Just a Moment
(Oct. 15, 2009) Paging through the final Environmental Impact Report for the Marina Center project — the big box-anchored development that kazillionaire Rob Arkley is proposing to build on the Eureka waterfront, just west of Old Town — my eye landed on a familiar piece of artwork. There it was, attached to the letter of protest submitted by “Anonymous”: Journal cartoonist Joel Mielke‘s riff on the business of attracting cruise ships to our bay. Think of the fabulous vistas afforded to the modern cruiser, Mielke snarked. Sydney’s Opera House! San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge! Seattle’s Space Needle! Eureka’s Home Depot!
The final Marina Center EIR, which was released on the city of Eureka’s Web site last week, includes and incorporates 179 letters that the city received supporting or opposing the project, or else offering deep scientific or legal criticism of the draft report, which was released earlier this year. The authors responded to each and every specific complaint about the draft, with varying degrees of success. The response to the Mielke cartoon, at least, was straightforward. “The necessary attractions to ensure the success of the cruise ship industry to visit specific locations is outside the scope of the proposed project and [the California Environmental Quality Act],” the authors wrote.
Cartoonists are one thing; state agencies and nonprofit interest groups with lawyers at the ready are quite another. Alas, it is not quite so easy to dispose of criticism brought by the California Coastal Commission, the Department of Fish and Game, the California Water Resources Control Board, the California State Lands Commission, the County of Humboldt, the Northcoast Environmental Center, Humboldt Baykeeper or the Environmental Protection Information Center, to name just a few of the agencies and organizations that filed substantial letters in critique of the draft. Which is why it’s something close to insane that the city has elected to turn this sucker around in a matter of a few weeks.
When a municipality certifies an environmental impact report as being A-OK and up to snuff, it has to be prepared to stand by that certification in a court of law. Suddenly, it becomes the entity whose name is listed at the top of the lawsuit. There has long been a large, well organized and well funded opposition to the Marina Center project, some branches of which specialize in environmental science and law. They’ve listed their objections pretty plainly in the final EIR. They include, but are not limited to, the expected traffic impacts of the project, its potential compliance or noncompliance with wetlands protections, the ramifications of its location in a tsunami zone and a place that could become inundated by rising sea levels and — most crucially — the adequacy of the toxic clean-up plan at the site of the development, the former rail yard known as “the Balloon Track.” City staff and environmental consultants have responded to these critiques in the final EIR, but if you think that’s going to be the end of the story then you have been huffing gasoline.
Marina Center and the Balloon Track property have a long, twisted political history. If you want a piece of that history, you can check out a few previous Journal cover stories — “Finding Beauty in the Blight,” (Oct. 11, 2001), “Blown Off Course” (Nov. 4, 2004), “On Different Tracks” (March 16, 2006). Things have been quiet for a couple of years, but with the final EIR up for a vote that will change very quickly now. There will be full-scale war over this thing in the Eureka City Council chambers, at the California Coastal Commission and, almost certainly, in the courts.
All we’re saying is that if the cash-poor city of Eureka is going to take its place in the center of this big, messy fight — which it must do, if the project is to proceed — then the City Council at least should take another month or six weeks to make sure, as best it can, that it is on solid footing with this EIR, the legal defense of which will be borne by the taxpayers of Eureka. We don’t know why the majority of the City Council thought that ground-truthing this matter could be accomplished in the space of a few days, but we do know that they were wrong. Also, I’m sorry to be the one to tell them but their great haste in this matter has an odd smell.
A month or six weeks — barely a blip in the lifecycle of the Marina Center, the fight over which will continue for a couple more years at least. You can’t give multiple state agencies, and their pages and pages of detailed legal and scientific analysis, that much time? You may live to regret that.
Ask them yourself. The second of the city’s two quickly organized Open Houses on the subject is being held in the Eureka City Council chambers tonight (Thursday, Oct. 15) from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. That’s at 531 K St., Eureka.
→ post a comment
seven-o-heaven
Old Town Arcata
Will Plaza Point put the kibosh on Arcata whippersnapper shenanigans?
Recent the town dandy
Jan. 13, 2011
The Golden Boy
Dec. 23, 2010
Wish Lists
Dec. 16, 2010
The Train Geeks Return
Today
Label GMOs Signature Gathering Training
meetings / 4 p.m. Sun Yi's Academy of Tae Kwon Do, 1215 Giuntoli Lane, Arcata. Help gather valid signatures to get the 'California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act' on the 2012 ballot. E-mail northernhumboldtlabelgmos@hotmail.com. 223-0424.
Open Celtic Music Session
music / 3 p.m. Cafe Veritas/Mosgo's, 180 Westwood Center, Arcata. Informal monthly gathering of musicians playing Irish and other Celtic music. Hosted by Seabury Gould. seaburygould.com. 845-8167.
Nonviolence Action Camp
etc. / 10 a.m. Chinmaya Mission near Piercy. Weekend-long direct action orientation features workshops, role playing, seminars, ceremonies and field trips. Bring food, bedding, warm clothes, signs, banners, bikes, drums, acoustic instruments. Pre-register. saverichardsongrove.org. 932-5898.
