Public comments on two controversial projects are due today (Richardson Grove) and tomorrow (Marina Center).
The photo at right from Richardson Grove shows the location of the proposed retaining wall (just beyond the sign) if the project is approved. Notice there are no Old Growth trees in that spot, but the wall would protect such trees further up the slope, according to CalTrans.
There’s conflict at the Humboldt Herald HQ about this project. On the one hand, there’s skepticism that it will lead to vast development of the Humboldt hinterland as stated by some opponents.
On the other hand, we question why Rob Arkley’s latest “Sunshine” group is so interested in the project. Their recent ads on KINS promoted the road realignment, but also “misstate[d] the tree cuts” according to Jan Bramlett in today’s Times-Standard.
Some local businesses will benefit from the project, but so will some nasty, small-business-crushing big box corporations that are looking to further foul our small towns.
And then there’s the safety issue. Many a grizzly accident has happened in the Grove…but then again, cars (and big trucks) are dangerous!
If you’ve got your mind made up about CalTrans’ plans for Richardson Grove, send your comments to Deborah_Harmon@dot.ca.gov or Kim_Floyd@dot.ca.gov.
More info and opinion:
Sophie Lagacé: Richardson Grove EIR comments
EPIC: Protect Richardson Grove
Mark Loughmiller: Supporting the realignment of 101
Cristina Bauss: Drive-Thru Redwoods
[Photo by Ann Johnson-Stromberg]
Heraldo, I think you succinctly summarized the struggle a lot of people are having over this issue. A necessary improvement, perhaps, but at what cost?
I couldn’t help noting the notoriously non-existent bike lanes in the photo you posted. A wider road would open us up to bike traffic at the south end of the county. I can’t think of a “greener” argument for the road expansion.
You really shouldn’t have to risk your life to bike in and out of our beautiful county.
Thanks, James. I could go back and forth all day over it. There are good arguments on both sides of the issue.
I am for the Richardson Grove Project as it will be safer for the motorists and pedestrians than what is currently existing. It would be appropriate to have a bike trail loop and a pedestrian loop as well. Whether the loops can allow enough room for both (in tandem) is not really known yet.
As far as consumerism – that is under the control of the individual shoppers. Boycotting business models not adapt to the concerns of a community of shoppers in retail is an individual decision to be made by those particular consumers and shoppers. This is where education and communication come into play. If the old growths are not going to be clear-cut or cut at all (as Kym aluded to an 8″ trunk being the largest tree cut) then this eases the heartfelt concerns for preservation of the Old Growth Grove. Further, there will be less loading and unloading immediately outside of the grove which consumes fossile fuels which create airborne toxins and particulants, time, energy, parking, increases safety concerns and impacts, etc… The one thing that came across my mind was that truck drivers would work less numbers of hours; therefore a pay decrease may be realized by the truckers when they do not have to load and unload onto different trucks for purposes of mobility through the grove. Hopefully costs will go down to the consumer; however, with the way profit margining occurs with big business, I doubt it. Thus, economic savings to the consumer is not really a valid argument until the consumer and business experience financially the transfer across of the price credits justifiable. We shall see.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
Narrow roads are hazardous enough without bicycles on the side.
Anon, You have to realize that bicycles have equal rights to the road. Oregon has provided bike LANES on each side of rte 101 along the coast for practically the entire route. Yes, a separate bike PATH (as in Holland, Denmark and much of Germany) would be preferable, but that’s a more expensive proposition. The mere existence of bike LANES makes bicycle travel possible and cyclists have come to Oregon in great numbers.
I too think the dire development predictions are overblown, as are the claimed benefits.
I’m pretty certain that this project will be implemented simply because CalTrans weighs the possible benefits as greater than the possible harms. Its fairly inexpensive and will eliminate a thorn in CalTrans side, complaints from shippers. And after its done, the businesses along there will probably see their receipts drop off as a result.
Heraldo, my older article in the NCJ (the one from February) is actually much more detailed than the most recent one – if people are up to a 4,500-word story with a LOT more information from all sides concerned!
P.S.: Thanks for the publicity, though!
Well stated, H. This is a complex issue with compelling arguments on either side. The arguments that don’t float my boat are those that promote our isolation for fear of rampant development.
Cristina, do you mean this article from last March?
James Faulk I think you are totally hot in a succinct kinda way, even though some folks would argue otherwise.
Were I to profess my love for you, it would cause my heart to flutter just a little more, but at what cost?
/snark
(seriously dude, I love you in ways that make the Pope nervous and not in that weird Durant way, which is like, totally not cool, sharing sleeping bags and stuff while playing homeless guy)
“You have to realize that bicycles have equal rights to the road.”
