Home > Uncategorized > Marina Center EIR released

Marina Center EIR released

In case you missed it:


Draft Environmental Impact Report

  1. November 28, 2008 at 7:23 am

    “The project would include remediation of the brownfield project site to meet federal and state environmental cleanup and water quality standards. ”

    if not them, then who…and please be realistic.

  2. November 28, 2008 at 7:35 am

    …mmmm… the before and after shots looks like what they did to Emeryville during the rehabilitation of the SF bay area.

  3. November 28, 2008 at 8:22 am

    Looks good to me.

  4. OffTheRez
    November 28, 2008 at 8:34 am

    Wow! what a relief Fred likes it. I am sure CueVI was quaking in it’s boots. Well, they won over the Dumb Ass population, now they just have to convince sentient beings.

  5. Anonn
    November 28, 2008 at 9:27 am

    If they threw up a mini storage park, Fred would give the thumbs up. Actually a big box warehouse is just like a really big mini storage unit. Very similar material palette & construction methods.

  6. Yikes!
    November 28, 2008 at 9:44 am

    If Fred likes it then it must be an architectural marvel. Good grief, Fred, where is your taste?

    To me it looks like it was inspired by the building the Coop occupies. Ugly beyond belief. But keep in mind this is only a drawing. The real think could well we worse.

  7. Yikes!
    November 28, 2008 at 9:46 am

    Make that “The real THING could well BE worse.” Fingers aren’t working this morning.

  8. Big Al
    November 28, 2008 at 10:42 am

    I can’t support a project that won’t survive 1 meter


    are you high enough?

  9. Iron Knee
    November 28, 2008 at 10:57 am

    So far the comments seem to be about the astetics of the proposed buildings. Since when does Eureka have any standards about astetics?

    Let’s just build another Serenity Inn/RancHotel to keep with the understated “I-can’t-believe-this-isn’t-a-ghost-town” look we have been going for.

    Homeless camp? Isn’t this whole town a homeless camp?

  10. Anonymous
    November 28, 2008 at 11:07 am

    Iron Knee’s comment is unfair and inaccurate–Eureka DOES have aesthetics, and is actually a pretty neat city once you get over your black and white version of reality. Eureka has a Design Review Committee, and a very interesting combination of architectural styles reflecting the region’s history.

    If you want to see a place with no standards for aesthetics, check out what has been done to McKinleyville under the County Planning Commission. We now have FOUR storage locker centers on the main drag, a 7-Up bottling facility between the Senior housing and the main drag, a “Mid-Town Trail” that is an asphalt path between 6 foot wooden fences…

  11. Anonn
    November 28, 2008 at 11:12 am

    My biggest beef is with the traffic mitigation plan. They seem to be proposing adding a traffic signal at Hawthorne and Harris Streets to help guide traffic away from 4th and 5th streets. They seem to think people will go North first on side streets to get to Broadway, then head into town on Hawthorne or Harris instead of using 4th & 5th. What a joke. Do they understand that Broadway is also Highway 101?

    Atleast the study concludes that these plans will result in, “”significant and unavoidable” traffic congestion.

  12. Anonymous
    November 28, 2008 at 11:19 am

    they won over the Dumb Ass population

    Wow, OffTheRez is a first class flaming troll. Way to insult the guy. You won me over with your amazing argument and astute observations.

  13. Anonn
    November 28, 2008 at 11:23 am

    The Marina Center will look just like this strip mall in Windsor off of 101

    Windsor Strip Mall

  14. Anonn
    November 28, 2008 at 11:27 am

    That link again:

  15. Anonn
  16. olphart
    November 28, 2008 at 11:47 am

    It could be used as a transfer station for trash. But then, whoever owns it gets to design it and let the city review. Some of you would have bitched about the Taj Majal being ugly and out of proportion to the rest of the countryside. Let something get built there.

  17. Clean Cut McDaddy
    November 28, 2008 at 12:01 pm

    It looks like the proposed traffic mit. plan actually provides for an increase in the LOS for most of the intersections in town.

    It also looks like the traffic is an issue with or without Marina Center. This might an opportunity to pay for improving the traffic flow on Broadway.

