Note: Policy ideas presented by Planning Commissioners Matt Simmons on rental prices and Judith Mayer on massing, density, and a livable environment have enough substance to warrant separate articles. Come back in a few days for more on those policy ideas.
Introduction
For their September 26, 2023, joint study session, City Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners were invited to supply their pre-meeting policy ideas. Their ideas were included as an addendum to the standard agenda packet, on pages 191 to 203. Those pages can be seen here, below.
This agenda packet addendum came out to the public at some point on the afternoon of the meeting. (The meeting started at 6:00 PM — the file date on the document is 9/26/2023 1:24 PM that afternoon. It was posted on-line at some point after that.) If you are on the Gateway notification e-mail list, you received notice of this addendum at 4:56 PM — an hour prior to the meeting. (To join this list, click here.) This material was also available in printed format at the meeting. No announcement was made that this printed material was there for the audience. The agenda packet addendum also included the comments and photos from the previous night’s open house meeting, which you can see at The September 25, 2023, Gateway Open House meeting – Synopsis and photos.
These policy ideas will likely be posted some day to the the City’s SIRP Engagement Information page in a not-so-easy to find location. It is readily available right here on Arcata1.com.
Extracts from the Policy Ideas
Some specific sentences or phrase shown, with highlights added. These are extracts from the what each person wrote. There is more. Please take the time to read each participant’s full comments, particularly those of Commissioner Judith Mayer.
Vice-Mayor Matthews: I am amenable to any building over 5 stories going to the Planning Commission for review.
Councilmember Kimberley White: We need to create a Community Benefits Program
attractive enough that developers would prefer our program over the State Density Bonus Law
Planning Commission Chair Scott Davies: My top 3 priorities, in order of importance, are building height, architectural features in the gateway code, homeownership opportunities.
Commissioner Lehman: Safe housing is a human right; providing affordable and safe housing for our citizens should be the number one priority of the GAP.
Planning Commissioner Matt Simmons: The simplest way to control these prices is to increase housing supply. Increasing supply likewise helps address the homelessness crisis by reducing rental prices. We should allow more Arcatans to live closer to the places they need to go.
Planning Commissioner Judith Mayer:
- Not just building height or dwelling unit density alone, but must address design standards to promote livability.
- City efforts to provide strategically located publicly owned, publicly accessible open space, for assembly and recreation, but also for conservation/restoration and hazard mitigation.
- The community benefits program, especially since it’s starting to appear that the program as the draft proposes it will have little leverage in the face of State‐mandated density bonus and streamlining rules.
- Tools to help ensure housing affordability for low income residents.
City Council – Planning Commission
Joint study session
September 26, 2023
Gateway Policy Review
Pre-Meeting Policy Ideas from the City Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners
Click or press on the link to go directly to that person’s policy ideas.
Use your browser’s back arrow to return to this menu.
Mayor Sarah Schaefer
No statement from Mayor Schaefer is included in the agenda packet.
Vice-Mayor Meredith Matthews
Building height/massing/density and Inclusionary
zoning/community benefit structure
I have observed the past 2 years of Planning Commission meetings and have a firm
understanding of their recommendations and how they came about them. I have spent countless hours discussing this with the community and have reviewed reams of information on these subjects. At this point, I am satisfied with the recommendations put forth by the Planning Commission, and I am looking forward to adopting the GAP.
Building Height: Seven (7) story buildings in the barrel district after the adoption of a
complete barrel area plan. I am amenable to any building over 5 stories going to the Planning Commission for review — how does that work with density bonus?
Change is inevitable. We need to embrace it and wield it with determination. I recently asked some developers how we can get them to want to build in Arcata, or anywhere. They need the support and intention of the City Council.
We are going through 2 parallel crises — Climate Change and Housing. Single-family housing consumes the most energy, and we need to adapt to smaller footprints.
Councilmember Kimberley White
1. Building Height
At our last Study Session meeting (8/22), I felt it important to explore three story maximum height in some areas. I would be comfortable with four stories, as long as we also require appropriate design standards with regards to building bulk and massing, including standards such as stepbacks, setbacks, solar shading and façade design.
