From marshland to post-industrial wasteland
Northcoast Journal November 2001
(with additional images and updated timeline)
JUMP TO ARKLEY ERA>

1850 -- Marshland and a network of sloughs occupy the site west of the Eureka town site.

By 1888 -- The western side of the marsh is filled and a bayside rail line established. The tidal marsh and Clark Slough remain undeveloped.

By 1915 -- Eastern and northern portions of the tidal marsh are filled with a mixture of silt, sand and gravel. The site is used as a railroad yard for refueling and repair. Bunker C, an oil storage tank, is constructed.

1931 to 1939 -- Southeastern corner of the site (near Washington Street and Broadway) leased by Northwestern Pacific Railroad Co. to Richfield Oil Co. and General Petroleum Co. and two above ground fuel storage tanks are installed.

1946-1947 -- The last remaining tidal marsh is diked off. Dredged material from the bay is used as fill.


Aerial photo by Merle Shuster, 1952

1954 -- Above ground storage tanks installed in the Bunker C site to store diesel fuel used by modern locomotive engines. By this time Clark Slough appears as a drainage ditch.

1974 -- The Regional Water Quality Control Board orders spill prevention, control and a countermeasure plan. Northwest Pacific Railroad estimates in a report that 5,000 gallons per day of oily storm water is discharged into Humboldt Bay with rain runoff.

1975 -- The water board orders discharge of oily storm water runoff discontinued and countermeasures for release of petroleum hydrocarbons to Humboldt Bay implemented.

1976 -- NWPR installs an oil collection system and above ground oil-water separator.

1984 -- The on-site diesel storage tanks are no longer in use. A tank truck is used to fuel locomotives.

1986 -- Southern Pacific Transportation Co. purchases NWPR, but discontinues operations at the Eureka rail yard site. Eureka Railroad Co., formed, leases the railroad yard from Southern Pacific to continue railroad line operation.

1987 -- The site is mostly inactive. The roundhouse has been demolished, many of the buildings and other structures dismantled or in disrepair, and most of the southern area overgrown with brush and grass. The fuel distribution facilities have been removed.

1988 -- Site use has decreased significantly. Water board order for oil collection and discharge expires and discharge system is abandoned.

June 1988 -- At the request of Public Health Department, Southern Pacific arranges to have four underground gasoline storage tanks removed. No detectable concentrations of petroleum-associated compounds are found in the soil surrounding the tanks. However, groundwater samples contain up to 0.69 milligrams per liter (mg/l) benzene, 1.10 mg/l toulene, and 1.2 mg/l xylenes, all components of petroleum. An environmental consultant states that the contamination is likely from an off-site underground storage tank to the east (near Broadway). The tanks are removed and no further investigation is conducted.

July-Nov. 1988 -- An environmental impact statement is prepared for construction of the Humboldt County Jail at the Balloon Track site. An investigation of soil and groundwater contamination from shallow soil surveys and groundwater monitoring wells indicates the presence of oil, grease and petroleum hydrocarbons. Three samples exceed safety thresholds for lead. The environmental consultant recommends that the site be cleaned-up before the property is developed. Another site is chosen for the jail.

1989 -- The water board requests that Southern Pacific Transportation Co. assess soil and groundwater quality beneath the Balloon Track Site. An environmental consulting company is retained to assess the site, remove potentially hazardous materials and make recommendations for further clean up.

1989-1990 -- Consultants hired by Southern Pacific perform preliminary investigations and cleanup activities at the site; about 980 gallons of uncharacterized oil are removed from the site. Waste materials are either transported to a recycling facility or disposed at a facility in Kettleman City, Calif. Approximately 3,500 gallons of oily wastewater are removed from the oil-water separator system and transported to a recycling facility. The inoperative oil-water separator is sealed.

June 1990 -- Most of the railroad tracks, except along the northwestern site boundary, have been removed.

1999 -- Soil and groundwater analyses of samples collected near former underground storage tank show contamination levels below legal limits. Accordingly, active remediation in this area is deemed unnecessary.