Well there you have it… Let the bicycles haul their fair share of the freight and the problem is solved.
This is not being said to disrespect my old friend Gorden Inkeles, It’s just he was the one to spark my mind with this perfect solution. I’m surprised that I hadn’t thought of it before. I’ve just been so hung up on thinking that my Freight Hauling Flying Pigs were the solution that I haven’t been thinking clearly.
You know what they always say; “With rights, come responsibilities”. Freight racks on all bikes would be a start.
To clarify, does the road actually run through Richardson Grove, or merely nearby it?
Greetings from the past, Ernie! Lot of water over the dam…
Since I drive and cycle, I’ll settle for a bike lane for my cycling friends. Maybe you’ll join us one of these days. If you do, you’ll be glad to have such civilized amenities on our roads.
I went on a month’s cycling holiday in Holland last year. They have a country the size of delaware with ten thousand miles of dedicated bike paths. The Dutch get bicycle infrastructure for their tax dollars; we get aircraft carriers…
Here’s a link on cyclist’s rights and some of the issues we face closer to home: http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/sharetheroad/index.php
What is the website or e-mail for the Marina Project Again?
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
Gordon, I’m glad that you didn’t take my bike theory personally. I actually like to ride bikes, but I don’t enjoy the open road bike riding.
What a lot of Americans fail to realize is that Europe has a highly subsidized, and highly utilized rail system. That frees up a lot of roads for bike space. Here in America, Railways are despised for some reason. We need to build railways with long term use in mind, and the roadbeds should be built to be stable, or not at all. In view of the fact that we will probably never be allowed to build a railway we have to make do with trucks in and out of Humboldt Co. Many trucking companies already refuse loads into Humboldt because of our roads. The trucks that do come into Humboldt are limited in size and they can’t travel nearly as fast as they do on, say, Interstate 5. So, we are not an attractive market for a truck. That fact adds to the price that we pay to bring product in, and we can’t compete, price-wise, with what we ship out. Our bad roads are a loose, loose situation for us. Unfortunately, I think that some people like that.
He’s talking dedicated paths, Ernie. In Belgium for example, many of the paths occupy old rail corridors.
to be fair, the dutch have benefited from our aircraft carriers
The economic justification is based almost entirely on a woefully inadequate Humboldt County Economic Development Division online survey. For example, you will find that conclusions concerning the “Effect on Annual Truck Traffic” are based on only 14 responses. The “Annual Impacts” are based on only 19 online responses. We could put eight traffic lanes through Richardson Grove State Park and we will be no closer to major hubs and markets.
The Confusion Hill Bypass project makes a lot of sense. Benefits go to all users equally. In addition, significant economic and environmental gains are evident and can be tracked. Not so with the Richardson Grove project.
It’s not just trucks. There is (or was) a lot of junk next to the road there. Stuff like motorhome ladders and mirrors, pickup mirrors, truck mirrors. Basically anything that could be sheared off the side of a vehicle.
421? You said it!
Wal Mart in Crescent City gets its goods over 299 that mega big box will not benefit as its distribution center is in Cottonwood unless heliedo says different
Ernie,
I’m with you on the advantages of rail travel. A working railroad here would be a beautiful thing. It would change everything. Alas, it’s still a distant and expensive dream.
However, lower freight rates and bicycle access lanes are within reach and would benefit nearly everyone in the county. The bypass brings us both and that’s why I’m a supporter. Droves of bike tourists would visit us every dry season if they could just get in here without risking life and limb. Anyone who rides a bike will tell you about the health benefits. I certainly didn’t see many fatties in Holland.
Both rail and bike infrastructure are benefits of a civilized society. Yes, the rail system is subsidized in some (not all) European countries but that’s what government is FOR. The bikes use public roads in Europe not because there are fewer cars on the road, but because bikes have somewhere safe to ride: often a wide, separated lane to the far right. The bypass will at least give cyclists a lane, if not a separated one. That was enough to transform the Oregon coast. We can do as much here.
They will widen the road. We will forget the issue. Next.
I’m sorry I was gone when Henchman of Justice, Anonymous and Gordon spoke about safety. Clearly, they had not read the section of the Richardson Grove EIR that talks about traffic and safety; the EIR explicitly says there will be no improvement after the project. Alas, it does not evaluate whether it will get worse with the new STAA-compliant trucks.
“Provide two 12’ travel lanes and two paved shoulders (old growth
redwood trees will encroach into the shoulder in locations)”
The above is taken from the CalTrans report. Those “two paved shoulders” would provide the crucial bicycle space that we don’t have now. Redwoods are preserved. Freight rates go down for everyone.