  18. Anonymous
    November 28, 2008 at 12:34 pm

    oh yeah, there’s the justification for anything developers want to build–the gov’t is too broke to pay for the infrastructure, so we’ll make the developers to pay for [fill in the blank public service]. And if we don’t allow development, nothing good will ever get done.

    I wonder how the developers feel about that?

  19. anonymous
    November 28, 2008 at 12:55 pm

    “Some of you would have bitched about the Taj Majal being ugly…”

    Yeah, count me in on that!


  20. Anonymous
    November 28, 2008 at 12:56 pm

    Wow, that aerial view looks just like how Eureka will look, except entirely not.

  21. Clean Cut McDaddy
    November 28, 2008 at 12:57 pm

    My point is that so long as the traffic flow is already FUBAR, how could anything be built in town without creating more traffic?

    If you think that infill is a good idea, aren’t you implying that you will live with more traffic in town in order to avoid building on the outskirts of town?

  22. Anonymous
    November 28, 2008 at 1:12 pm

    The real issue if adding a huge retail hub right at the critical intersection where Broadway/101 turns 90 degrees down 4/5th streets. This is the worst place to add a shopping center because it affects an already congested intersection. That is why they are trying to push the traffic down to Harris and Hawthorne.

  23. Anonymous
    November 28, 2008 at 1:13 pm

    Wow, that aerial view looks just like how Eureka will look, except entirely not.

    That’s exactly what the EIR aerial plans look like. Sorry to burst your bubble Randy.

  24. November 28, 2008 at 1:56 pm

    If someone other than Rob Arkley had proposed a mixed-use, restored wetland and rehabilitated brownfield, most of these comments would be favorable. The relatively small amount of retail is needed as a revenue anchor to sustain the rest of the project.

    This blighted and polluted site has sat idle for decades and served as a hotbed of crime and disease, at least until it was fenced in the past 2 years.

    This is the change you can believe in.

  25. November 28, 2008 at 2:07 pm

    CCM asked, “…how could anything be built in town without creating more traffic?”.

    Correct. The only thing that won’t create more traffic in that area would be something no one would use.

  26. Red Hummer
    November 28, 2008 at 2:20 pm

    Totally off base Crawford, most of us have a problem with a Home Depot parking lot taking up a big chunk of irreplaceable bay front property. Nice pitch for the developer though.

  27. Brush
    November 28, 2008 at 3:14 pm

    Forster Gill is a bigger FUBR to the Community, but it has a nice label and is not an Arkly Project…. so Lovelace has stamped his approval already!

  28. Anonymous
    November 28, 2008 at 4:51 pm

    Chris Crawford is in favor of Big Box business having complete control over our retail landscape. Hello Crescent City. Thank god he lost his bid for Supervisor in 2000.

  29. Anonymous
    November 28, 2008 at 5:14 pm

    Why are people against this?

  30. Not A Native
    November 28, 2008 at 5:36 pm

    Crawford is deceitfully equating opposition to Arkley with opposition to the Marina Center plan. That’s a smear intended to get support for the project based on sympathy for Arkley being treated unfairly.

    But it has no basis in fact. The Eureka citizens soundly rejected a big box development on that site, when Arkley wasn’t the owner. That vote reduced the property’s value, Arkley purchased it. At the time of purchase, Cherie Arkley said there would be no big box store and people were cautiously supportative.

    Now, a big box is again in the plan, but with new ownership. The citizens rejected it before Arkley. Rejecting it now isn’t because of dislike for Arkley. Its because they don’t believe a big box store is appropriate at that location.

    And BYW, for those insisting that it not be described as “waterfront” property, why is it called the MARINA center? A marina is a place where boats moor and obviously must have water access. If you believe a property description must be literally accurate, either this development is on waterfront property or the name is a lie. Which is it?

  31. Anonymous
    November 28, 2008 at 5:37 pm

    The Balloon Track was a hotbed of disease?! wow, Eureka has more problems than I realized! What was it, ebola virus, AIDS, antibiotic resistant TB? Surely Home Depot would be an improvement over a hotbed of ebola virus, I wonder if that got analyzed in the DEIR?

