Home > Balloon Track, Eureka California, Eureka City Council, Marina Center, Rob Arkley > Waterfront Drive extension hearing coming up…

Waterfront Drive extension hearing coming up…

Screen shot of live meeting stream.

Remember you can watch Eureka City Council meetings online by going to the City’s homepage and clicking the big green “Watch Meetings” button (good only during meeting times).

As of this writing the Council is (slowly) working way toward the hearing on the wetlands-busting, big box serving-Waterfront Drive extension.

Tune in and follow along.

  1. April 17, 2012 at 6:52 pm

    Just opened item 12. Waterfront Drive extension on deck.

  2. HUUFC
    April 17, 2012 at 7:02 pm

    Hope they can get built, it will clean up the dumps and ease traffic on Broadway.

  3. HUUFC
    April 17, 2012 at 7:02 pm

    Whoops, get it built.

  4. April 17, 2012 at 7:29 pm

    Ok, here we go.

  5. April 17, 2012 at 7:34 pm

    Mike Knight: Staff knows this is the first time this has come before this council. could have later public workshop if necessary. Lisa Shikaney our planner is the most familiar and has been involved in enviro.

    Congestion and safety through 101 corridor has been a concern for decades. CalTrans had proposed a bypass but walked away in 1975 due to funding issues. Extension in 1997 and 1999 General Plan Update. Staff believes there are benefits if we can get through the environmental issues. Project could include protection and enhancement of natural resources(!).

  6. April 17, 2012 at 7:36 pm

    Knight: significant studies on the impacts. Spent so far: $358,000 on the enviro process, another $200,000 on planning and preliminary engineering.

  7. April 17, 2012 at 7:37 pm

    Project became in inactive in 2010 due to opposition. City received significant comments. Coastal Commission, environmental groups, others oppose the project.

  8. April 17, 2012 at 7:39 pm

    Biggest challenge outlined by late Peter Douglas of the Coastal Commission. He said project proposes to fill wetlands and the commission staff believes it’s in conflict with coastal act.

    Would also pose adverse impacats to ESHA’s (Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas).

    We might only need to fill behind the Bayshore Mall.

  9. April 17, 2012 at 7:40 pm

    Coastal Commission is adamant that it can’t be permitted. Would degrade marsh, in conflict with open space.

  10. April 17, 2012 at 7:44 pm

    Council can direct staff to continue on. If so, we would reach out to interested parties into series of meetings, consult with CalTrans and HCAOG.

    Or direct staff to cease work on the project. Then we would work with CalTrans and HCAOG and the county for a different project.

  11. April 17, 2012 at 7:47 pm

    Mike Knight: This is a complicated project with significant opposition.

  12. April 17, 2012 at 7:53 pm

    Linda: what would it cost to build this today?

    Knight: $10 Million. We would have a shortfall of several million, but those are old numbers

    Lance: how much to just finish EIR?

    Lisa: Because so much time has passed, we would have to go back and revisit all of that. Don’t have exact number, roughly 25% of original cost of studies, maybe less in some cases. Would have to get a consultant.

    Marian: Is there any estimate of what the value of an EIR would be for other projects?

    Lisa: We have studies for the trail, could be folded into future study into a trail. CEQA would be cheaper for just considering a trail. Litigation possible because of opposition.

  13. April 17, 2012 at 7:59 pm

    Linda: If we didn’t use money on this project we could propose other projects to HCAOG?

    Mike: Certainly, could refocus. Meant to address congestion. HCAOG would be the approver.

    Linda: If we were to complete the EIR, doesn’t it age? You need to put new information, not just keep it on the shelf.

    Lisa: it doesn’t expire, but you have to look at changes in the project or environment. Sea level rise is not a specific requirement to be addressed in an initial study. Coastal Commish will look at it closely.

    Mike Newman: How does the extension interface with Parcel 4 project?

    Lisa: It doesn’t. No Impact.

    Mike: That’s the place behind the Bayshore Mall where all the transients are hanging out, right?

    Lisa: Right. We have been in there cleaning up. Whole area has issues with camping and dumping.

    Newman: Lots of enviro issues from people being in there.

    Lisa: very impacted with transient issues.

  14. April 17, 2012 at 8:10 pm

    Lisa: Limited area where roadway can go. May be able to narrow the road. May be able to move closer to railroad.

    Knight: The project is extension 9,000 ft long from Del Norte to Hilfiker Lane

    Melinda: Your mitigating factors to appease Coastal Conservancy, to divert traffic to this alt. route but exclude trucks?

    Lisa: One idea was eliminating trucks between Del Norte St. and Trusdale. Would disrupt bird watching. Would still have congestion relief. It was an idea we came up with, didn’t get a chance to bring ideas before things came to a halt. Talked about it on a staff level, and preliminary talks with the CCC.

    Lance: It’s here to relieve traffic and offer alt. route. Came about the because bypass project tossed. Any other routes?

    Lisa; There are some routes occurring now because people are seeking alt. routes, like F Street.

  15. No Doubt
    April 17, 2012 at 8:10 pm

    Boy this is hard to watch. Eureka deserves better government.

