###

The Eureka City Council took its second look at the draft Waterfront Eureka Plan during Tuesday’s regular meeting, a plan that would revamp the heart of the city.

The project area covers all three “districts” that have been defined by the city — the “Old Town District,” the “Library District” and the “Commercial Bayfront District.” Similar to Arcata’s Gateway Area Plan, the Waterfront Eureka Plan aims to streamline housing approvals and accelerate mixed-use development in the northern portion of Eureka, between Humboldt Bay and downtown. 

“The purpose of the plan … is to provide a roadmap for the development and redevelopment of vacant and underutilized sites and buildings along and near Eureka’s central waterfront,” Caitlin Castellano, a senior planner for the City of Eureka, explained during Tuesday’s meeting. “[It also] plans for at least 115 housing units to be built, which the plan contemplates happening by 2027.”

Unlike the city’s General Plan, the Waterfront Eureka Plan is a “specific plan” which combines a policy document with zoning regulations to “set realistic development expectations while also signaling the big picture of the plan and vision for a particular area,” according to the staff report. 

The plan must adhere to the goals of Eureka’s 2040 General Plan and the Land Use Plan portion of the city’s Local Coastal Program (LCP). Castellano noted that the LCP update is still in progress but said the city will use the environmental analysis collected through the Waterfront Eureka Plan process to better inform the LCP update. 

The city has hosted several public forums on the planning process and received hundreds of comments from community members on the subject. Something that has come up time and time again, Castellano said, is the importance of balanced development.  

“People wanted to make sure that there was a balance between the new residences and the visitors to the area while maintaining existing resources for Eureka residents who live and visit the waterfront,” she said. The community’s feedback helped staff develop the guiding principles of the document, which can be found on page 54 of the draft document.

Turning to questions from the council, Councilmember Leslie Castellano asked if staff has worked with the private parking lot owners to better accommodate parking needs for both the private and public sectors. “I just, I look at all of that parking and I just think there could be potentially better ways of collaborating around how parking is used on private areas as well as public,” she said.

Senior Planner Castellano said she had not spoken directly to individual property owners but said staff has reached out to the Eureka Chamber of Commerce and Eureka Main Street on the subject. “They sent emails to all of their constituents to attend stakeholder conversations, which didn’t have a very good turnout.”

City Manager Miles Slattery said he has “definitely been contacted by private property owners about different parking lots,” some of whom wanted to sell the lots to the city while others wanted to offer them up for parking structures. 

Councilmember G Mario Fernandez thanked staff for being aware of the potential displacement of existing residents as a result of gentrification. “I really do commend you for thinking that far forward and trying to mitigate the impact on the residents along those tracks,” he said. “What – if anything – has staff considered moving forward with that? What are the plans that are being considered, if any?”

Senior Planner Castellano said staff didn’t have any plans just yet.

Councilmember Scott Bauer said he really appreciated the document’s focus on walkability throughout the project area, adding that he “love[s] the idea of being able to stroll in on the street and not to worry about cars.”

“The thought of, you know, building housing and then having to travel to get groceries … it used to be that there were grocery stores close to your home,” he said. “The idea of trying to incorporate as much of that kind of living style is exciting.”

After a bit of additional discussion on the matter, the council agreed to accept the report but did not take any action on the item. 

Staff will present the final Waterfront Eureka Plan and the associated environmental documents to the Eureka Planning Commission during a public hearing in September. If everything goes according to plan, the final document will be presented to the city council at a public hearing in October.

Those interested in commenting on the draft plan have about a week to do so. The public review period will close on Friday, Aug. 11. Click here to access the comment form.

Parking Fees = Parking Improvements

The council also approved a proposal to change city code to allow for the implementation of pay-to-park parking in four city-owned lots to “better manage the city’s existing parking resources” and “improve utilization and access to parking” throughout Eureka’s Old Town and Downtown districts.

The new pay-to-park lots are located at:

• the southwest side of 3rd and E streets (by the Sea Grill)
• the northeast side of 3rd and E streets (by The Madrone Brick Fire Pizza and Taphouse)
• the southeast side of 1st and E streets (behind Los Bagels) and
• the southeast side of 2nd and H streets (sorta near Smug’s Pizza).

The parking fees – $0.50 per hour – will fund several improvements throughout Old Town and Downtown Eureka, including parking lot wayfinding signage, website updates and outreach of existing parking resources and long-term upgrades to the parking lots, such as striping/resurfacing/lighting improvements and the creation of a parking lot shuttle program, according to the staff report. 

A silver lining: The city will increase the existing parking time limit zones from two hours to four hours — a small but valuable consolation, especially for folks working in Old Town and Downtown.

Councilmember Fernandez asked if staff would be willing to allow for free parking on Saturdays, as it does currently. Public Works Director Brian Gerving stood by staff’s recommendation to only allow for free parking on Sundays and certain holidays.

Councilmember Castellano asked if staff had any plans for additional funds collected from the lots after the aforementioned improvements are taken care of.

“There definitely will be projects that can take up any of the revenue that the parking program can generate for the foreseeable future,” Gerving said. “In the event that we run out of projects – which I can’t forecast at this point – then, you know, we could consider doing something different with those funds.”

Gerving added that, if approved, the parking fees would go into effect on Sept. 1. “That’s if we can get the infrastructure installed by then,” he added.

Councilmember Bauer made a motion to adopt staff’s recommendation. Castellano offered a second. 

Fernandez returned to the issue of free parking on Saturdays and asked if his fellow council members would be willing to amend the motion. “Is there anybody else amenable to leaving Saturdays as they are?” he asked. “Because I find it difficult to vote for that without Saturday’s remaining free parking.”

Gerving noted that Saturdays are currently enforced because that’s what the signage has reflected in most cases. “It’s just the municipal code language that was incorrect and inconsistent with what that signage said,” he added.

Fernandez opted to “leave it at that” and the motion passed in a 3-1 vote with Fernandez dissenting and Councilmember Kati Moulton absent.

###

Other notable bits from Tuesday’s meeting:

• The council also approved a request to declare a little slice of city-owned land at Fifth Street and Myrtle Avenue as surplus.
• The council also received a report regarding privacy concerns surroundings accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in neighborhoods. However, Cristin Kenyon, the city planner presenting the report, was feeling under the weather and the council opted to revisit the subject at a future date.
• The council also received a presentation from Fogbreak Justice LLC, regarding the city’s workplace diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. The council accepted the report but did not take any action on the matter.