2. Massing
The Form Based Code draft says we can have a maximum building length of 300 ft. in all four districts (pgs. 8-20 – see four tables). This is too long. It would be better to simply have a new building, rather than breaking it up as proposed. I propose no building longer than 150 ft should be allowed. Anything over that should just be a separate building.
3. Density
I am hoping some type of visuals might be provided that we might all look at, to better
understand the minimum and maximum units per acre. I recall one of the Commissioners had pointed out the value of looking at the number of bedrooms or doors, versus the number of units, might be better. I would like to further discuss this topic.
4. Inclusionary Zoning
If we are going to have inclusionary zoning to achieve affordable housing goals, it needs to be at a meaningful level. I suggested 20%, other jurisdictions such as Santa Cruz does 20%. Especially with the demographics of low income households in Arcata, we really should be talking about 20% inclusionary zoning for low and extremely low income on larger projects. Land trusts can also be done under inclusionary zoning. We have local resources such as the Humboldt Housing Land Trust and others. I would like to further explore this.
5. Community Benefits Program
We really need to talk about a viable Community Benefits Program in light of the new State
Density Bonus Law (SDBL) and pro-housing law changes. The way it was originally envisioned simply has no leverage for any one to use it. We need to create a Community Benefits Program attractive enough that developers would prefer our program over the State Density Bonus Law. More importantly is that we have clearly stated designed standards in great detail. I would like to discuss in depth the points allocated in the current Gateway Code community benefits program.
6. Fire Safety
I believe community confidence in our Arcata Fire District is imperative. I continue to stand in solidarity with Arcata Fire District’s current recommendations. A good start is moving forward with the comprehensive Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover (SOC) Analysis for the Arcata Fire Protection District that is compliant with the industry best practices. Strong fire protection needs to be incorporated throughout the Gateway Area Plan policies as well as Citywide. This needs to be in both the Gateway Area Plan and the General Plan 2045. I propose we invite the Arcata Fire District to speak at City Council. I have spoken to Chief Justin McDonald and the Arcata Fire District would like an opportunity to address Council.
Planning Commission Chair Scott Davies
My top 3 priorities, in order of importance, are:
– building height
– architectural features in the gateway code
– homeownership opportunities
Planning Commission Vice-Chair Dan Tangney
No statement from Vice-Chair Tangney is included in the agenda packet.
Planning Commissioner Peter Lehman
The City of Arcata will experience considerable growth in the next decades as Cal Poly Humboldt expands, remote work becomes more general, and climate refugees move here from fire prone and heat-stricken regions. The Gateway Area Plan is a well thought out plan to accommodate and regulate that growth in an important area of the city.
The GAP has many provisions and proposed regulations. I will focus here on the two issues I think are the most important.
1. Housing
Safe housing is a human right; providing affordable and safe housing for our citizens should be the number one priority of the GAP.
2. Open Space
The GAP should call for significant open space, parks, walkways, bikeways, and natural areas. These are benefits that the citizens of Arcata strongly value.
There is only one way to provide the housing we need and preserve the open space we desire. We must build up. I strongly urge the City Council to adopt the Planning Commission recommendations for 4, 5, 6, and 7 story buildings in appropriate sections of the Gateway Area.
Planning Commissioner Joel Yodowitz
My issues:
1. Height
2. Density
3. Setbacks/step backs
Planning Commissioner Judith Mayer
[Note: Words within the square brackets were added for clarity.]
Something very important for Planning Commission discussions with City Council that I didn’t include in my list for the September (Gateway oriented) study session is a topic that
should definitely be included in the October study session (on the General Plan beyond the Gateway):
Tools to help ensure housing affordability for low income residents, are crucial, especially in larger projects. It makes little sense to quibble about 3% vs 4% “inclusionary” requirements, even if they could mean a difference of 1 or 2 dwelling units. It does make sense to spend some time and energy on more substantial affordability policies. This means looking beyond requiring a few % “below market” units, and requiring ‐‐ especially for larger projects ‐‐ mixes of housing types that include a sufficient number that are affordable to low income residents (those “naturally affordable” housing types). Those should be required City‐wide, including in the Gateway, and shouldn’t be “tradeable” in density bargaining.
