Eureka’s Waterfront Plan Approved But Some Tweaking Likely
Years in development, the Waterfront Eureka Plan is approved but there’s room for changing it as there’s support for waiving minimum parking requirements in some of the plan’s districts.
The plan gained unanimous approval by the city council at its May 6 meeting, closing a formative phase that included many public meetings.
Ultimate approval still waits, however, as the state’s Coastal Commission will have to certify the plan as part of the city’s Local Coastal Program (LCP).
And as council approached its vote on the plan’s approval, there was talk of changing it to universally waive minimum parking requirements for residential development.
During a public comment period, Colin Fiske of the Coalition for Responsible Transportation Priorities vouched for lifting the requirements throughout the plan area.
“Eureka’s plans and policy documents acknowledge that these mandates are problematic and restrict new housing supply,” he said. “And a number of years ago, Eureka led the way in loosening parking mandates and providing needed exceptions. Now it’s just time to get rid of them altogether.”
Jen Kalt of Humboldt Waterkeeper backed that up.
“There’s been a lot of studies showing that this is the single policy that can make the biggest difference in increasing new housing development,” she said.
The plan waives parking requirements for residential projects within a half-mile of transit stops, making the most the plan’s 130-acre area exempt from the requirements.
A commercial bayfront district and a portion of the district that includes the county library branch are the ones where the parking minimums would be in effect.
Community Development Services Director Cristin Kenyon said when the LCP is updated, it will include the “parking ratios” in effect inland but “a lot of exceptions and reductions” are also included.
“If council wants us to go in a different direction, we’re open to that,” she continued.
Councilmember Leslie Castellano said she supports Fiske’s and Kalt’s recommendations but agreed that the LCP update process will suffice for making them happen.
Also discussed was the plan’s minimum of 65 percent ground floor “storefront transparency,” referring to window area, with “visually interesting displays.”
“Having some experience in the retail world, sunlight can be a big factor in degradation of products and materials within a storefront,” said Raelina Krikson during public comment.
She suggested “a mural fund to help support interesting and interactive frontages.”
There’s one type of business that’s required to keep its windows completely covered – cannabis lounges.
Councilmember Kati Moulton asked if that means the lounges are prohibited in the plan.
Kenyon said there’s room for exceptions and using visual shielding such as window frosting.
Moulton said the plan reflects “the idea of having a really vibrant and inclusive Old Town that’s got people living and working and shopping, and that’s what makes it a place worth going to.”
Other notable aspects of the plan include its allowance of coastal-dependent uses like fishing and boating in bayfront areas and its division of the bayfront into two districts.
One reflects the mixed use approach of Old Town and the other is more varied, allowing larger development types such as RV parks.
The library district has a mix of office/residential and commercial uses, and the Old Town and the Bayfront Commercial zoning districts include streets designated for “pedestrian-focused frontages.”
That designation has standards applying to street-facing ground floors of new development, including12-foot minimum ground floor ceiling heights and prohibition of street-facing residential uses except for high density residential development.
General standards include prohibiting parking between buildings and streets.
The pedestrian-friendly aspects of the plan also include requiring landscaping between buildings and streets, and “pedestrian-scale lighting and signage.”
Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules
Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/
Always some tweaking when it comes to eureka
Yes. This headline scores a 9.5 out of ten.
Don’t hog all the taxpayer funded meth for yourselves!!
Oh yeah- there’s already lots of tweaking at the Eureka waterfront….
“EUREKA’S WATERFRONT PLAN APPROVED BUT…”
“…SOME TWEAKING LIKELY”…
-Daniel Mintz-
_____________________________________
Pun intended…???
(Understatement City…!!!)
I’d say, “you can say that again, Daniel Mintz, even though that the tweaking that’s likely just about anywhere in Eutweeka goes without saying…
Waiving the parking requirements can only increase the likelihood of “pedaling”…
(Also an intended pun…)
IMHO:
—
Hint: Eureka’s population is decreasing.
Lots of houses for sale right now as the owners flee Eureka and California.
—
Hmm… there are lots of reasons why.
This is one of them.
People cashing out and new, potential buyers not wanting to pay $400k for a home that’s falling apart.
They were $400k five years ago. Closer to a mil now.
No the ones that need work on busy streets are still around 400k.
Housing inventory (which is a measure of the number of homes listed for sale not the number of homes in the community) is actually very low.
How about demand? Lots of folks looking to move to Fentweaka?
Lots of people are moving to eureka and northern Humboldt in general. At least that’s what a lot of real estate agents say and I constantly have out of the area people applying for my rentals.
I think the decrease in Eurekas population is being caused by the aging population. empty nesters or even single people are occupying single family homes by themselves. Whereas back in the day those same homes probably had at least 4 people living in them. It’s a national trend, the average house is getting bigger but they have fewer people living in them.
I’m not blaming empty nesters because it probably makes financial sense for them to age where they are. But I think a lack of housing is that’s what causing the decreasing population numbers.
