CFSB Board Meeting Minutes - September 19, 2022
Attendees: Chris Voss, Mike Nelson, John Colgate, Paul Teall, Harry Liquornik, Stace Cheverez, Adrian Stimson, Mary Nishimoto, Zack Robinson, Jeff Maassen, Gary Burke, Jeff Hepp, Michael Harrington, Ray Kennedy, Bernard Friedman, Mike Kenny, Tony Luna, Madeline Berger
Notes: Ava Schulenberg
Agenda:
Membership drive
Funk Zone Neighborhood Group engagement
Sea Sketch
Slip Transfer Subcommittee Meeting
Phase 1 appraisal
Saturday Market Vendor Meeting
New bylaws about fish buying
Insurance
Chamber membership
Wind Energy
Other
Chris Voss opened the meeting on September, 2022 at 4:05pm. Meeting was held in person in the harbor classroom and via Zoom.
Minutes:
Membership drive
Did a membership push with a prorated rate for the 3rd quarter of $25. CUDA dock no longer needed to be a member so our membership dropped. Could try a lifetime membership for several 100 bucks. Try a membership drive via a Christmas party fundraiser.
An aside on Safety Grants - Must be a member to get safety gear reimbursement via CFSB’s Cable money. Do not have to be a member to get reimbursed from Gary Burke or the County.
$1000 reimbursement limit through CFSB’s safety program
$800 via Gary Burke (to go this route, get a piece of paper and send it to Gerry Richter; items eligible include raft repacking, survival suits, etc.)
or through the county can get $500
Funk Zone Neighborhood Group engagement
“Keep the funk” has reached out to us to align on our common opposition to the new property development in the funk zone. This area is zoned for ocean use (Ocean Commercial). This project is targeted at the housing crisis and is not relevant to the zoning guidelines it falls in - We want to preserve the seafood legacy in the funk zone.
They have asked us to join their board - Harry asks if we can get a list of their current board to see what the group would be like if we joined
Paul asks why business owners wouldn’t want more people there, it's because this is not a group of business owners, it is residents concerned with gentrification, and lack of schools and grocery stores to service so many new residents.
Sea Sketch
Steve Scheiblaur alerted Kim that North coast and Central coast ports got funding to map their fishing grounds and suggested we may want to also have our own map of fishing grounds for our region to use when it comes to having a stronger argument as to where not to site wind and aquaculture.
When we spoke to NOAA, they feel that aquaculture can be placed in the channel not just with minimizing impact but avoiding it altogether - The Aquaculture atlas maps are inaccurate. We then spoke with Ken Bates about the North Coast mapping project and he explained that groups of guys in a room put up maps and circled everywhere where they think commercial fishing grounds exist, then a consultant digitized and combined the maps.
Chris says the work that’s being done by Sea Grant to map out fisheries is being acknowledged by the Coastal Commission.
Another way to do this is to map this out with a tool called Sea Sketch - Madeline Berger is here to present on this technology and will show us what it looks like to use this tool (she has offered to help us with this project pro bono)
Sea Sketch is an open source tool to collect ocean use data
It’s built by a GIS lab affiliated with NCEAS
Their basic methodology uses heat maps that show where people are fishing and also the value of those zones - These heat maps are created by the respondents input - Once the heat maps are created, the data is brought back to the respondents for accuracy check before they are finalized
There’s a questionnaire at first to get some basic information from the respondent, once this is complete, the respondent draws shapes (click and drag) on the map and select your fishery, gear types, etc. to be assigned to each shape, you can draw as many shapes as you want
You can assign how many people are represented by one shape; How much weight there is per shape can be incorporated into the data analysis
That’s pretty much the whole process, it’s a very simple, easy to use tool
Chris says it might be helpful to have the AOAs and other state fishing maps mapped out on the base layer if we decide to pursue Sea Sketch. Maddy says there are limits on layers, but we can talk more about specific options/preferences we want to include if we decide to move forward
Paul asks why Maddie would do this for free - Maddie says she cares a lot about these issues and thoroughly enjoys working with this tool. She also has worked with fishers on this type of mapping in other places of the world, but would like to work with our local community.
Harry says when done right, this could be a very good tool, but you need to capture as many people that are fishing in these zones as possible
Chris says we could focus on the small group of fishermen that will be displaced by the AOAs (the guys that fish the flats), Paul says a lot more folks will be affected by this because of the transit
Kim says a narrow scope is one way to do this, but if NOAA funds this, they would want to see the whole channel mapped (and would provide a bigger budget to do so)
Harry says when they did the islands, they used NOAA economists who weren’t politically partial
Paul thinks Maddie should be paid, Harry says she can submit a bill to NOAA
Kim asks if Maddie would be able to combine the digital and nondigital approach (i.e. if we give fishermen maps and pens and some do it online)? She says there’s a lot more room for error if it’s done with pens and paper vs doing it digitally - You can do it, but it will take a lot more time and more risk for data inaccuracies
We could create a stipend for people who are engaged, and if we have the budget to pay Maddie and she wants compensation, we will pay her.