I wonder about the value of a priority ranking for what to cover at a coming study session
with only “first choices”. The whole reason there are multiple aspects in zoning and design codes is in order to tie standards together in ways that make sense. But I guess for agenda‐setting, it’s important to start somewhere.
At our meeting last night I don’t think I said anything about high quality pedestrian design (I don’t have the recording), which actually ranks fairly low among the reasons I believe it’s crucial to consider bulk‐related design standards together.
[1: Design standards to promote livability]
I hope that our meetings and study session will address NOT JUST building height or dwelling unit density alone, but must address design standards to promote livability, from perspectives of the public realm and neighbors, of future residents and other users, and of development feasibility.
[2: Publicly-owned open space]
2nd: I’d like to get Council members to address policy to ensure that the Gateway Area Plan element supports City efforts to provide strategically located publicly owned, publicly accessible open space, for assembly and recreation, but also for conservation/restoration and hazard mitigation. (Some of this is in the updated draft; it would help to make sure it stays in and that the Council is prepared to support efforts to find and designate $$ to those, especially if the community benefits program doesn’t succeed in generating significant publicly accessible open space resources.)
[3: The Community Benefits Program]
3rd: We need to discuss with the Council the proposed Gateway community benefits program, especially since it’s starting to appear that the program as the draft proposes it will have little leverage in the face of state‐mandated density bonus and streamlining rules. (Some of the things we’d been hoping the community benefits program would provide should probably be required instead, even if that means developers could then opt for the state density bonus approach, and bargain some of then away.)
It would be a shame to wrangle out maximum building height or dwelling unit density in a politicized forum, but then leave those other design factors hanging. It won’t be easy to argue that the proposed community benefits program has much chance to keep up with the latitude that builders claim under recent legislation and case law. Building height and dwelling unit density have become proxies for so many hot‐button concerns.
Standards intended to produce housing and street‐level vitality should also include livability‐oriented standards for stepbacks and setbacks, building length, and visual articulation. It does help to frame these in terms that don’t depend on subjective aesthetics. (Regardless of the view from the street, few would debate the value of building standards that guarantee the values of access to abundant natural light and fresh air for
building users, beyond those demanded just for fire safety.)
Incidentally, it would really help to consider density not only in terms of dwelling units, or average dwelling unity size, but in terms of bedrooms as well. This will more accurately represent actual populations, and overcome the limitations of equating a studio with a 3‐bedroom apartment. I know HCD and the density bonus rules ALL refer to dwelling units. But Arcata’s standards can reasonably refer to BOTH.
I’ve also been increasingly concerned that several or the “pedestrian experience” orthodoxies mentioned in our meetings, if applied on their own, would likely produce dingy, airless, energy‐consuming, and inflexible buildings, unlikely to be maintained once developers have unloaded them ‐‐ hardly a recipe for sustaining community. A block of several 7‐story buildings intended for students, for example, if allowed zero side‐ and
rear‐setbacks up to 7 stories, or zero stepbacks to 4 stories, will likely yield bulky buildings with no windows on the sides or potentially on the backs, assuming that neighbors will also build right to their parcel boundaries. (Multi‐parcel design standards, large site master plans, and planned developments can avoid that ‐‐ but except for the “master plan” at the south of the Barrel District, it doesn’t seem that’s the direction the Gateway is going.)
Planning Commissioner Abbie Strickland
My number one priority as we move forward with discussions pertaining to the Gateway Plan is to reach a consensus with the City Council on the proposed minimum and maximum building heights. Seeing as a minimum of 4 stories is required to implement the community benefits program this is crucial to continued productive conversations at the Planning Commission level.
Planning Commissioner Matt Simmons
My top 3 priorities for the Gateway Area Plan are
1.Streamlining housing production
Arcata is in a housing crisis. Home prices and rent are out of control. Our unhoused population is growing and the fact that we have an unhoused population at all is a tragedy. Numerous studies [Editor’s note: See references below] have shown that the simplest way to control these prices is to increase housing supply. Increasing supply likewise helps address the homelessness crisis by reducing rental prices.
