STAFF’S FINDINGS OF INCONSISTENCY Section 30233(a) Wetland Fill Staff’s basis for denial centers on the determination if the project meets the incidental public service purpose tests, that the project…  is “necessary to maintain existing capacity”, and;  there is “no other feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative” and; includes feasible mitigation measures.

Is the project “necessary to maintain existing capacity”? Staff’s summation of “no” is based on the premise that the current condition is the baseline for existing capacity. Are we really talking about one additional car using the highway? 1.The corridor was designated as a Safety Corridor in 2002 due to the fact that the uncontrolled intersections are NOT maintaining existing capacity. 2.In spite of the Safety Corridor, collision rates at Indianola remain above the statewide average. It is a fact that even with the safety corridor, the existing capacity is NOT being maintained. 3.The proposed project will not increase capacity, it will maintain it while saving lives, reducing injuries and providing safe access to the Humboldt Bay Trail.

A signal at Indianola does not solve the safety issue. Caltrans’ safety analysis indicated that the signalized intersection would be less safe than current conditions (memo dated June 28, 2012). The liability risk for both Caltrans and HCAOG makes the signal alternative unfeasible. Staff’s alternative saves 3 acres but discards the analysis that one turn lane is not enough to move peak traffic through one cycle. Is there “no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative? The feasibility, acceptance and claim of less wetland impact of staff’s signalized intersection alternative have not been demonstrated.

Historical research of accidents at 7 th and 17 th Streets with Highway 101 in Arcata were not considered.

Section Scenic View Protection Policy Staff’s basis for denial centers on the determination if the project conforms to the Scenic View Protection Policy by:  minimizing alterations of natural landforms, and;  degrading scenic public views, and;  being compatible with the character of the surrounding area. STAFF’S FINDINGS OF INCONSISTENCY

Does the project minimize alterations of natural landforms? There are no at-grade solutions that meet the purpose and need of the project (safety). A signal is not the answer. The recommendation to solve a safety problem with another safety problem is not acceptable. The elevated highway will provide a safe, physically separated intersection and will exceed sea level rise predictions for the next century. The original design was narrowed in order to minimize wetland take.

Does the project degrade public scenic views? Staff contends that the overpass will degrade the existing public scenic view at Indianola. Although subjective, it is arguable that the existing view from Indianola, with a billboard and a power pole front and center, is a scenic view. Most people are too busy looking left and right over and over while navigating the dangerous intersection to enjoy the view, scenic or not scenic. The grade separation will extend Indianola from the east to the west side of the highway. From this new viewpoint, with the removal of the billboard and power pole, the view will be enhanced.

How was this highway project in Coronado found consistent ?

Is the project compatible with the character of the surrounding area? There are 11 grade separations at Highway 101 in the City of Arcata in a 3 mile stretch just 3.25 miles away from Indianola. There are 5 grade separations (Herrick Avenue, Fields Landing, Kings Salmon, Tompkins Hill and Hookton Road) just south of Eureka. Applying this criteria to a high standard makes sense when it comes to private land use development. Applying this criteria to a public safety problem is problematic

Section Public Works Policy Staff’s basis for denial is centered on the hypothesis that the removal of a constraint to growth (an unsafe, uncontrolled intersection) will lead to development. This theory relies on an unsubstantiated prediction of intensified growth that does not take existing constraints into account. STAFF’S FINDINGS OF INCONSISTENCY

There is no sewer system serving the Indianola area. With a high water table, even septic systems are problematic in the area. The area is built out based on these constraints. Existing planning and zoning regulations will not allow subdivisions or second units in the Indianola are. The area is in the Appeal Jurisdiction. Making the intersection safe by constructing an intersection will not change these constraints and they should not be overlooked.

Sections Public Access and Recreational Policies Determination if the project will: “sufficiently” further statewide Coastal Trail goals by including a separate bicycle and pedestrian path component or otherwise provide for a parallel Coastal Trail. STAFF’S FINDINGS OF INCONSISTENCY