Audubon Society Field Trip
outdoors / 9 a.m. Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge, 1020 Ranch Road, Loleta. Meet at Refuge Visitor Center off Hookton Road. Leisurely, two- to three-hour trip intended for people wanting to learn birds of Humboldt Bay area. 822-3613.
More →
18 Comments
Comment / By margi / Oct. 15, 2009, 8:45 a.m.
this project resembles more than a bad smell darling, more like a stinky lump that doesn’t go away
Comment / By Thirdeye / Oct. 15, 2009, 2:26 p.m.
Sims is a witty, talented, entertaining writer, but on a certain set of topics he is guilty of atrocious journalism. The Marina Center project is one of those topics where he consistently falls down. If you think the environmental impact of the Marina Center would be tough, how about that of a short sea shipping facility right across the street?
@margi, the stinky lump is the balloon track as it exists today. Nobody else has a realistic proposal to make it go away.
Comment / By Hank Sims / Oct. 15, 2009, 2:48 p.m.
If you think the environmental impact of the Marina Center would be tough, how about that of a short sea shipping facility right across the street?
You’re extrapolating WAY too much. I’m not saying anything at all about the environmental impact of the Marina Center itself.
I’m just saying:
A). The final EIR is a big unwieldy thing,
B). In contains serious and potentially legally actionable objections from some very serious parties, including several departments of the State of California,
and C). The city is kind of crazy to think that it can adequately weigh those objections and the responses to those objections in two weeks.
Comment / By Jeff Leonard / Oct. 15, 2009, 3:11 p.m.
Hank - Here are a few clarifications regarding the process to help address your concerns:
The Draft EIR was published November 2008. 179 written comments were received, including comments from 17 different agencies. 850 pages of total comments.
The comment period closed January, 2009. The City and the consultants paid to develop the EIR have been weighing the objections and responding to the comments for the past 10 months.
The Final EIR includes a 22 page Errata section. This section reviews all of the changes made to the Draft EIR as a result of the comments received.
Any lawsuits filed over the EIR or the project will be the responsibility of project applicant - not the City of Eureka. Standard practice for California cities in today’s litigious society is to require legal indemnification at the start of the project.
Our next meeting on October 20th will kickoff public comment on the Final EIR. There is no action item on the Agenda.
Hope that info helps provide some extra clarity - see you on the 20th!
Comment / By Hank Sims / Oct. 15, 2009, 3:22 p.m.
Jeff:
I just updated with the indemnification here. No one I talked to knen anything about it until today.
Your staff has reviewed the objections, sure. But you guys — the City Council — didn’t see them until last week, right?
I’m not saying that you play lawyer or scientist in vetting the debate over the multitudes of issues, here, but I don’t think you should proceed on blind faith in your staff, either.
Comment / By Thirdeye / Oct. 15, 2009, 4:11 p.m.
Hank:
True enough about the purported scope of the article, but it is clear from your past writings what your pre-judgment of the project is and that does appear to have colored your assessment of the current situation.
I personally would have more faith in the professionalism of City staff than in that of Coastal Commission, DFG, or Water Quality Board staff. Staff of those agencies are notorious for lapses into frivolous power-seeking. Anybody from CalTrans involved in the Table Bluff median barrier project could enlighten you on how the Coastal Commission and DFG operate, provided they were able to speak freely. I am not a CalTrans employee, I’ve just heard their ventings.
Comment / By Rose / Oct. 15, 2009, 4:19 p.m.
WHY should they read the thing?
What’s good enough for Congress - including Congressman Thompson - ought to be good enough here, too. Why waste the paper? Don’t you agree?
Comment / By Thirdeye / Oct. 15, 2009, 4:48 p.m.
Another useless comment from Rose. Get lost, teabagger.
Comment / By useless? / Oct. 15, 2009, 6:45 p.m.
Rose makes a good point.Although I don’t agree with her on the healthcare issue, why are so many willing to give congress a pass because their staff have vetted the report yet are up in arms because they don’t trust Eureka City staff?
I agree with thirdeye’s post at 3:11, but when 3eye can only reply to Rose’s salient point with an insult, it proves he’s got nothing to respond with.
Also, Hank, if there is distrust of staff at the City of Eureka by the Council, which you seem to infer, then perhaps its time for a change.
Comment / By Jeff Leonard / Oct. 15, 2009, 9:44 p.m.
Hank:
Agreed. I won’t be leaving it up to “blind faith”. I just wanted to counter the mis-perception that this document has never been vetted until now.
First step: Hear what the community has to say.
Comment / By Hank Sims / Oct. 15, 2009, 11:26 p.m.
No, no — it’s not they should DISTRUST staff. It’s that they have their own role to fulfill as elected representatives of the public, and that shouldn’t be handed off.
I still don’t accept what you’re alleging here, Thirdeye. I’ve written a story about how the Headwaters-funded public planning project was strangely torpedoed. I’ve written a story about how other cities around the country have used such studies to build consensus around some remarkable and succesful railyard redevelopment projects.
