The Humboldt County Planning Commission voted to certify a programmatic environmental impact report and to recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt the Humboldt Regional Climate Action Plan (RCAP) under Alternative 2 (a sustainable communities approach). The commission also adopted CEQA greenhouse‑gas (GHG) significance thresholds at 75% of the initial calculated values and forwarded the combined package to the Board of Supervisors.

Planning staff presented the RCAP, the recommended CEQA GHG thresholds guidance and the programmatic EIR prepared for both documents. "We are focused around increasing renewable energy, building electrification and decarbonization, reducing vehicle miles traveled and increasing zero‑emission vehicles, organic waste diversion, and carbon sequestration," planner Megan Acevedo said during the presentation. The EIR was prepared as a programmatic analysis; staff summarized potential significant and unavoidable impacts in several resource areas while also listing mitigation measures to reduce some effects to less‑than‑significant levels.

What the commission adopted: staff recommended — and the commission approved — a package that (a) certifies the RCAP EIR, (b) adopts RCAP Alternative 2 (the sustainable communities alternative), and (c) adopts countywide CEQA GHG thresholds set at 75% of the initial calculations presented in the guidance report. Commissioners moved and seconded the resolution and approved it after public comment and deliberation; the motion passed on a roll‑call vote.

Key components of the RCAP and debate points:
- Scope and partners: staff described 12 strategies and dozens of actions across energy, buildings, transportation, waste, wastewater, and carbon sequestration. Staff identified regional partners, including the Humboldt Transit Authority (HTA), Redwood Coast Energy Authority (RCEA), Humboldt County Association of Governments (HCOG), and Humboldt Waste Management Authority.
- Transportation measure t3 (infill and VMT reductions): staff proposed making the measure broader (countywide) but limited to infill development within a defined infill definition and within a half‑mile of transit. Commissioners and commenters debated whether to use the state’s standard infill definition and whether the transit proximity requirement should include a minimum service frequency to ensure meaningful transit access.
- CEQA GHG thresholds: consultants (Rincon Associates) had recommended a 50% reduction of initial calculated thresholds to better align with 2045 targets; staff presented three options (no change = 100% of the initial calculated thresholds; middle ground = 75%; and Rincon’s 50%) and recommended the 75% option as a compromise. The commission adopted the 75% option and asked staff to highlight the issue for the Board of Supervisors.
- EIR findings: the programmatic EIR identified potentially significant and unavoidable impacts remaining after mitigation in aesthetics, air quality (construction fugitive dust and criteria pollutants), biological resources and wildlife corridors, agricultural land conversion, cultural and tribal cultural resources, noise and vibration, and utilities and service systems. Staff emphasized the EIR’s mitigation and monitoring measures and noted the plan is a programmatic step that will require future project‑level environmental review for many actions.

Public comments and positions: dozens of public comments — written and oral — were filed and delivered. Highlights:
- Colin Fisk, with the Redwood Coalition for Climate and Environmental Responsibility (CRTP), urged adoption of Alternative 2 and asked that the county use the state infill definition and require that qualifying transit stops have sufficient frequency so that the transit proximity meaningfully reduces vehicle miles traveled.
- Matt Simmons, attorney for the Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC), urged retaining the thresholds analyzed in the EIR (Rincon’s recommendation) and warned that increasing the thresholds above the EIR‑analyzed values would change the project description and could require additional environmental review.
- Melody Meyer (Redwood Coalition for Climate & Environmental Responsibility) and others urged the county to rely on the Rincon recommendation (a lower threshold) and cautioned that raising the threshold makes it easier for projects to avoid significance thresholds, which in turn increases environmental impact relative to the EIR analysis.
- Other commenters (including local residents and environmental groups) raised concerns about renewable diesel and biofuels, the role and feasibility of sequestration, rural household constraints (propane reliance), and the need for funding and programs to support rural electrification and retrofits.

Staff and consultant clarifications: Rincon Associates and staff explained the thresholds were calculated using standard methods and then presented options for adjusting the numeric thresholds; Rincon advised a 50% reduction to better align with longer‑term (2045) targets, while staff recommended 75% as a middle ground and argued that the RCAP and creation of a regional climate committee will allow ongoing monitoring and adaptive updates.

Outcome and next steps: the Planning Commission’s resolution certifies the final EIR, adopts Alternative 2 of the RCAP and the CEQA greenhouse‑gas thresholds at 75% of the initial calculated thresholds, and transmits the EIR, the RCAP and the thresholds to the Board of Supervisors with a request that the board consider staff’s recommendation and the commission’s deliberations.