Paul asks if transit is incorporated into the weight of value for shapes, because he feels it should be included and is very important. Maddie says this is possible to include though it has not been factored in before
If anyone wants to try the demo link and familiarize themselves with the technology, click here
Slip Transfer Subcommittee Meeting
Mike Nelson reported that the Harbor Commission established a Commercial Fishing Subcommittee and a Slip Assignment Policy Subcommittee and that he is a member of both (and the chair of the Commercial Fisheries Subcommittee)
Mike stated that during the last meeting of the Commercial Fisheries Subcommittee concerns were expressed by fishermen about three primary issues: Slip transfer fees, guest slip rates and the number of discounted slips assigned to commercial fishermen. He said that all of these topics were addressed recently at a meeting of the Slip Assignment Policy Subcommittee. The committee discussed whether slip transfer fees and the guest fee rates for visiting fishermen were too expensive, as well as, whether the landing requirements for discounted slips were appropriate.
At the Subcommittee meeting the Waterfront Dept. reviewed their budget, its revenues and expenditures and the financial contributions of fishermen. The Dept also explained why these issues exist and that decreasing fees in one section of the budget would require increases in another.
Mike finished his report by seeking direction and guidance from the Board and fishermen present regarding his participation on the subcommittees and the position he should take on these issues.
Stace does not want the requirement lifted, Mike Kenny agrees. He wants to leave the requirement low in case of injuries or retirement
Ray says that 20 years ago, 19% of slips were supposed to be designated to be commercial, but only 3 were because only 3 folks applied, so there is documented proof that there should be more commercial slips. This is a situation that was just poorly handled by the Waterfront Dept. - We should prove that the city owes 16 more commercial slips because this was their responsibility
There should be an effort to get after the inequity in per foot transfer free of commercial vs recreational, like 20% of the value of the slip overall vs. length
Tony says 20 years ago, there was a much more minimal transfer fee - He agrees that if we can get the transfer fee in proportion to the lease, maybe they’ll go for that, but how do we gather the data on recreational transfers?
Tony understands what Stace and Andy are saying in terms of their opinion, he is just asking for more commercial slips which will be a tough hurdle.
The general consensus is that we need more commercial slips, but need to be careful with the slip transfer fees because of the State Lands Commission may object and also examine discounted slip rates.
Chris emphasizes that if we go down this route, we will need a lot of fishermen in the room defending our position and explaining the fact that these are valuable things to our community; Mike Kenny emphasizes the importance of our presence and says to ring our bells and they’ll show up.
Kim says that an economic analysis of the impact of commercial fishing vs recreational economic impact will support our argument.
Jeff Maassen asked about potentially researching underutilized spaces in the harbor to create slips - i.e. by SB Landing where the UCSB boats are or SIMWE slips.
The commercial guys that are in recreational slips don’t contribute to the calculation of revenue taken in by commercial fishing, which was estimated to be a very low percentage (~1%), and they don’t have to show the 15k landing requirement
Gary says it’s a dangerous thing what we’re looking for - If you wanna ask why there’s not more commercial slips, that’s fine, but the city is going to want to get that money from somewhere, he says he did not like the meeting and felt like it was just a beat up session on commercial fishermen
Adrian agrees with Gary, but also says new guys are treated unfairly on slips and it’s really tough for them, he feels lucky to have any slip himself - He was unaware how many commercial guys do not have slips
Mike Kenny asks about live aboard permits vs commercial slips, there’s inequity everywhere
Tony says the guest slip issue wasn’t bad years ago, but now for example Joe Garrigan pays over $1k a month for his slip when Nick Tharp next to him, pays a fraction of that cost. He agrees that we do get a lot of good deals like no offload fees, infrastructure, etc. so we do need to be careful to not bite off more than we can chew, but in an industry that’s growing, we also have to emphasize the genuine need and be sure to take the right angle
Phase 1 appraisal
A few meetings back, Chris asked for approval to get an appraisal of the Wright family parcel property we’re considering for the Maritime Collective (2.1 acres) - It was approved to spend $7,500 on this appraisal. Chris now asks the board to spend the additional funds for the phase 1 appraisal (~$3.3k). This would be an official move that signals our genuine interest in this site to the city. Because the site could be used by the city for toilet to tap, we want to establish that this property is important to us too. Harry makes a motion to approve the funds to spend on the analysis of the property, John seconds the motion, Gary approves, Paul approves, Bernard abstains (joined late), (5-1-0 vote stands)
Chris is aware an appraisal will go stale quickly, but having some benchmark in our findings to fuel an acquisition is important
We’ve been told there is a lot of lead in the property, which needs to be understood in order to identify the value of the property
Jeff asks if we have an MOU of some kind, but we don’t and don’t think they would give that to us anytime soon
John says we should look at the Wright property and see if there’s an oil problem which would devalue the property
Jeff asks if there are any state entities that could exercise eminent domain with the coastal act justifying a land grab to build a bigger boat yard, Kim says that route seems highly unlikely to her.
Chris makes a motion to further review these figures via email within the next 2 weeks, nonresponse is considered approval
Ran out of time for these topics:
Saturday Market Vendor Meeting
New bylaws about fish buying
Insurance
Chamber membership
Wind Energy
Other
Kim’s Seattle trip
Harry feels this trip was redundant and did not receive a full board approval
Kim says she got a lot out of the trip and will provide a report on what she learned at the next meeting
Chris Voss ended the meeting on September 19, 2022 at 6:00pm.