    November 28, 2008 at 5:52 pm

    True, infill will create more traffic, and crime, and disease, and tempers – yes, gentility and civility will not exist easily. Regardless, many people are not programmed to live less than five feet from another occupancy.

    SPACE = The New Frontiere…..and old!

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  33. olphart
    November 28, 2008 at 6:08 pm

    If traffic becomes too big a problem, then nobody would go there. But wait justa minute, Broadway is so jammed now with the Bayshore Mall, whoa, why does anyone drive there? This area already has many SoCal drivers with the gotta get there before you attitude – could be the real problem. More manners when driving. Parking lots seem like bumper car rides at times with no one wanting to hit the brakes and let another back up or a person on foot walk to their car without taking a chance on being run over.

  34. anonymous
    November 28, 2008 at 9:26 pm

    “The four parcels which roughly make up the tract of land know as the Balloon Track have an existing general plan land use designation of Public/Quasi Public (PQP) with a corresponding zoning designation of Public (P).”
    Did the Eureka City Council re-zone this to something other than public?

  35. November 28, 2008 at 9:36 pm

    Not yet.

  36. Anonymous
    November 28, 2008 at 10:02 pm

    This area already has many SoCal drivers with the gotta get there before you attitude – could be the real problem.

    Really? The only people who treat me like that on the road are driving pickup trucks with wheels taller than Lurch. Are SoCal drivers a bunch of rednecks?

  37. average Eurekan
    November 28, 2008 at 10:52 pm

    Sydney Olson finds that Marina Center would have a “less than significant impact” on urban decay in Eureka, completely ignoring the effect the Bayshore Mall had on other retail centers in Eureka when it was built. In the section on Urban Decay she pulls the figure “less than 4% retail vacancy rate in Eureka” out of her ass, without attribution. Where’d she come up with this one? How ahistorical and disingenuous of her.

    Her work is shoddy. She should be fired.

  38. Urban Decay
    November 28, 2008 at 11:40 pm

    She should be fired alright, even if it was a wonderful DEIR (which it is not) she spent over a year rewriting it for Rob. Who’s paying for that? What a waste of effort. Your big fat tax dollars at work!

  39. Anonymous
    November 29, 2008 at 1:05 am

    she pulls the figure […] out of her ass,/blockquote>

    OK, I’ll bite Average Eurekan. What figure do you have in your ass to share with us?

  40. Haka
    November 29, 2008 at 8:32 am

    Average Eurekan pull your head out of your ass. Sidnie didn’t find anything she is not the author of the EIR you idiot. Urban Decay you are also as ignorant. Fired for editing the DEIR for a project you don’t like? She is being objective with the findings made by the team of consultants. She also doesn’t have the final say over this project. The true ignorant public will give ownership to of this EIR to Sidnie… pretty sad..

  41. average Eurekan
    November 29, 2008 at 8:45 am

    Still waiting for attribution, Sydney….

    Structuring an entire urban decay project impact section on a single statistic, presented in isolation without accompanying historical information or context, is both disingenuous and unprofessional.

    It’s not my responsibility to provide tip-of-the-tongue commercial vacancy rates in the city of Eureka, though I’d be willing to bet that it’s higher than 4%. Furthermore, the statistic alone is unhelpful. More useful would be an honest analysis of the impact of creating a new retail center in a city and county already well-documented as over-retailed, drawing upon the economic data generated in wake of the establishment of similar projects, like the Bayshore Mall. Sydney pretends that the Bay Area Economics report commissioned by her employer, the City of Eureka, back in 1999, doesn’t exist because its highly-relevant information contradicts her intention to ram this project through.

    Too bad she cares more about her career than our city. We’d be much better off with less deceitful “Principal Planner.”

  42. Haka
    November 29, 2008 at 8:55 am

    You still don’t understand the EIR process. Put your name to your comments and address them to the City and they’ll be addressed as part of the public comment portion of the EIR. Calling planners deceitful because of what you think is missing in a relevant portion of an EIR is ignorant and hateful. Your tone hints of a pissed-off transplant in her mid 60’s. Please move back if you can’t add any constructive comments.