Sounds like a win-win to me.
Unfortunate Sophie that you feel that a wider roadway is the same as the existing roadway. A wider road is safer in the “real world”. However, no road is safest of all, that we can all agree upon, yes?
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
Wait — Bryan Plumley (husband of project leader Kim Floyd) says the road won’t be wider, only “curvier.”
“Curvier” could imply more smoothly curved instead of sharply curved. As PM 2.1 hazzards are discussed, along with shoulders and crossing over the double yellow line, skid factors, etc…. Sorry Sophie, Cal-Trans has been in my URL for a long, long time. In fact, I will hopefully be getting a guided tour of the Confusion Hill Project. If anyone else wants to go, let me know. I have already made arrangements to get a look see when it is workable for Cal-Trans and their safety requirements prior to opening the road up for public usage. I know the powers that be are concerned about the Henchman understanding reality. Was that Supervisor Jim Smith earlier Heraldo; or, a different Jim Smith?
Just to give a snip-it for Sophie and the groupees who like to spin stuff and make honest people look other than honest, here is an excerpt from the Cal-Trans web site:
“The realignment improvements would also improve safety for other large vehicles such as motor-homes, buses, and vehicles pulling a trailer.”
Again, let us communicate on positive terms rather than probationary terms.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
“Groupees”?
Jimmy Smith is at a Supervisors meeting today.
#1 Yes, those people who are involved in groups for coordination purposes.
#2. Yes, as he should be beginning at 9:00 am; not beginning at 8:47 am.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
Rest assured, it was a different Jim Smith.
I was somewhat leaning that direction since I have yet to discover Jimmy going by Jim.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville 5th District
New blog for Richardson Grove at:
http://saverichardsongrove.blogspot.com/
ALL posts and authors for or against the project are invited. Archives are in process.
It’s so great to be back, I love you HUmboldt County!
So when do we hear from the city next regarding the Marina Center DEIR? How exactly does this process work?
Henchman of Justice said:
“Unfortunate Sophie that you feel that a wider roadway is the same as the existing roadway. A wider road is safer in the “real world”. However, no road is safest of all, that we can all agree upon, yes?”
(1) It’s not a matter of what I or anyone “feels”; it’s a matter of traffic counts, accident types and rates, and the EIR/EA’s specific wording to the effect that the project will not reduce these rates.
(2) A wider road is not necessarily safer, nor less safe, by itself; you have to factor in traffic volume and speed, times of use, types of vehicles, etc. A very simple example is if the perception that the road is now “safer” encourages drivers or cyclists to use it more, or to drive faster. Another is the additional and much larger vehicles that were previously unable to use the road.
That’s why I asked in my comments that those effect be evaluated by CalTrans, something that is well within its abilities and is appropriate for the project. Finally, I do not suggest or believe that “no road” would be better or even safest — even in jest, this idea overlooks the fact that removing the road would in itself have impacts on transportation and safety! :-)
Sophie,
This project has already been studied to death. We can only support so much busy work for bureaucrats. At some point, you have to step aside and let people build the road they want.
EPIC up to bat for Richardson Grove:
http://saverichardsongrove.blogspot.com/2009/02/out-of-mind-mitigation-for-richardson.html
I feel that Scott hit a home run…
Road Fan said:
“This project has already been studied to death. We can only support so much busy work for bureaucrats. At some point, you have to step aside and let people build the road they want.”
Hm, that’s an interesting illustration of a common misunderstanding about the CEQA and NEPA processes. I think I’ll have to write a series explaining the general process and its purpose. Thanks for the idea!
Hey Sophie @ 3.26 pm,
Fair points; however, you questioned my integrity and I illustrated by “copy and paste” an “exact sentence” within the DEIR language of this R.G.P. about safety. Yes, it was your feeling (second sentence in your 6:53 am response) that I did not do something and that YOU did (next to last sentence in your 3:26 pm response). It may just be a matter of what you perceive in your mind and thought processes about the DEIR outcome. (Point #1)
As far as factoring in, that won’t be decided by myself or any other individual; that would be decided by Cal-Trans Engineers (or outsourced, qualified engineers). As individuals, we both can “evaluate” any potential project ourselves; however, the lead agency would still have the final decision procedurally to accept or not accept the individual evaluations. If there is evidentiary material that you feel needed to be in the DEIR, I would HOPE you presented that material in an unbiased fashion prior to the close of the public comment period (next to last sentence in your 3:26 pm response). (Point #2)
As far as “no road”, that was a simulated reference as if “no road currently existed”. If it were to suggest “deconstruction” from a point of view about “no road”, I would have clearly used the terminology of “deconstruction” to illustrate a “de-development procedure (for clarification).