This is a very amusing idea…
Tweak your town all you want, it will still be a big old mess…
Move the 101 off the streets of downtown…
Eureka: The Rio Linda of the North Coast…
Maybe you could get Trump to build Alcatraz in Eureka instead…
Yes that would bring in some needed revenue 🤔😉
They already do alot of “tweaking” in that area 😅🤣😂, sorry Kym I couldn’t help it, but that’s a very good article 👍
I do understand why people are so intent on walkability and trying to break the dependence our society has on personal vehicles. But in this plan, you’re talking about an area that depends on outside visitation for businesses to thrive. Art galleries, restaurants, shops, coffeehouses and so on all depend on customers — more customers than live right within a few blocks — in order to make a profit. As a senior, I can guarantee that if I can’t find a place to park within a relatively easy walk, I’ll pass and go somewhere else. As a person who shops in Eureka and travels more than an hour (without reliable regular mass transit), I’m going to drive my vehicle. There’s no way I can transport my groceries from store to restaurant to home without my vehicle. There’s no way I can take 2 weeks worth of food purchases on a bus. No parking means no shopping, and thus no income to that area, which has been a favorite of ours for decades. Honestly, until Eureka plans enough to provide safe parking at what they deem a safe distance from their precious core, along with safe, reliable, affordable, regular transit, then the core area simply becomes a place I can’t get to. I certainly can’t afford the extra costs of that. Because no matter how visionary you want to be, if I can’t park, then I can’t shop, eat or transport what I purchased back to my vehicle, so I won’t go there. I don’t think I’m alone in this. And I’m not a troglodyte or and Arkleyite; I support change. But eliminating parking means reducing business in the area that depends on foot traffic by out-of-towners. And simply eliminating adequate parking without providing realistic, clean safe parking and transportation is just putting the cart before the horse.
Onlooker, I’m with you on this one. You stated the case for people like you and me very succinctly. The mostly boutique businesses in this area rely heavily on shoppers coming from outside the area, and those people need somewhere to leave the transportation they use to get there while while they shop. For those who do live there, there are few affordable businesses for the everyday staples of life in this area. How many people do you see riding the bus or bicycling to Winco, Safeway, Eureka Natural Foods, or Costco for large amounts of staple supplies? The Co-Op, as fine a store as it is, is not a cost-effective alternative to these businesses. To think of this neighborhood as a modern urban area like the old parts of European cities is an ideal, not a practicality. Even in those areas, where local shops can still be found, the residents tend to use these businesses like convenience stores. These are not the businesses they use for everyday shopping in bulk, which is what people do now to save time and money. Wanting to turn Old Town into Amsterdam, Paris, or London is simply not a realistic idea. Even with affordable residences, how many of those occupying these unofficially income-subsidized places will be able to afford to shop locally? If they shop elsewhere, how will they get their bulk purchases home? On the bus? On bicycles in pouring rain? In expensive taxis and hired Uber vehicles? The kind of life apparently envisioned by many as happening in an idealized Old Town is not practical for the masses, and those are the people who live and work in places of modest income like Humboldt County.
Maybe it’ll encourage businesses that will rely on foot traffic by locals.
If transit was more convenient, would you be willing to do your grocery shopping every week? If there was a grocery store nearby, you could shop every couple of days, so you wouldn’t have as much to carry. Also, folding shopping carts and wagons are really useful.
BTW, I’m pretty sure there’ll still be handicapped parking.
Clarification question. Does ‘elimination of the minimum parking requirements’ mean they will not require the commercial development to have a certain amount of parking, the result of which might be insufficient parking for all the residents and guests and/or customers? If so, are they doing it simply to create more space for development? And/or hoping that people will opt (more) for public transportation in the future?
It means that they can now build multi story residential structures, on what were formerly parking lots, without providing additional parking…
Thanks. Yes and, the no or minimal parking requirements also apply to any new development in those areas, right?
I think that you are correct…
It’s remarkable that the Eureka City Council is making significant efforts and concessions in order to facilitate progress, while the county of Humboldt just keeps redoubling their efforts towards creating more and more obstacles, regulations and requirements, in order to stymy progress…
Seldom are such true words uttered. So disappointing and unhelpful to the larger goals.
To clarify, developers will include parking to make their buildings attractive to renters, but they won’t be required to include 1 1/2 spaces or whatever per unit. Fewer young people are buying cars these days, mostly due to cost. If we improve our transit, they won’t need them for the most part. What would be huge is if we could have something like Zip Cars, so you could rent a car for the times you do need one.
Parking minimums aren’t based on science, they’re based on “that’s how those guys did it, so that’s how we’ll do it.”
Thats the problem with CA. THe coastal commission has to weigh in then the epa bla bla bla red tape. The cost and red tape go up then the state wonders why it is broke. You cant make this up…….
Tweaking in Eureka’s plan is very likely lol
Why can’t the city build multi level parking garages for paid parking? It would likely require up front money to purchase the lots (if available) and construct the buildings. This likely means an increase in taxes short term – or maybe grant funding? The generated revenue could then go to better public transportation. There would still be plenty of room for commercial and residential development.
I am not an expert in real estate, politics, or economics, and I’m sure this is not a novel idea, but this sounds like a win-win approach.
How are we building more housing without new jobs.. cannabis ran this place for 25 years
They tweak because they gave up on life… we need better paying jobs and for people to actually want more then food stamps
To Onlooker
I live & walk in Eureka. I grocery shop @ the Co op, Costco , E Nat Food & occasionally Winco. I also shop @ Target. I check out stuff @ the library regularly. I pull a folding wagon all over town to carry purchases home. I worked in Arcata ‘till Covid & I took the bus. It was easy. Oh! I’m 81 years old. I want more places for people to live in Eureka where they can shop on their feet for their needs & wants. Costco sells a dandy folding wagon that’ll get your purchases home with you.