Continental Shelf

On Saturday morning, my husband and I participated in the Balloon Tract tour walk led by Ruth Moon of Eureka Discovery Walks. There were perhaps a dozen attendees, all interesting and personable people. They shared knowledge about the history of Eureka and various sites along the walk.

Monday night I attended the public forum organized by Humboldt Baykeeper, the Northcoast Environmental Center and the Sierra Club, Redwood Chapter at the Wharfinger Building.

The goal of the forum was to explain the contents of the Marina Center Development draft environmental impact report (DEIR) and related technical issues. We heard seven speakers:

• Bill Verick (Klamath Environmental Law Center) — CEQA overview and discussion of alternatives: Concerns about insufficient study of alternatives, use of strawman alternatives.
• Michelle Smith (Humboldt Baykeepers) — Hazards and hazardous materials: Concerns about a lack of information on contaminants on site, lack of discussion of such contaminants at dioxins and furans known to be on site, human health risk assessment studies prepared for different uses from those proposed for the site, vague and insufficient mitigation measures.
• Patty Clary (Californians for Alternatives to Toxics) — Air quality: Concerns about an expected production of 38 tons per year of particulate matter finer than 10 microns (PM10), a pollutant for which the North Coast Unified Air Quality Management District (which includes Humboldt County) is chronically out of compliance and for which the entire District allowance is 16 tons per year.
• Kevin Wright (Green Wheels) — Transportation: DEIR consideration given primarily to through-traffic volume along U.S. 101, not to cross-streets and private driveway access or to difficulty of pedestrian and bicycle crossings.
• Ralph Faust (Consultant for the Northcoast Environmental Center) — Land use: DEIR requires a rezoning to permit uses not listed in the current Local Coastal Plan; uses not well assorted, not supporting each other; proposed uses are the least preferable according to Coastal Commission regulations.
• Phil Haysner (store owner, Many Hands Gallery) — Urban decay: Provided comparative information on the impacts of previous commercial developments on the downtown/Old Town core and on smaller commercial zones, and the resulting urban decay due to closed-up businesses.
• Hélène Rouvier (Wiyot Tribe) — Cultural resources: The site was occupied by two Wiyot villages and is a prime location to find human remains and artifacts under the surface; their exact extent and location under the surface has not been investigated. The proposed mitigations are insufficient, do not protect cultural resources from disturbance; and federal regulations, such as Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) will be triggered and require further study anyway.

The speakers presented what they thought was missing in the DEIR’s analysis of the topics they covered, and explained to the general public how to submit comments. Some speakers showed more antagonism toward the project, others stuck to the bare-bone facts (my preference). Regardless, some good points were raised.

I think several of the issues discussed could be addressed with relatively little difficulty by reworking both the alternatives studied and the EIR; however, I don’t know whether there is a will to do so. The issue which I think would require the most change in the alternatives studied is that of urban decay. However, that is probably the most difficult to study under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because CEQA does not take economic factors directly into consideration*, only their environmental effects. It could be greatly improved, however, by tying with mitigation measures for the other effects, such as land use (having a mix of well-balanced uses) and transportation (leading foot and bike traffic towards Old Town rather than Broadway.)

Another aspect that presenters did not discuss but bothers me is the amount of paving involved (circulation and over 1500 parking spots). Large paved areas like parking lots increase runoff water to streams and wetlands, and concentrate pollutants from oils leaks (looked at a parking lot after rainfall, lately?) The argument used is that the parking lot will serve as capping for the contaminated areas, but there are many other approaches to remediating a contaminated site.

Comments can be submitted until Saturday, January 31, 2009 by mailing them to:

City of Eureka Community Development Department
Sidnie L. Olson, AICP, Principal Planner
531 K Street
Eureka, CA 95501-1165

Or they can be e-mailed to DEIRcomments@ci.eureka.ca.gov.

* Why does CEQA not consider economic impacts? To avoid projects from being railroaded through based on their economic benefits. In other words, CEQA takes money out of the assessment.