Remarks by Steve Madrone
21 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 1 of 1
Yeah, I have nobody in the room 18 years old or older. And I am attending remotely due to cause for an illness issue. And I will keep my camera on.
A lot of theory, a lot of conjecture. We really don't know. What I do know is that the primary driver for these data centers is the increasing use of AI. And I will say I have a lot of concerns about that. I also have a lot of concerns with the fact that we already have maxed out power and aren't able to provide it to that Redway facility and a whole lot of other things in Southern Humboldt and around the community. So I'm going to be voting on the side of the ratepayers. And you can say whatever you want about it, Supervisor Roem, but it's a real thing. Costs are going up all over the place…
Yeah, so I appreciate this item coming back before the board. I think it's a timely discussion. And I will point out that there's another item on our agenda today that was pulled from consent in regards to a development whereby 79 parcels would be created where houses will be being built within an existing spruce forest. that has 100 to 200 foot tall trees in it. So it's not just old growth that creates hazards, I just wanted to say. I like the suggestion in the staff report about possibly developing a county ordinance and informing people when they're buying property and building homes…
He got you turn on your microphone and yeah through the chair kind of stuff yes my understanding is that a landowner can remove any tree at any time as long as they are not making a commercial use of that byproduct because then that triggers CAL fire permitting processes even if it might be just a zero to 150 foot exemption great
I appreciate this has been a long process, been 15 years since this was the tentative map was actually approved by the planning commissions, had a lot of extensions. It is a bit unusual that there's so many conditions still to be met at last point here, but the staff report details those in good form in terms of agreements being signed to get those completed before any parcels are sold and that kind of thing. Things change over 15 years. I mean, for instance, with Amazon, even though there was an EIR for the entire business part done 20-some years ago, conditions have changed, and they're…
I actually pulled it yesterday in my conversations with the CAO and that started a trigger of meetings and conversations. So I didn't wait till this morning to do that. And as you know, when we get these agendas on Friday at five o'clock and we were on vacation, it can take some time to review all of these things. So I believe I've done my due diligence, but I wasn't the one that chose to avoid doing a comprehensive EIR 15 years ago that put us in this position. So I really feel a bit insulted that you would suggest I'm trying to do something at the last moment. Well, I was told wrong. Excuse…
One of the other options is that we could continue this item until next week. We have the time to do that.
That's all right. Well, I would very much like to hear from the developer, you know, from the applicant, because it is unfair to change the rules halfway through. I absolutely agree with that. John, if you could come back up, please. So it'd be really nice to hear from the developer or his representatives in regards to why they chose not to do a comprehensive EIR 15 years ago. Is it not true that even 15 years ago, CEQA does have Regulations requirements that do not allow piecemealing which is exactly what's happening here There was not a comprehensive EIR that was completed now. I understand…
So part of that wetlands delineation and inventory included the setting aside of the 30-some acre parcel. It does have significant wetlands within it?
And that was one of DFW's recommendations?
Right, so as they build individual driveways or roads and if they have stream crossings, they'd have to do a special management area, SMA, special permit, and also DFW permits, things like that.
So when we talked, you mentioned that each individual parcel would have to do a wetland.
Delineation. And yet you're saying that that was done for the entire property.
So it was only done for some portions of the development, but not the individual roads, driveways, and house sites.
Okay, so it was just a partial delineation for a piece of the property.
So thank you, John. Thank you, director Ford. So I understood that there was a representative for the developer online on zoom. Is that correct?
Chris, thank you for being here to speak to the development. Yes, I recognize that there's been a tremendous amount of work done. As you mentioned, individual septic analysis as well as parcel development and all the things you mentioned. I recognize that. But there was no comprehensive EIR done looking at the cumulative impact of all that together. And some things change over time, and I agree that it's not fair to keep the developer constrained by those changes in time, like fire danger and things like that. 15 years ago, I don't think any of us really quite recognized how intense the fire…
Yeah. So, Chris, I appreciate that. So would I would assume that maybe a one week continuance would allow you to meet with your partners and see if they'd be willing to make that minimal investment in doing what should have been done in the first place. But if you would voluntarily agree to get that done. And so I'm leaning very strongly towards a continuance at this point in terms of allowing that to occur.
I'm saying that the applicant just, the applicant's representative just mentioned that this is a partnership and that Dan Johnson cannot make this decision on his own. There are, I think he said, eight different partners. And so it seems to me that a week would be more than enough time for those partners to confer and agree whether or not they would be willing to do the comprehensive wetland analysis for the entire property as a condition of approval of this map or not. It wasn't done.
So this item requires a four fifths vote. Is that correct? That's a majority. Okay. All right.
Thanks Paul and really the dedication of all the members of the commission are very much appreciated it's always always informative to go to the meetings and just watch the process of grant review or other issues and I know like you said access to the water our ramps that comes up you know our ramps are in desperate need of maintenance and we lost one at big lagoon for access so parks budgets have been really underfunded for a long time. And I, for one, I think other board members are hoping that at some point in the future we might, I don't know if it'd be a parcel tax process or whatever,…