    Or does it?

  16. April 17, 2012 at 8:35 pm

    Larry Glass: This project is just as illegal as it was in 2005.

  17. Guest
    April 17, 2012 at 8:53 pm

    Who’s the guy who flipped out in the first row of the audience?

  18. April 17, 2012 at 8:57 pm

    Only one speaker in support so far.

  19. April 17, 2012 at 8:59 pm

    Who’s the guy who flipped out in the first row of the audience?

    Regular meeting goer Richard Tollison.

  20. April 17, 2012 at 9:04 pm

    LINDA: Move we direct staff to cease the project and look at other projects

    Lance seconds for discussion and “no other reason.”

  21. April 17, 2012 at 9:07 pm

    Melinda: If that motion passes, would like to see these groups who have come here to address the other public safety issues out there because building a trail without vehicle access for ambulance or firetruck — it needs to be policed. Can we add that as an amendment?

    Linda: Yes, but you don’t have to patrol in a vehicle. Accepts amendment.

  22. April 17, 2012 at 9:08 pm

    Marian Brady: “This is a rush to judgment” (!).

  23. Guest
    April 17, 2012 at 9:10 pm

    Oh boy, Marian really don’t know squat about the Coastal Act

  24. April 17, 2012 at 9:13 pm

    Or how long the city has been working on this project.

  25. April 17, 2012 at 9:16 pm

    Marian: Arcata Marsh has a road, people have to drive there. if we could have something like that…

    Jager: these details are a future discussion.

    Marian: Just trying to figure out the difference

    (How many semis has she seen driving through the Arcata Marsh on the way to a big box?)

  26. April 17, 2012 at 9:17 pm

    Lance: Has this project been in front of the coastal commission? Staff is running the commission?

  27. April 17, 2012 at 9:19 pm

    Mike Newman: I can’t support the motion, needs more exploration. We need more public input. Not prepared to vote for motion to kill the Waterfront Drive. Heard nothing but compliments on extension through visioning process. But I am in favor of combination road/trail. I enjoyed riding between Monterey and Pebble Beach. Need public workshop and develop ideas.

  28. Rama Lama
    April 17, 2012 at 9:20 pm

    This is all about homeless bashing. It is disgusting.

    Find the homeless a place to live and they won’t be in the marsh.

  29. April 17, 2012 at 9:22 pm

    Linda Atkins: We will not find out if we can build this road until we spend another $300,000, and then put it before the coastal commission but not before litigation for another half million or so. Coastal Commission relies on staff, just like we do. Unwilling to spend more time — we have a lot of things we need to accomplish. This is a waste of time and money and will give us a lawsuit, and we will not get to build it. We can have more discussion, but we will just have to delay the decision that we or the Coastal Commission will have to make.

  30. April 17, 2012 at 9:23 pm

    Vote 3-2 to kill the project, with Newman and Brady dissenting.

  31. GhostofPeter
    April 17, 2012 at 9:25 pm

    What was that on Tyson’s face after the vote? It looked like egg to me.

  32. Guest
    April 17, 2012 at 9:26 pm

    Newman & Brady avoided a public grilling by Mr. Arkley tonight by casting their dissenting votes

  33. SmokeMonster
    April 17, 2012 at 9:32 pm

    Please return to pebble beach Mike.I bet they miss you
    Although public workshops for “developing ideas” led by you and Mz. Brady would be thrilling I’m sure

  34. Harold Knight
    April 17, 2012 at 11:06 pm

    Melinda took good advice in this vote…to keep it a non-issue for a potential opposition candidate this November.

  35. skippy
    April 17, 2012 at 11:10 pm

    Nice synopsis. You caught the relevant points of a long session, some of which became snoozy in parts. Ms. Atkins, Ms. Ciarabellini, and Mr. Madsen seemed to understand the boundaries, restrictions, costs, and history of the issue. Ms. Brady had a more difficult time grasping the same, and had digressed so far at one point that Mr. Jager had to reign her back into the fold and onto the agenda item they were voting upon.

    Mr. Newman, seeing himself outnumbered after discussion, made a last ditch effort to delay the obvious by asking ‘for more public input’ and requesting another session to keep it alive. The ploy didn’t work and the Waterfront Drive extension was instantaneously killed, 3-2.

    It took more than a few seconds until the tally board registered the results. At the end of the vote, Mr. Tyson certainly didn’t look pleased. An unknown Council/staff gave a heavy sigh, seemingly one of frustrated disgust, that was audibly heard through the microphone after the vote was taken and displayed.

  36. April 18, 2012 at 9:12 am

    Thanks for the blow-by-blow, Heraldo. What a sad waste of money this would have been. During the discussion of officially supporting the trans-Trinty railroad recently, I was impressed by Ms. Ciarabellini’s and Ms. Atkins’ unwillingness to devote city staff time and resources to the venture. That’s responsible governance.

  37. Anonymous
    April 20, 2012 at 3:19 pm

    The sigh of relief we heard was from Arkley being gifted another excuse to delay a state-of-the-art cleanup on the Baloon Tract.

  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