1999 -- The voters of Eureka voted 61% to 39% to reject Measure J which read:
"Shall an ordinance be adopted amending the land use designation in the City's General Plan, Local Coastal Program and Zoning Map for Union Pacific's "Balloon Track" (East of Waterfront Drive, West of Broadway, and North of Washington Street) changing it from "Public" to "Service Commercial" thereby allowing commercial/retail use of the property?"

1999 to 2001 -- Continued site evaluation. Consultants hired by Wal-Mart had intended to study the presence of both heavy metals and arsenic in a study proposed in 1999. Consultants for Union Pacific (formerly Southern Pacific Transportation Co.) continue to monitor wells quarterly and report the results to the water board.

2000 -- Rob Arkley offers to donate up to $3 million to the city in order to finance a public buyout of the property. (The city turned down the offer, citing the unknown costs of toxic clean-up at the site.)




September 2001 -- Cleanup of Eureka's balloon tract has been ordered by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. The former rail yard and one-time potential Wal-Mart site was the subject of a cleanup and abatement order issued May 9. The 50-acre site suffers from petroleum hydrocarbon -- fuel -- contamination in the soil and groundwater. Also present are arsenic, copper, lead, zinc and chlorinated volatile organic compounds. The Union Pacific Railroad Co., which owns the site, has until June 15 to submit a work plan. The company must clean up the contaminants and ensure they do not seep further into the groundwater or Humboldt Bay.

November 2003 -- Headwaters Fund awarded the city of Eureka $45,000 grant to help fund a master plan for the Balloon Track. The city was prepared to match that amount with $55,000 from its Redevelopment Agency. The master plan would have studied physical impediments to development, such as water and soil toxicity and protected wetlands, as well as impacts on the area's traffic. But it also would have listed what specific types of development the community wanted to see on the site. The zoning will have to be changed from its current "public" status if any new, private development is to occur at the site -- the master plan would have recommended what to change it to, after an extensive public outreach effort gathered enough community input on the recommendation.

September 21, 2004 -- By unanimous vote Eureka City Council supports Balloon Track Master Plan after the hundreds of hours of staff time spent writing grant applications and interviewing prospective consulting firms.

September 2004 -- Sometime in September Councilman Leonard became aware that the property was close to changing hands. And he became aware the buyer would be Rob Arkley the owner of Eureka's Security National Servicing Corp. And Leonard knew that Arkley wanted the Balloon Track master plan killed.

Arkley confirmed this and reaffirmed his ideological commitment to private property rights, putting his position in the bluntest possible terms. "If you're me, do you really care what the city thinks?" he said. "I don't want to have an alternate plan out there because it might not be what I want."
LINK (NORTH COAST JOURNAL 11.4.04) >

October 5, 2004 -- "With all apologies to council and staff, I'm not willing to go any farther forward down this particular road," Councilman Leonard said. "A hundred thousand dollars is actually, in my mind, a lot to pay for a study." Leonard said that unlike in other cases when the city had partnered with private interests, Union Pacific showed no interest in working on the master plan.

"Until I see someone out in the community who really thinks this study needs to be done to help them get this piece of property developed, I personally don't think we should go forward," he said.

With these concerns in mind, Leonard made a motion to put off hiring the consultant city staff had picked to lead the work on the plan. Councilmember Mike Jones quickly seconded Leonard's motion, and a vote was taken. With Councilmember Virginia Bass-Jackson's support, the contract with the consultant was delayed, for the time being. LINK (NORTH COAST JOURNAL 11.4.04) >

October 19, 2004 -- Union Pacific had written the city to say that the company was in negotiations to sell the parcel to a developer, and the developer had made it known that he didn't want the city to do a master plan. He would prefer to do the plan on his own. If the city were to go forward, the letter implied, it could derail the deal. With the letter in hand, the council voted 4-1, with only Councilmember Chris Kerrigan dissenting, to send the Headwaters grant back and abandon the project.

2006 -- Security National owners Rob and Cherie Arkley ask for zoning at the contaminated 30-acre waterfront site and adjacent parcels to be changed from public to commercial, residential, office and light industrial use. Their proposal is called Marina Center.