  43. average Eurekan
    November 29, 2008 at 9:05 am

    Why are you assuming that I’m not submitting comment on the EIR thru official channels? Does that preclude commenting on it here? Does condescension always come so easily to you? And you seem a bit confused yourself: first you say that she had no imput into the DEIR, then in the next sentence you call her its editor…. It’s pretty common knowledge around town that Sidnie sat on the DEIR for more than a year, tweaking it to get it to this point. Please, get clear on her role before you go attacking other commenters about it.

  44. Anonymous
    November 29, 2008 at 9:15 am

    Whoa. What is all this “transplant” and “move back” rhetoric? Talk about bitter. And its only going to get worse for you as no one is moving back, and more of “them” are moving here everyday.

  45. Haka
    November 29, 2008 at 10:08 am

    Common knowledge my ass.. She is an editor not the author of the Urban Decay section or study. Back handed complement to Sidnie if you ASSume that she had a large part in formulating the background analysis. Keep the transplants coming they are good for the community.. However, the ignorant ones who think Eureka is backwards or corrupt will continue to attack the messenger. Sidnie can handle the dumb ones in the Community.

  46. November 29, 2008 at 10:28 am

    What has happened to the spell check?

  47. Anonymous
    November 29, 2008 at 12:46 pm

    This is off-topic so apologies in advance. But being this is the best-read blog in the local sphere, this is the best place to ask this question:

    With the closing of Little Japan in Eureka, where can one find items like dashi, miso, wakami, etc. other than at the Co-op or Eureka Natural Foods?

  48. 06em
    November 29, 2008 at 1:06 pm

    Try the Central Asian Market behind Clark Street PO. Their operating ours are – ahem – somewhat erratic.

  49. 06em
    November 29, 2008 at 1:07 pm

    Operating hours, that is.

  50. ecumenik
    November 29, 2008 at 2:02 pm

    Hmmm, this is interesting. I’m trying to use my WordPress account to post as Moviedad, but it won’t let me. I have to use my middle name….

  51. Urban Decay
    November 29, 2008 at 2:11 pm

    Haka Says:
    November 29, 2008 at 10:08 am
    “Common knowledge my ass.. She is an editor not the author of the Urban Decay section or study.” “Keep the transplants coming they are good for the community”.. “However, the ignorant ones who think Eureka is backwards or corrupt will continue to attack the messenger.”
    So Haka are you a member of one of those ‘old’ families who can trace themselves back to the “Indian Island Massacre”? I would rather be a transplant who can see corruption for what it is, greed and ignorance.
    One year to edit this mountain of spin, she should have gone public with her dilemma, because she didn’t, she owns it now!

  52. Haka
    November 29, 2008 at 3:33 pm

    Tell me Mr. Decay what is the dilemma besides being the planner chosen to facilitate a project you don’t like? The clueless or paranoid conspiricay flakes will always hold the planner responsible for the merits (or lack thereof) of a project. Fortunatly, there are people in the community that can see the difference and not hold Sidnie personally responsible. You and average Eurekan are mean spirited assholes calling for the firing of her because you don’t like a project she is processing.

  53. 06em
    November 29, 2008 at 3:48 pm

    Here is a link to the Bay Area Economics report (in pdf form) that average Eurekan referenced above:


    If you’ve never read it before, it is especially germane to the Urban Decay section of this EIR — as average Eurekan notes. It includes impact analysis for not only a big box retailer like Walmart starting in Eureka, but also analysis for a big box home improvement store, as well.

    It is hard to understand why the Bay Area Economics study wasn’t referenced in preparing the EIR.

  54. average Eurekan
    November 29, 2008 at 4:06 pm

    wow, a voice of reason.

  55. Haka
    November 29, 2008 at 4:29 pm

    It does sound like good data that should have been used in the DEIR. By law the City has to respond to that sort of comment. Calling for Sidnie’s job because it is not in the Urban Decay section is still petty. You are still a hateful person Average Eurekan. O6em sounds objective. Yes, a voice of reason.

  56. Looking on sadly
    November 29, 2008 at 6:37 pm

    Sidnie did have a lot to do with this pile of crap, but she didn’t have much to work with. The original consultant work was very poor which is why it took her a year to get this mess out. And flawed it does appear to be. The Urban Decay section looks really weak as has already been pointed out, and the Transportation section seems a whitewash, It is hard to believe Caltrans signed off on it. In fact it is not clear Caltrans signed off on anything. Don’t they care, or is the idea they can pry some money from a developer to help fix the mess on Broadway clouding their judgment?