Again, let us communicate positively rather than in a probationary fashion with regard to the Richardson Grove Project. Your points are well taken. Thank You.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
“Hm, that’s an interesting illustration of a common misunderstanding about the CEQA and NEPA processes. I think I’ll have to write a series explaining the general process and its purpose. Thanks for the idea!”
Thanks for showing your cards: for you this is a chance to make money by dragging us through even more “studies.” You could care less about making life easier for people in Humboldt County. Got your ticket. Will do everything possible to discredit and thwart you from here on.
People usually have different points of view when they themselves have been involved in the CEQA process as an applicant / landowner; as compared to being affiliated with an outside, external review interest. This is partly because the civil rights and due process affects the private applicant / landowner more than any other entity on private projects; and, affects the land owner more than any other entity on public projects.
It is also partly due to the increased understanding of the process as a result from being directly involved in “A PROCESS” WHICH WILL have a DIRECT cause and effect impact upon the interests of the applicant / landowner. Obviously, certain large private projects (i.e. Marina Center) will bring attention to more issues as compared to a smaller private project; however, the landowner / applicant will just have more mitigating standards to follow in accordance with and will end up spending more money to resolve any issues that must be adhered to based upon the outcome of “The CEQA Process”.
I happen to believe CEQA is good, but it really is in the hands of the “project planner” to not parry around the meaningful issues of the project at hand because it causes further interuptions which destroy credibility.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
It also creates fees for “consultants” who seek to cut themselves in to the project even if it wrecks the whole project.
Road fan loves the smell of freshly paved asphalt
Jeffrey, Jeffrey, Jeffrey…
Your are right about the project affecting the landowner(The people of the State of California) more than any other entity.
However, since Richardson Grove is OUR grove(as in the People of the State of California), and the fact that Cal-Trans has avoided adequate public review process, and the fact that the project(if given the “green” light) will be opposed through non-violent civil disobedience; I’d venture to say that this project is finished, dead in the water. They won’t even break ground.
Construction will damage OG roots, regardless of how many pecker poles Cal-Trans removes. Construction will disturb endangered species. There is an increased risk of accident during construction. More trucks means more pollution in our skies as developers rape our county of it’s spoils. We used to have whales, lots and lots of fish and big trees, what’s next for Humboldt’s rare and endangered list?.
You lost my vote, Henchman. Get Cal-Trans the %*&$ out of your pocket! :)
I’d vote for Ken Miller(if he runs) if I were you, McKinleyville.
Road Fan said:
“Thanks for showing your cards: for you this is a chance to make money by dragging us through even more “studies.” You could care less about making life easier for people in Humboldt County. Got your ticket. Will do everything possible to discredit and thwart you from here on.”
I’m sorry you feel that way, and perplexed as to how you draw this conclusion. I may not have expressed myself clearly: what I was talking about was providing information on how people — regardless of their personal preferences about any given project — can better understand the CEQA/NEPA process and participate in it. I hope that when I post on the topic, you too will find something of use.
Hey J.M.,
I am unsure as to why you would FEEL I am in Cal-Tran’s pocket. In reality, I live in no entity’s pocket. In fact, I am just an average citizen like you – not better, nor worse.
Anyhow, when it comes to Old Growths or Second Growths, I have done my “fair share” to protect and preserve. Would you like a formal tour of my stewardship practices. I will obviously need to make arrangements with the current property owner. Hopefully they did not cut the beautiful giant down. I do have pictures if you would like a review.
Additionally, we can both agree upon the landowner concept. Thank You for the recognition. As far as Cal-Trans avoiding an adequate Public Review Process, did you have some specific sectional points (missing in the DEIR) for which to justify your claims? Just curious.
Also, dolphins used to be in high numbers too before the corporate industrialization effluents were discharged into the ocean, thus poisoning the ocean habitat waters that dolphins swim in. A former C.R. economics instructor would come into class with wet, salted hair as he just finished surfing. I related with his background history as I tried surfing for a while, but I was not very good because the board I had was probably too small for a beginner. The thing that made me quit surfing was the yellowish foam that rolled up onto the beach. I got headaches every surf trip I participated in out on the north jetty.
Time to quickly eat and get back to what the self-employed do – work.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
Jeffrey, I have agreed with you on many topics in the past. But I must ask:
Why do you personally(not professionally) support the project?
Why do you professionally(not personally) support the project?
Does touring a Cal-trans project while stating that you support other Cal-Trans projects project a conflict of interest in your opinion? In your professional decisions?