I think Eureka passed up a big opportunity there. But this balls-out animus you see … I don’t know, I don’t see it.
Comment / By A-Nony-Mouse / Oct. 16, 2009, 12:51 p.m.
Jeff, you MUST be the FASTEST reader on the planet if you can read ALL the responses and interpret the nonsense in only two weeks. I will bring you several cases of self-contradiction in the Responses. I will also bring you examples of total misinterpretation of comments. This thing is inadequate from the get-go. Approving this pile of self-serving circular doo-doo will only reflect on your lack of judgement. Take your time. Listen. Read MORE than just the summaries (the Clif’s notes of EIR’s?). Give us a chance to point out at least some of the problems. Then you can decide if they are critical enough or not. Don’t rush it. We’ll all have to live with this monster for a long time if you rush to judgement.
Comment / By Thirdeye / Oct. 16, 2009, 6:17 p.m.
Hank:
There is no way the proposed headwaters funded study could be construed as a “planning project” with the scope indicated by its budget. The gap between having the study in hand and having concrete proposals for development would have remained large. Maybe such a study would have allowed the City to market the property to other developers and generated another proposal that could move forward, maybe not. But the notion that such a study would have been a necessary vehicle for public involvement in the planning process is a huge misconception. The current process is quite public.
The study was deemed redundant by four of five City Council members when an actual development proposal was on the table, not “strangely torpedoed.” Unfortunately, that sort of spin and your constant obsessing over “kazillionaire Rob Arkley” indicate just the sort of animus you disclaim. Not that I care for the guy either, but we should have a higher level of discourse on civic processes than we’ve seen from you or the No Arkleyville, Home Depot Is The Spawn Of Satan, Make The Balloon Track Pristine Again crowd.
A-Nony-Mouse:
Do you not see the irony in your warning against rushing to judgment?
Comment / By In-the-know / Oct. 19, 2009, 10:14 a.m.
I too have heard direct things about the Coastal Commission (CC) from many CT employees. The CC requested the extra cost to the Loleta Median Barrier required to add the rock wall look (which does look nice IMHO) and the weedy-trashy strip, I mean, the mow strip to soften the visual impact of an otherwise all paved median.
The CC is unlike any other permitting agency; they have broad powers to impose arbitrary conditions on top of the other agencies. They can tell CT what color they can paint the guardrail on a bridge, or they can tell you what color you CANNOT use on your private home!
Comment / By yes indeed / Oct. 19, 2009, 6:43 p.m.
Thirdeye NAILED it with his/her comment at 617pm.
The fact is, the Journal could be so much more, but as currently run it is no more than an advocacy rag.
Read anything about harbor development, rails, trails, and oh yes, the Marina Center project and you get nothing but slanted coverage, with perjoratives abounding in an unending effort to denigrate the projects/side they oppose.
The sad thing is, I don’t even think they realize they are doing this.
Take the Railroad for example. Any and all coverage has been slanted from day one as being a physical impossibility to restore service through the Eel River canyon (and, btw, I am no rail advocate, I would just like to see both sides of the issue presented fairly).
If the Feds decided to put stimulus money into that project, then it wouldnt be quite so impossible, and again when you have folks like Dan Hauser thinking that rail development is possible, that lends it at least some credibilty.
I can’t add to what thirdeye said at 617, as he/she nailed it so spot on other than to say, Hank, Judy, Heidi, Ryan, et al - take those comments to heart - you may not like what they say, but you can take them constructively and change.
God, I love the Journal - rather what it used to be. It can be that paper again. Hard hitting, and asking the hard questions, and not just shilling for trails/no harbor development and no marina center.
How about a hard hitting article on how a certain supposedly “most popular” HumCo councilman is a shrill, belittling bully when it comes to the staff of a certain Victorian Seaport City?
Comment / By Carson Park Ranger / Oct. 21, 2009, 7:59 p.m.
“God, I love the Journal…”
But only when it publishes pieces that I approve of.
Comment / By pdidnt / Oct. 22, 2009, 2:05 p.m.
Joel,
Methinks you doth protest too much. In fact, a bit of reading comprehension would fix what ails you.
You are the living embodiment of what is wrong with the Journal, showing open contempt towards those with a differing viewpoint, while unwilling to take constructive criticism.
Other than the last paragraph, I agree completely with the poster at 6:43. I don’t see anything in the 6:43 post calling for publishing “pieces that I approve of”, I see a call for a bit of objectivity, a showing of both sides of an issue, instead of just blatantly tearing down and dismissing out of hand sides of issues the journal editorially disagrees with and presenting that as hard hitting news.
I challenge you to go back and read the posts on this thread, particularly those from Thirdeye as well as the aforementioned post at 643.
Then when you respond, try and use a little thought instead of your presupposed witty snarky rejoinders.
Comment / By Carson Park Ranger / Oct. 25, 2009, 10:46 a.m.
Sorry, pdidnt, but I was responding to a comment, not the entire thread, though I’m thankful that pdidnt isn’t “showing open contempt towards those with a differing viewpoint.”