  57. Urban Decay
    November 29, 2008 at 9:35 pm

    Haka Schmaka, it is not a senior Planner or Principal planners job to launder bad work! She should have sent it back to Robbies boy or gone public. Instead she spent a year or more working on this drivel, do you know how much she got paid for that? $$$$$$$$
    I have never met Sidnie or Kevin, they maybe nice people, but I think it’s time for them to go.

  58. Anonymous
    November 29, 2008 at 9:50 pm

    So decrees the anonymous coward, these heathens shall be expelled from paradise.

  59. Anonymous
    November 30, 2008 at 1:13 am

    Humboldt County is only considered “over-retailed” by government bureaucrats and their apologists using their cooked-books official statistics. The underground economy is what’s keeping many of the more interesting businesses afloat, and it’s not going anywhere.

  60. Anonymous
    November 30, 2008 at 7:30 am

    Kevin really cares. After all, he gave $2000 to Yes on 8.

  61. Anonymous
    November 30, 2008 at 7:50 am


    Too bad there’s no open minds here.

  62. Hold it just a minute now
    November 30, 2008 at 8:23 am

    Kevin was doing what his church told him to do. This has nothing to do with the Marina Center.

  63. Anonymous
    November 30, 2008 at 8:37 am

    Fire them? I guarentee, you haven’t read the EIR cover to cover study to study. And what are your qualifications to judge the EIR and these planners? The EIR is in its draft form. You can’t launder bad work, especially with a project of this magnitude. This is the time the public weighs in on its adequacy. Make your concerns known in writing. Read the first page look at the number of consultants who worked on the project. The ignorant, like yourself, will give 100% ownership of the document to the person processing the project. Calling for the jobs of these folks is hateful and misguided.

  64. November 30, 2008 at 8:54 am

    The Times-Standard editorial is shallow and half-witted. Yes, now that the EIR is out let’s pretend we were all born yesterday and forget what we already know about Home Depot, current retail climate, traffic problems, Rob Arkley’s bullying tactics, etc.

  65. Anonymous
    November 30, 2008 at 9:15 am

    Sidnie and olphart must not have been to the Bayshore Mall lately. The last couple times I went to the mall there were very few cars, even less shoppers, and wat more than 4% of the storefronts are vacant. The mall is dying but Broadway is still congested.

  66. 06em
    November 30, 2008 at 10:59 am

    There may be artificially deflated conclusions regarding the vacancy rate. The consultants use Total Building Area and Available Space as headings in the chart that calculates vacancy rate in Appendix M. Total Building Area must, by definition, include the wide pedestrian concourses inside the Bayshore Mall. Available Space is most likely vacant store space. Including the concourses in the vacancy calculation will always show less of a vacancy rate than the reality. Put another way, if the Mall was completely empty of tenants, the vacancy rate would still not be 100% if you used the formula this DEIR appears to use.

    This is just one of several questionable parts of this analysis. Another area of concern is why they use average income instead of median income for calculations. I’m not enough of a math whiz to understand the possibly valid reasons why average income (which artificially pumps up income) would be used instead of median income (which is generally accepted as a more accurate reflection of reality.)

    According to the Humboldt Association of Realtors, the median household income in Humboldt County is $40,762 as of September of 2008. The DEIR uses average income of $53,537 for 2008 in Appendix N. Major difference.

    Never having read one of these reports before, I get the distinct impression that the client tells the EIR preparer the conclusion they want and the preparer manipulates data around until the desired outcome is arrived at. I guess a preparer who didn’t reach the desired conclusions wouldn’t stay in business very long.

  67. Anonymous
    November 30, 2008 at 11:43 pm

    Ah ha! 06em has discovered SHN’s business secret!

  68. Anonymous
    December 2, 2008 at 6:38 pm

    Hey math wiz, please explain how the average artificially pumps up income? The average is the average. The median is the median, that means there are an equal # of households above and below $40,762, while the average of those households is 53,537.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: