Remarks by Michelle Bushnell
116 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 3 of 5
So it's not something that would happen without very large public process. And also, the five of us up here, if it got appealed, having input for our districts. Also, the five planning commissioners that we appoint plus two extras would have that input as well. Is that correct?
OK. So my concern still, again, is we have a process. And we seem to be superseding that process. To put an ordinance together. If we don't pass this moratorium, are you still going to be working on an ordinance?
Okay. So without the moratorium, we still will get an ordinance within a year. And in the meantime, it would go through the process that it would normally go through and have all that public input process, ways to reject or approve, correct?
Okay. If the moratorium passes today, is there any, because I would expect it's not going to be 45 days, it's going to be a year. Is there anything that we can do to allow for a process for smaller outlying areas that may be acceptable for these things?
But okay, so if we did an exemption to allow for a conditional use permit to be applied for, then those conditions could also come through Planning Commission. And I suspect they would. Given the concerns with the community, I suspect that those conditions would be implemented anyways through Planning Commission or through the Board of Supervisors. Just given the knowledge of the Commission and this board.
Thank you. I'm not going to vote for this, and it's not about data centers right now. It's about, say, doing a moratorium when we have processes in place and for allowing people to apply for permits for whatever reason, but we do have these processes already in place. What are we restricting? A permit application? I talked with Director Ford about this yesterday. And it's not about the data centers. I agree about the data centers, which we're going to be working on the process already in an ordinance. And anybody that applies for one, because there isn't any ordinance, is going to be very…
Would you have to do that with this process?
Any process. And then also, would referrals go out with an application like this if there was one?
And so it would go out to all the agencies that it normally goes out to?
Present that to commission, do all the things?
Is there an amendment that we could do that I would feel a little bit better about this that would allow for small facilities? Because I do anticipate this is going to be over a year in place, taking place, that would at least allow them the opportunity to get the no or to get the yes in the meantime without having that moratorium.
And so those are things that we are going to be probably putting into this ordinance as well, right?
Okay. I would ask the motion maker, because I'm not comfortable voting for it as is, but I do think and I recognize the community's, you know, concerns around the bigger data centers. So I'm going to ask the motion maker if you would consider amending your motion to include that.
Rex, can I ask, who are you referring to as them?
Thank you. I think the difference would be the renewable energy compared to the one in Arcata. Again, my concern is not around specifically, like the data center is in my communities, our concerns as well, but it's the process that we go through in denial of people of their property rights that concern me. We do have a process, even with 25, it still would have to go through Planning Commission could be appealed, could come to this board. And it is with the conditions that Director Ford had said it is very robust in making sure that that renewable energy and water and public resource trust is…
I would request the motion maker do 15. And I think that what you said, Mike, is part of what my issue is is that there are land use zoning that work. We don't put moratoriums on things because those work. That's my point. Not so much about data centers for me because I share the sentiment of concern around data centers. So I would ask that you go halfway and do the 15 and then call for the vote.
I see the funding sources, general fund contribution to the long range planning unit. So that would that be an additional request for the 80,000, whatever, or is it already budgeted?
Thank you. So I'm wondering, it originally says that HCOG was supposed to be the person to do this. What happened there? I'm going to ask you my questions and you can answer, okay? Secondly, the TAC, who will be appointed? It says members of each agency. So it would be Eureka, the ones you listed, plus the county, right? And... Thirdly, what is the goal and purpose of this with our, with this group? Like what are the focus, what are they going to do? And lastly, what is the program manager, who would that be?
Can I ask a question around that? Yeah. Adopting ordinances, would this group adopt ordinances or they would recommend and it would come back to this board for the county?
Who appoints for the TAC? There's several appointees or positions, and it does reference to staff. So does the, like, say, the city of Eureka, they decide who's going to be on the TAC? Is that how that works?
So then you, as a planning and building, would decide for the county?
Who would be the program manager and who would decide that?
Okay. And so would the TAC decide or no, would RCEA decide?
Sure. I will comment on the... Bridge dedication that I'm bringing forward for Oman Creek Bridge in the southern Humboldt area. Tom, the gentleman that I referenced to, he was a union person and passed in an auto accident and helped build that bridge. And so this is just the first portion. It goes to Senator McGuire from here. So just really wanted to recognize that.
I just want to say thank you for the work. It's a very hard thing to to have to promote and deal with and just all of it and just really want to thank for the work.