arcata. And then, of course, there will be all the new housing that will be needed to support these big projects.

As developments move forward, the county and local municipalities can expect even more pressure on existing public resources and facilities. That’s where development impact fees come in.

Planning and Building Director John Ford noted that, while the county doesn’t have a development impact fee program per se, the costs are applied and accounted for throughout the development process. Ford used the North McKay Ranch Subdivision as an example.

“In that particular case, the [Environmental Impact Report] EIR identified that there were traffic impacts that needed to be addressed,” he explained. “The way a traffic fee would work  – as applied to that [project] – is that the county would have done a nexus study to identify what the cumulative impacts are needed to implement the development allowed by the General Plan, and …  identify a list of improvements that are needed to address those impacts and then to identify fees associated to implement them in that particular case.”

While development impact fees tend to add to the cost of a building permit, Ford noted that developers would be able to calculate their costs up front instead of going through the EIR process “to understand what their fees are.”

Second District Supervisor Michelle Bushnell asked how development impact fees would affect rural, unincorporated communities. Ford said it would depend on the community and the improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of a specific development. 

“The downside, frankly, is that when your growth rate is slow and the amount of money coming in from fees isn’t sufficient to fund the improvements … the money gets returned [to the developer],” he said. “It’s really not applied very much in the rural areas. We just don’t see that kind of growth that the more populous counties do where they’ll build a new town in the middle of nowhere with 10,000 people. That’s not the kind of growth that we see.”

First District Supervisor Rex Bohn said he had contacted a few local housing developers ahead of Tuesday’s meeting and said they were “very concerned” about the prospect of the county implementing development impact fees.

“I’m not saying this is a bad idea [or] something that shouldn’t be looked at … but do we reach out enough and talk to the people that are actually going to be affected?” he asked. “The people that are going to be here tomorrow … to build houses into the future because we’re losing those. … I don’t think it’s great idea, but I’m not against it.”

Bohn recommended county staff look into the item further before moving forward. Fifth District Supervisor and Board Chair Steve Madrone noted that the item did not require any immediate action from the board, adding that staff’s recommendation would direct staff to conduct more research on the subject and bring a recommendation back to the board with a scope of work and cost estimate. 

Third District Supervisor Mike Wilson said he would support a continuance of the discussion but also expressed his support for the implementation of development impact fees, noting that “it’s not just about the up front cost.”

“It is about the sort of the pain of paying up front for infrastructure and services, but we also have to remember all the folks that live in the community that … will use and utilize  – and require, really – the services and infrastructure associated with fees like this,” he said. “We’re lacking in that space. I would also add that recreational districts are really popular and have been for a long time. There have been fees around that because they bring needed and really very popular infrastructure to communities and neighborhoods that are actually valuable to people’s property values and public safety.”

Returning to Bohn’s previous comment, Arroyo noted that she completely agreed that extensive outreach would be essential to implementing a development impact fee program but said, “I view this very much as a slow burn item.”

“I see this as something … that could would take quite a while to implement because there would need to be a lot of underlying study and analysis,” she said. “We would need to really understand to what type of development this applies and what kinds of improvements we’d be seeking to fund with the development impact fees. … It would be good to confer with our counterparts in the cities to understand what their appetite is for this and … [if there are] potentially other community services that can be funded.”

Returning to the subject of increased building costs, Bushnell said she would like to know more about how development impact fees would affect rural communities in comparison to cities, but said she wouldn’t be in favor of an additional fee that would serve “as a deterrent to building homes.” 

Bushnell also asked Ford how the additional research would impact staffing in his department.  “A lot of it depends on the board’s action on the budget in terms of what our staffing is gonna look like,” he said.

Speaking during public comment, Dave Watson, a representative of the Humboldt Builders Exchange, said he generally agreed with Bohn’s concerns surrounding increasing building costs but expressed support for Arroyo’s idea of streamlining the process to make it easier for development along the way.

“That’s absolutely fantastic, but I think the real fear is that it’s going to end up costing more money,” he said. “We’ll establish a secondary bureaucracy. We’re going to add more steps and the [EIRs] and all the other mitigation are still going to need to happen. It’s hard to see this as a net positive but I’m absolutely going to participate in any way that we can.”

After a bit of additional discussion, Wilson made a motion to move forward with staff’s recommendation to conduct more research on the item. The motion passed in a 4-1 vote, with Bushnell dissenting.

Public River Access at Fisher Road

The Board of Supervisors also received an informational report from staff regarding public access to the Van Duzen River via Fisher Road near Hydesville.

Local residents and avid fishermen have used Fisher Road to access the Van Duzen River for decades, but a change in the river’s course a few years back left a near-vertical cliff along the bank, making river access more difficult. The river access point also requires trespassing on private property, though the county has asserted a common-law dedication through public use and maintenance.

The property owners, Kelly and Shelby Patton, asked the county to give up the southern portion of the road late last year to prevent the public from using it as a river access point. The matter was listed on the board’s Dec. 20 agenda but the meeting was canceled in response to the magnitude 6.4 earthquake that rocked the entire county.

Members of the Humboldt County Fish and Game Advisory Commission have pushed back against the property owners’ request to vacate the road, arguing that the public has a right to access the Van Duzen River.

“California’s Constitution of 1879, laws, and judicial decisions have established public rights to access the state’s navigable waters, as well as tidelands, submerged lands, streams, lake, bays, and estuaries,” according to an Apr. 18 letter from the commission. “These resources are held in ‘public trust’ for current ad future generations. The public trust doctrine was established to ensure that government officials protect these sovereign lands for the use and enjoyment of the public, free from the obstruction of interference of private landowners.”

