Going against its own staff’s recommendation, the California Coastal Commission this evening voted 9-1 to give a conditional federal consistency determination (translation: a go-ahead) to Caltrans’ proposed project for the 101 corridor between Arcata and Eureka.
And that’s not all: The “conditional” part of the approval means that Caltrans will have to address a number of community concerns before a Coastal Development Permit will be issued.
First off, Caltrans must include a Class 1 bicycle trail (definition here) in its project design.
Secondly, Caltrans must submit a plan to remove not just the one billboard it planned to take down (at Indianola) but all of the billboards along the corridor, to the extent feasible. (With all the jurisdictions involved this likely won’t wind up being every last billboard, but still: Many of those suckers will come down.)
And third, Caltrans must integrate sea-level-rise analysis in its design.
The decision came after several hours of public testimony, the majority of which was in favor of the project. As designed, the project includes median closures at most intersections, a half signal at Airport Boulevard and an interchange (conceptually pictured above) at Indianola Boulevard. (For background, see last week’s cover story.)
That interchange was the major point of contention between Caltrans and commission staff. The staff argued that the over/under-pass could induce development in the Indianola area, created a visual blight and would have a more significant impact on the environment than a fully signalized intersection (staff’s recommendation for Indianola).
Representatives of local environmental groups including Humboldt Baykeeper, the North Coast Environmental Center and the Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC) all urged the commission to deny the project and tell Caltrans to go back to the drawing board. The groups all suggested that other design alternatives — such as roundabouts or “Michigan lefts” at Indianola — were never fully considered by Caltrans.
But elected officials, including County Supervisors Mark Lovelace and Rex Bohn and Arcata City Councilmembers Susan Ornelas and Mark Wheetley, along with a number of local business owners and government workers, urged the commission to move forward with the project due to safety concerns.
Commission members had taken a tour of the corridor yesterday to understand the context, and Commissioner Jana Zimmer got the biggest laugh of the day when she described the experience of crossing 101 at Indianola.
“I don’t know whose idea it was to put us in a bus with no seat belts and cross that intersection — two times,” she said, “but it had an effect.”
Caltrans can now move forward with the project while incorporating the conditions set forth by the commission. It will still need to obtain a Coastal Development Permit before construction begins.
This article appears in Main and Loleta.
Bummer that we have elected people with such limited sight and their recommendations took the show. The alternatives proposed by BayKeeper were far and away superior, and those ideas were more in keeping with the Coastal act in that they were the least intrusive ideas. The Coastal Comm apparently did not get how Bayside will be impacted by the closure of the Bayside cutoff that will send far more traffic into Bayside. Seems the Coastal Comm just listened to all out fearless leaders who marched in step to the podium and said go for it, we love CalTrans, just toss us the bone of a trail. Phooey on ’em.
For Immediate Release
Contact: Dan Ehresman, Executive Director – Northcoast Environmental Center
707-822-6918
Jessica Hall, Executive Director – Humboldt Baykeeper
707-268-0664
September 13, 2013 – The Northcoast Environmental Center and Humboldt Baykeeper declare today’s Coastal Commission decision on the Highway 101 Corridor Project a victory for our community. After a lengthy hearing with public testimony covering very broad opinions on the project – for, against, and everywhere in between – the Coastal Commission voted to approve the Highway 101 Corridor Project with the following conditions: construction of a separated Humboldt Bay Trail, removal of all billboards along the 101 corridor, address sea level rise in project design, and further study of wetland mitigation areas.
Along with these conditions, the project will still consist of the proposed interchange at Indianola Cutoff, a half-signal at Airport Boulevard, and closure of the other medians within the safety corridor.
In response to the decision, Jessica Hall, Executive Director of Humboldt Baykeeper stated, “While we were disappointed that the Commission approved the interchange without addressing the increase in speeds that will result from the project, we are very pleased that the Coastal Commission incorporated four conditions of approval that we have fought hard for over the years.”
Hall concluded by expressing her gratitude, “Thanks to the Coastal Commission and staff for their efforts on this project and for their work to uphold one of California’s greatest environmental laws – the Coastal Act.”
Dan Ehresman, Executive Director of the Northcoast Environmental Center weighed in on the hearing outcome, “We think that the Commission’s decision today is a win/win for North Coast residents. Although we question whether the interchange is the best solution to address traffic safety concerns, we believe that the conditions Caltrans will have to meet are a huge victory that will benefit generations to come.”
Ehresman went on to urge members of the public to stay involved, “Even though there is cause for celebration right now, we have a lot of work ahead. The Coastal Commission’s decision is an opportunity to work together towards a completed 101 Corridor project that ensures the Bay Trail gets funded and built, all billboards are removed along the Bay, and appropriate measures are taken to address sea level rise and wetland fill.”
While this decision green-lights the Caltrans proposal, details of the design and progress on the conditions will be reviewed by the Coastal Commission again during the Coastal Development Permit phase of the project.
###
Has Baykeeper sold their soul (wetland protection) for a paved bike path? Have they betrayed their namesake little community Bayside to have a few signs removed from the Bay? Are they willing to mitigate away another chunk of prime agriculture land so we can put a rock abutment along the shore of the bay to say we are addressing sealevel rise?
At least the kids in Manila and Bayside will get a lot more traffic for their lemonade stands.
Sheesh!
This is great news.
– Underpass instead of a stop light at the Indianola intersection. A much more efficient way to improve safety at this intersection without forcing everyone to stop, and a smaller overall wetlands impact than the complicated and not-so-safe “Michigan left.”
– Getting rid of (hopefully all) billboards — hooray! Maybe having the clout of state government fighting the deep-pocket billboard corporations will finally make a difference.
– A good, paved, separated bike trail — wooohooo! Fantastic! As someone who both drives and cycles, this will substantially improve safety and help get more people riding bikes (it will be a smooth, fairly flat, and car-free experience for beginners).
– Hopefully these changes will also allow Caltrans to up the speed limit back to 65. I know, some folks love the slow speed, but after crawling through Eureka countless times on drives to Santa Rosa or SF, I would really welcome even a few more highway-speed stretches of 101.
Now let’s get the Willits bypass built.
Bike trail, YES! Safer merging, big YESS!! Trying to remove my source of income and valuable opportunities for local business to promote themselves and make an honest legal living in this county, NO! Before people continue to spout off their anti-billboard rants please understand that these boards are not all about some mega corporation that kills small seal pups for fun. Many of these boards are owned by 100% local companies, the ones that will most likely be removed as we do not have the legal or finical power to defend our way of business. And the boards that are owned by a large company, they are sold by me, a ten year resident of this community. They are located on property owned by local land owners who receive income from them, they are maintained and worked on using local people and local materials. They may not be the most attractive structures in the world, but lots of things are unsightly, should we tear down the mill at CA redwood and just layoff all its employees so people don’t have to look at an industrial operation tucked behind the eucalyptus trees? Fact is this counties small business utilize these boards and depend on these boards, we are the only county in the entire state that is completely sold out and have been for over a year. Further more most markets are 60%-40% national/local business advertising on billboards, Humboldt county is over 90% local business! Sorry for the rant but if these boards go, so does my business, my employees and my family….