It's absurd to develop such a project and not be discussing annexation of the property. This is a leech on the city of Eureka unless it is PART of the city of Eureka. It is well-demonstrated throughout the entire United States that cities that are able to annex the development on their edges thrive and those that cannot fail.
The only reason to build on the outskirts of a city is to get the services offered by that city (including jobs, utilities, etc) without paying taxes into that city or being subject to the rules of the city (which of course are necessary to provide the services). Any such development is always bad news as by its very nature it is designed to suck resources without contributing its share.
Without annexation such a project is guaranteed to be flawed.
Beyond that this is clearly your standard-developer fluff talk about what will happen down the road. Inertia is a strong force and once such a development begins be assured that it will proceed. All elements deemed critical to approval must be locked-in during the approval process now, not negotiated after the project is underway or phase one is complete.
I support such a development in principal and the location can work. But it must be viewed an extension of the city, the street grid, the utilities, the mixed-use zoning, etc. These little "hamlet" villages that are built on the outskirts of cities around the country are disastrous for development, planning and the life of cities. A project such as this can work but we must be diligent and make our demands and stick to them.
1400 units and a fire station is not required? Are you kidding? three streets? are you kidding?
The traffic mitigation is to put 8 traffic lights in Eureka? How does that help anybody? It just means you'll spend more time waiting at lights. If you're going to add a wing onto the city you have to re-imagine more infrastructure than just putting up some new lights on existing thoroughfares. Entire streets have to be designated as transport routes, parking may have to be removed, an overpass may need to be built, etc.
This is not a "residential development" it is an expansion of the city. It must be self-sufficient to a degree. Ask yourself if these properties could be sold and developed if they were not immediately adjacent to the city of Eureka. Of course not, because it's not contributing anything back, merely being tacked-on to the city.
This has the potential to be an enormously good development but in its current configuration it is not that. Demand that it be done correctly because you'll be living with the consequences for the rest of your life.
We can do better. If the developer can't get this project done right then so be it. We do not need this, just like we do not need Marina Center, if it cannot be done within a more intelligent planning process.
In Print This Week:
Dec 5, 2013
vol XXIV issue 49
The North Coast Journal Weekly
Website powered by Foundation