Is McKinleyville not a bedroom community that would benefit large scale development from increased 101 traffic, along with Fortuna?(Arcata wouldn’t allow out of area big business in, Eureka wouldn’t either…hopefully)
Please feel free to read Scott Greacen’s letter to Cal-Trans in regards to public input and Cal-Trans’ lack of full disclosure.
Here is a small excerpt:
As far as the tour goes, please email me. I’m always up for a hike and a discussion. Anyone who defends the Earth is always on hero status with me.
But I must always question those in power who support such a damaging and far reaching project. You should too.
CalTrans has jumped through every hoop in the books and then some. You people had your chance to speak up many times. Finally the review process shut down and now of course you want “input.” yyou are just looking for a way to monkey wrench a much-needed road improvement. Well, we’ve got your number and we’ll make sure you fail.
Oooooo! Scary…More telemarketing calls.
And who’s we? You and Rob Arkley?
Hello J.M. @ 1:06 pm,
First Question’s Response: I personally support the project for increased safety to motorists and pedestrians walking or biking. I personally was almost hit head on several years back while traveling out of the area to do a High School soccer playoff match at Santa Rosa Junior College. Another time while traveling to the Mendocino Coast, I was again almost hit head on by a semi truck while ironically being in the vicinity of a couple biking along the side of the road. I also would like to see the Redwood Giants not being clipped any more too.
Folks have brought up some fair points. As I am sure you are aware, there will always be impacts during any kind of development. It is just my opinion based on the proposed work to be done that the impacts appear minimal. The benefits are minimal too outside of safety; especially since I believe the consumer will not realize any lower product prices because of many business models practice of “profit margining”, not to mention that the economy stinks and any profit that can be taken will be taken. If the speed limit can be heavily enforced by a Park Ranger or CHP or both, then this would help to alleviate much of the increased speeding that Sophie aluded to; however, the current road section through the grove currently experiences it’s share of road racing and motorist speeding. Maybe the speed limit will be reduced. I still wonder if a bypass of this grove is feasible; however, we would also be discussing the impacts of “new” development elsewhere. Obviously, leaving the road as it currently is would environmentally be the least impacting.
Second Question’s Response: Professionally speaking (from the current designs and proposed improvements), I see no advantages for myself or many consumers because again, the “profit margining” tactics that businesses use would negate lowering prices, especially since money runs this world through corporate and political abuses.
Third Question’s Response: A conflict of interest does not apply to me as an interested community member who is just thrilled that the slide at Confusion Hill will be avoided. I suppose if I supported the Confusion Hill bypass and opposed the Richardson Grove Project, then the projection could be said about conflicts of interest depending on from whose points of view; and, especially if I was a land owner near Richardson grove or Confusion Hill.
Fourth Question’s Response: Professionally, probably not since much of what I use to work with is imported from the north or east.
Fifth Question’s Response: The jury is still out on McKinleyville seeing a boom from Hwy 101 because currently, school enrollments are down; land is not as available for outside interests to purchase for larger devlopments; other jurisdictions along HWY 101 will experience many of the things that McKinleyville would when entertaining tourists, etc… Also, it was the Humboldt County Planning Department that pushed McKinleyville to be developed the way it is because of housing needs/ tax roll dollars; and, that McKinleyville proper really did not have forrests to mow down; however, it did have much in the way of AG lands for farm grazing purposes. This is the issue now – at what point does the history of McKinleyville as an agricultural and open space supplier become impotent. This came up during discussions of what incorporation might do to McKinleyville and its last remaining Ag lands along the Service District’s borders and beyond.
I will read the letter tomorrow as I am fading off into the zzzzzzz’s. If any procedural Due Process was violated, then a remedy must be provided to the Public in order to legally meet and fulfill the process. CEQA is only as good as it is properly implemented; any parrying will certainly reduce credibility of those whose responsibility it is to entertain and conduct a fair process for the public – or in the case of the R.G. project, the landowners (the people of California).
Off hand, I do not have your e-mail. I will click on your blue name to see if it links me to a contact source. As far as questioning those in power, it is absolutely the right of ALL citizens to question. I have done my share of questioning in the past and will do so too into the future. We may disagree on aspects of the R.G. project at this point, but maybe another alternative design could happen that would bring opposing interests closer to a middle ground approach. Afterall, it is questions and comments which bring to attention that a myraid of knowledge exists and that opportunities to make a proposal better must be analyzed.
Thank You for the fair response.
G-Nite.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
A boss is supposed to inform his employees when he won’t be in for the day due to illness, and be honest about the illness part. Yet again, you defend the indefensible. You have no shame. Look at who and what you are defending. You are not defending progressive ideals, plain and simple. You’re a disgrace.