Despite this, we make housing developers jump through a series of regulatory hurdles in order to build the most affordable kinds of housing. When developers have come to the City in the past, they have been met with lengthy meetings, costly exactions, and hostility. This has exacerbated our housing crisis and is hurting the most vulnerable Arcatans.
To me, the most exciting opportunity of the Gateway Area Plan is the Form Based Code. It allows us to write a list of requirements that most Arcatans can agree with and then approve projects that meet those requirements quickly and efficiently. This will stimulate the kind of housing production that we so desperately need.
2. Prioritizing alternative forms of transportation and deemphasizing personal vehicle use
The Draft Humboldt County Action Plan estimates that 53% of our County’s emissions come from transportation. Nearly half of that (48.9%) originates with personal vehicles. So, making it less necessary for people to drive cars to their destinations is one of the best strategies locally to fight climate change. Every trip taken on foot, on a bike, on public transit reduces our greenhouse gas emissions.
Even as people slowly transition to non-internal combustion engine vehicles, electric vehicles and hydrogen vehicles continue to have serious environmental and social impacts, for instance, lithium mining, particulate matter pollution from tire wear, and traffic violence.
Building a community where more people walk, bike, and take public transit is absolutely
necessary to address both climate change and these other challenges. We should be focusing on making these activities as convenient and safe as possible even if that means reducing vehicle speeds, level of service, and parking.
3. Letting More People Live Closer to the Places They Go (aka density and mixed use development)
All of the alternative transportation opportunities discussed above only work if people live
within a reasonable distance of their destination (or public transit serving their destination). So, we should allow more Arcatans to live closer to the places they need to go. Instead of forcing new construction to be on the periphery of our town or in another jurisdiction entirely, we should be building up and more densely in our existing communities. Allowing multiple uses to co-exist (like putting apartments on top of commercial), likewise reduces the average distance people need to travel to reach their destinations. One thing that everyone seems to agree on is that sprawl is ugly and an environmental disaster. Denser, mixed use development within our community is the alternative.
[Note: Because links will not transfer if a document is printed, the following URL addresses and information are provided. These URL addresses were not present in the letter from Commissioner Simmons, above.]
References:
Repeat after me: building any new homes reduces housing costs for all
https://www.ft.com/content/86836af4-6b52-49e8-a8f0-8aec6181dbc5
Note: This is a link to a September 14, 2023, article in the Financial Times. The link goes to a page that is behind a paywall, and thus is not accessible to someone who does not want to pay for the article. This article is available on Arcata1.com as True or False: Building any new homes reduces housing costs for all.
Additional note: This article is hogwash. The studies it refers to apply to very specific cities and circumstances, and, in my view, have very little to do with our situation here in Arcata.
POLICY BRIEF: LAND USE REGULATIONS, LOCAL ZONING ORDINANCES, AND HOMELESSNESS
June 12, 2023
https://community.solutions/research-posts/policy-brief-land-use-regulations-local-zoning-ordinances-and-homelessness/
Homelessness is a Housing Problem
https://homelessnesshousingproblem.com/
Humboldt Regional Climate Action Plan
April 7, 2022
https://humboldtgov.org/DocumentCenter/View/106404/Humboldt-Regional-CAP—-Public-Review-Draft-4-7-22-PDF
In pictures: South America’s ‘lithium fields’ reveal the dark side of our electric future
January 2, 2022
https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/02/01/south-america-s-lithium-fields-reveal-the-dark-side-of-our-electric-future
Car tyres produce vastly more particle pollution than exhausts, tests show
Toxic particles from tyre wear almost 2,000 times worse than from exhausts as weight of cars increases
June 2, 2022
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/03/car-tyres-produce-more-particle-pollution-than-exhausts-tests-show
What is ‘Traffic Violence’ and Why Do We Need To Talk About It?
May 3, 2021
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2021/05/03/what-traffic-violence-is-and-why-we-need-to-talk-about-it
All Policy Ideas from City Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners
The City Council / Planning Commission September 26, 2023
Joint Study Session agenda packet – addendum, pages 191 to 203.