Victory At The Ballot Box May Not Save Measure N

Even as hazardous waste cleanup begins at Eureka’s Balloon Track, the threat of development continues to mount. 

In July citizen groups filed suit against the City of Eureka, contesting the environmental review behind Measure N. If they are successful, development plans may come to a grinding halt and Measure N may       be contested. 

The City of Eureka-sponsored Measure N was passed by voters in November, and allows the Balloon Track to be rezoned for commercial and retail use. Located at the edge of the Humboldt Bay, the strip of marshland and train tracks is slated to become the Marina Center—a 42-acre mix of offices, residences and retail space. 

Three groups filed suit against the City of Eureka in July, claiming the environmental impact review (EIR) used for Measure N is inadequate. 

“In fifty years it’s likely this area will be partially under water,” says Pete Nichols, executive director at Humboldt Baykeeper, which joined The Ecological Rights Foundation and the Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC) on the suit. 

The review fails to accurately plan for rising sea levels due to climate change, and omits some of the impacts to wetlands caused by development and pollution, says Nichols. As climate change progresses, coastal wetlands and marshes will play an increasingly important role in mitigating storms and rising sea levels. Statewide climate resiliency research highlights the importance of areas like the Balloon Track in mitigating these problems.  

These challenges pose a threat to the EIR as well as Measure N. According to California Environmental Quality Act, government-sponsored ballot measures must involve environmental review, and if the EIR is thrown out, Measure N will face an uncertain future. 

Yet Sydnie Olson, director of community development at the City of Eureka, says this scenario is unlikely. “Our belief is that the court will find this to be an adequate document, and that we will win,” she says. 

Even if the court finds problems with the review, the City will be allowed to fix missed procedural steps and make other corrections. 

“We can keep correcting until we have an uncontested EIR,” says Olson, although she notes that key players could opt out if alterations prove too expensive and time consuming. This could potentially halt the EIR and jeopardizing Measure N. 

The Balloon Track property in Eureka has long been a source of contention. A Walmart was once proposed for the site, but defeated at the ballot box in the 1990s. This fall a lawsuit over the site’s contamination was settled in favor of Humboldt Baykeeper, and toxic ‘hot spots’ on the property will now be addressed.

Measure N marks the latest controversy. When the measure was first proposed, the City had already completed its environmental impact review of the Marina Center and received challenges from environmental groups. The City then used this contested EIR for Measure N.

“Despite the alleged legal problems raised over the environmental review for the Marina Center project, the City of Eureka chose to rely on their faulty environmental impact review in their decision to place the rezoning and Local Coastal Plan Amendment proposition on the November ballot,” says Nichols.

The case will be heard in spring of 2011, and if environmental groups are successful, Measure N will fail in the courtroom, despite its victory at the ballot box.