Before taking questions from supervisors, a lawyer from the county counsel’s office advised board members to keep their questions focused on public access rather than Fisher Road specifically. Similarly, Madrone reminded the board several times throughout the discussion that the item at hand was an informational report and did not require any additional direction from the board.

Speaking during public comment, Alicia Hamann, representing Friends of the Eel River and the Great Redwood Trail Coalition, advocated for continued public access to the river. 

“You’ve heard from many community members who value this relatively rare point of access on the Van Duzen River and many of those people also have used this road to access the river for decades,” Hamann said. “I want to focus right now on reminding the board that about 30 years ago, the supervisors proudly protected public river access, even going as far as litigating to preserve public access at Odd Fellows Park Road, about a mile east of Fisher Road, as referenced in our letter.”

Hamman added that the court’s ruling established that the Van Duzen was a navigable waterway, adding that the public had a right to use the river and the riverbed up to the high watermark.

Speaking on behalf of the Humboldt Trails Council, Bruce Silvey emphasized the importance of the county securing and maintaining public access to Fisher Road, which will eventually intersect with the proposed Great Redwood Trail.

“The river access, at this point, is the only access along the Carlotta Branch Trail and the trails council believes that having a clear river access point will have an important impact on the number of people using the trail,” Silvey said. “The more people who use the trail, the safer the users feel and the less unwanted activities will occur on the trail. Also, there’s added benefit of a healthier and happier community with increased trail use in the county.”

Steve Rosenburg, a retired attorney and a fisherman, added that the public has a right to use the river access point under the California Constitution and case law.

“The end of [Fisher] Road has been used – until a few years ago – for over 75 years continuously despite the fact it’s been in private property ownership in the last several years,” he said. “The public has a permanent right, by this long-established use, to not only require the county to continue the county road in effect [but] also, the public has a right to use the private property’s narrow strip of land for access to the river bar as it has for 75 years.”

Rosenburg acknowledged the issue of dumping and illegal camping on the river bar but maintained that “there’s a way to handle that through enforcement, key access,” and other strategies. 

Kelly Patton, one of the property owners, maintained that “there is no deeded right-of-way all the way down Fisher Road,” adding that he had former Second District Supervisor Estelle Fennell and a representative with Fish and Wildlife at his property some years ago to look at the road. 

Patton | Screenshot

“They pulled all the armor out of the bank that had been there 35-plus years and protected that parking lot,” he said. “Basically, we argued about [the] process of what them pulling the armor out was going to do to the access. They told me I was a fool and said I didn’t know what I was talking about. The first winter, about five years ago, it washes all out and gets blocked off. And not by our doing. I did everything I could to keep it open. But we’re not going to give up more land or give up part of our fields to give new access to the county.”

Patton added that there are several other river access points in the area.

His wife, Shelby, criticized the Fish and Game Advisory Commission and others for “being outraged about things they don’t know” and for failing to consider the other side of the story.

“If people don’t choose to find out what the truth is and what property law is, we’re going to continue to repeat and repeat these issues,” she said. “I can definitely tell you, in this particular case, if [the Fish and Game Advisory Commission or Rosenburg] had just approached us personally [and] respectfully, we might not be in the same situation we’re in right now.”

Turning back to the board for discussion, Wilson acknowledged the “variety of opinions around public access,” but said that the county, as a public trust agency, is obligated to “public trust responsibilities with relation to access to public trust resources throughout the county.”

Wilson made a motion to receive and file the report, which was seconded by Arroyo. The motion passed 5-0.

###

Other notable bits from Tuesday’s meeting:

• The County Administrative Office requested the board pull an item from the consent calendar to further discuss a $4.5 million bid to repave the parking lot at the California Redwood Coast-Humboldt County Airport. To meet requirements set by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the county is required to open the public bidding process before receiving the FAA grant funding. The winning bidder will be selected shortly after bids open on May 31, and a separate item will be brought to the board to enter into a contract with the winning bidder. The county will be reimbursed in full for costs associated with the project.
• The board met in closed session to discuss anticipated litigation from former Deputy County Counsel Cathie Childs who asserts that she was wrongfully terminated by the county last fall. The CAO did not report any action on the matter.
• The board adjourned in memory of local artist and activist Richard Evans, who passed away earlier this year.

###

Press release issued by Danco on behalf of the Samoa Cookhouse:

We are thrilled to announce the upcoming renovation of one of the most historic and last-standing Cookhouse restaurants in the Western United States. We are confident that this renovation will enhance the experience for our guests and ensure that the Samoa Cookhouse continues to be a beloved destination for years to come.

Since 1890, the Samoa Cookhouse has long been known for its distinctive character, and we are committed to preserving that character while also making necessary updates to ensure that the space is comfortable, functional, and welcoming for all guests.

The renovation will be a significant undertaking, with a focus on preserving the restaurant’s historic character while also updating the space to meet the needs of modern restaurants.

Major improvements will involve adding eighteen rentable hostel rooms upstairs and one fully accessible ADA unit on the main floor, outdoor seating areas, and adding thirty-six cabins below the Samoa Cookhouse which can be rented for family gatherings and events. 

We are aware that the renovation of the Samoa Cookhouse means you will have to wait to eat our famous french toast and delicious fried chicken, but we know you will understand that this renovation is necessary to improve and provide you with an even better dining experience in the future.  

Thank you for your continued support and enthusiasm for this project. We appreciate your patience and loyalty, and we look forward to welcoming you back once the renovation is complete.

The Samoa Cookhouse