BACK TO TOP

What's next for the Balloon Tract?
Northcoast Journal November 2001

With 29 to 30 usable acres adjacent to the Broadway/Highway 101 corridor and the bay, the Balloon Tract is ripe for development, but the property has to be cleaned up first that will not be an easy task.

The city and property owners, Union Pacific, are looking at clean-up in three phases. Phase one, already under way, is clearing some of the trash and vegetation.

"The summer of 2000 we had a couple of fires," said City Manager Dave Tyson. "One was kind of major -- three or four acres within the Balloon Tract itself. We think it was transient-caused. It created quite a bit of concern for the [Eureka] Chamber of Commerce, and of course our fire marshal and businesses in the area, because it came fairly close to the businesses that operate near there."

Tyson said one of the city's primary concerns is the portion of Eureka's population that makes frequent use of the property -- transients and drug users.

"As part of our abatement process with Union Pacific we've indicated our fears for employees who have to go in there -- police mainly, but also firemen who have to go in the because of drug overdoses or fires, problems that occur."

Union Pacific applied to the Coastal Commission and the Department of Fish and Game and received permission to remove some vegetation. Last spring rushes, berries, fennel and other foliage that covered much of the parcel were cut back. Under the terms of the permit, what was done was akin to mowing a lawn -- and the results were about as permanent.

"Because of the time of the year when it was cut, a lot of it has grown back," Tyson acknowledged.

Phase two of the clean-up is removal of debris -- piles of garbage, dirt, concrete and other construction materials dumped there illegally. Union Pacific removed some of the piles along with the vegetation, but like the re-emerging weeds, it did not end the problem.

"It's a big vacant unpatrolled piece of property and there has been quite a lot of dumping there," Tyson said. The debris removal is also complicated since some of it is contaminated, which requires testing and more elaborate disposal than simply hauling it to a landfill site.

"Then there's the removal of the buildings," Tyson continued. "There are three or four buildings on the site that need to be removed and [the owners] are seeking permits to do so. The city is working with Union Pacific to take them down as they are a fire danger as well as danger to the public as an attractive nuisance."

The city will act as lead agency seeking permits from the four or five overlapping government regulatory agencies involved, including the Coastal Commission.

"The final phase, the clean-up of the site, will require Union Pacific to work with the city and more importantly with the state Regional Water Quality Control Board," Tyson said.

"The [water] board has quite a bit of say over the property because it is contaminated. It is known to be affecting groundwater with those contaminates. Not that it's creating a problem with drinking water because that all comes through our water treatment plant. But there is the possibility that it could be affecting the bay water as well as the aquifers beneath the Balloon Track."

And once the site is cleaned up, what then?

"At this point there is no development proposed there," said Tyson. One problem with planning a development is the zoning. Because it was once a rail site governed by a public utility, the zoning is "P" for public, which limits development.

Schools, city halls, jails and wastewater treatment plants are among acceptable public uses. Aside from a scuttled plan for relocating the jail there, no other public use has been proposed. And it's unlikely that anyone will resurrect the rail yard.

"Union Pacific is no longer operating a rail operation in the area. A few years ago the Northern Coast Rail Authority indicated that it has no need for the rail yard other than [use of] the rails that run along the side of the property."

While the public rejected Wal-Mart's Measure J, which would have forced a change in the zoning from public to commercial, it seems likely that a zoning change of some sort will be required for development.

"The city, working with some interested groups -- Friends of Humboldt, the Northcoast Business Leaders Roundtable, our planning commission, our redevelopment agency -- have been talking about changing the zoning of the property and what that would mean," said Tyson. "That has yet to take off as far as discussion in the community, but I'm sure it will."

What uses are being suggested?

"Industrial uses, not heavy industry, but light industrial manufacturing. And there's talk about saving some of it for recreational use."

Whatever happens there will be under the watchful eye of the public agencies that protect the coastal zone and wildlife habitat.

"Most likely if development was to occur there you would have to mitigate for the loss of the marshes with more wetlands," said Tyson.

"It's an area we need to work on as a community. The community has to get involved and provide some guidance to the elected officials and staff as to how it fits into the city's development. It is a key piece of property; it's one of the largest available in our community for development. We need to define what we'd like to do with it."

BACK TO TOP