Contents Click on any item to go directly to that section
- Where did the idea for dissolving the Gateway Area Plan come from?
Estimated reading time: 7 minutes - What the City Council can do now
Estimated reading time: 7 minutes - Transcriptions and videos — What was actually said
Viewing or reading time: 8-10 minutes for all - The policies that were proposed as moving to the city-wide General Plan
Reading time: 5 minutes
For consideration as good city-wide policies:
Some policies will be quick to decide or reject as being city-wide,
and others will take more consideration.
Where does David Loya get his ideas?
Where David Loya gets his ideas is a mystery. Oh, he tells us what he’s thinking and what the background is, when we ask. The mystery is that, even after he tells us, we still don’t have a clue what’s really going on.
Or, to put it another way, what he tells us does not really relate to what is going on.
Who are the “several people” who want to see the Gateway policies be put in place all over Arcata — and see the Gateway Area Plan be dissolved?
The November 15, 2023, City Council meeting agenda contained a bombshell of a proposal from our Community Development Director, David Loya. Specifically (highlighting added):
“Staff recommends the Council provide direction whether to retain the Gateway Area Plan as a standalone Element of the General Plan applicable only in the Gateway Area or distribute the new policy into the other General Plan Elements to be applicable citywide, as well as any other direction the Council wishes to provide.”
If we’re not retaining the Gateway Area Plan as a standalone Element, then…what? It would no longer be a separate Area Plan? That’s what the staff report is saying.
I wrote to David Loya. I wrote:
His reply:
What Councilmembers Stacy Atkins-Salazar and Alex Stillman, Commissioner Judith Mayer (and a passage from City Manager Karen Diemer) actually said at that October 24, 2023, joint City Council – Planning Commission joint study session is below, transcribed from the video, along with the sections of the video from that meeting.
The problem is: What they said was not “whether to retain the Gateway Area Plan as a standalone Element of the General Plan applicable only in the Gateway Area or distribute the new policy into the other General Plan Elements to be applicable citywide.”
What they said was pretty much the opposite
We can agree: Many of the policies developed during the Gateway Area Plan process could be considered as good policies for all of Arcata. Many — not all. And selectively. And certainly not this Loya-proposed city-wide policy, from the the November 15, 2023, staff report:
“Allow for buildings over four stories using Community Benefits Program but require greater percentages of Open Space to be retained at ratios set in the Form-Based Code to ensure residents of high-density housing retain an excellent quality of life and easy access to high-quality open space.”
In the staff report for the November 15, 2023, City Council meeting, David Loya identified 123 individual policies that were developed for the Gateway Area Plan that he is proposing could serve Arcata on a city-wide basis — throughout the entire city. He says: “Many of the policies, though developed for the Gateway Area Plan, reflect citywide values.”
Lots of policies developed for the Gateway plan are 100% specific to that area of Arcata. They do not “reflect citywide values.” Here are some excerpts, taken from the staff report:
-
-
- “Do not establish a maximum residential density standard”
- “Allow for buildings over four stories“
- “No Maximum Residential Density”
- “On-Street parking may be eliminated”
- “Disconnect parking minimums from land use”
-
For a list of just the major policies that are proposed by David Loya as being suitable for city-wide implementation, scroll down or click here.
Okay, then: What were the Councilmembers and Commissioner talking about?
What the Councilmembers and Commissioner were talking about was the process — how the Gateway Area Plan was developed, and how that process and what we learned could be used in developing policies for those other three infill opportunity zones that are part of the Housing Element and the draft General Plan. (For more on the infill opportunity zones, see here.)
Neighborhoods treated differently because of different characteristics.
- Councilmember Atkins-Salazar: “…recognizing that they are different neighborhoods, and I would assume that they would be treated somewhat differently because of different characteristics.”
We could have Form-Based Codes everywhere.
- Councilmember Stillman: “I want to see it everywhere.” Here “it” is referring to using Form-Based Codes everywhere.
- Commissioner Mayer: “But, you know, at some point, there’s going to be a debate about, well, do we use the same standards, the same pattern, the same kinds of approaches with the other three opportunity zones? Or do we recognize each of their uniqueness and do them sort of one-by-one, so that each area has its own area-specific Form-Based Code, with its own area-specific benefits, and, you know, to really recognize that uniqueness. We haven’t decided that yet, have we?”
She is asking if the same kinds of approaches and area-specific benefits may be appropriate for the other three opportunity zones. No mention of city-wide policies.
I mean, I’m not going to say “eliminate the Gateway Plan,” right, because that seems too extreme.
Please don’t panic, everyone out there, right?
- City Manager Karen Diemer: “There are two separate areas around Gateway … there’s the policy side of it. And then there is the Form-Based Code. I do think that each of those infill areas could have their own Form-Based Code, and that could reflect that unique character of that region. The question, I think that or what I heard starting with you tonight, you know, that was reiterated, then, is that there may be interested in looking at larger policies that — I mean, I’m not going to say “eliminate the Gateway Plan,” right, because that seems too extreme. Please don’t panic, everyone out there, right?”
Who said “Let’s make all the Gateway policies be city-wide” ?
At that October 24th joint study session meeting? No one. Since then: one person. David Loya.
Who said “Let’s dissolve the Gateway Area Plan and put its policies into the General Plan” ?
At that October 24th joint study session meeting? No one.
Who said “Allow buildings over four stories and eliminate maximum residential densities” — for all of Arcata?
Gee, Mr. Loya — Are you kidding? No one said anything remotely close to that.
This proposal is deceitful
If this proposal by David Loya were to be seriously considered by the Planning Commission — which I completely do not believe will happen — it would be insulting to the Planning Commission. For close to two years they have been working on an area plan, with defined policies for that 138-acre, ~70-block area of Arcata that is slated for redevelopment and housing. That’s what they have been working on in this Gateway Area Plan — and not city-wide policies.
With the Gateway Area Plan set up as a separate “element” of the General Plan, there are two Councilmembers who are not permitted, by law, to discuss this issue. For the duration of their involvement, they’ve had to recuse themselves from Gateway involvement. If, rather than being a separate “area plan,” the Gateway policies are put into the General Plan and the original “area plan” is dissolved, then all five of the Council members would be able to discuss and vote on it.
Of course, this is counter to the intent of the law, but would perhaps be acceptable under the letter of the law — if no one in the public complained too much.
The Gateway Area Plan has been portrayed to the public as a plan for a distinct area of Arcata. It’s been close to two years after the Gateway Area Plan document came out, and at least a few years of discussion among with the Commissioners and the public about this development as a plan for one region only of Arcata. To attempt to change that at this point to a city-wide plan is revolutionary. To change it now to a city-wide plan within the General Plan would be extremely deceitful.
Do I think David Loya should be removed from his position of managing the Gateway Area Plan?
Yes, I do. He has proven himself to be incompetent and incapable of handling the process of developing a feasible plan for housing in the Gateway area. Proposals such as this one are time-wasting diversions that are yet another factor in keeping us from seeing real work being accomplished.
His statement “And so project proponents [i.e. developers] will be driven by the Density Bonus provisions [State law]. And our design standards and Community Benefits programs are unlikely to be implemented due to waivers and concessions” proves this. Simply put, he does not know what he is doing.
What the City Council can do now
- To the City Council: On the matter of “provide direction whether to retain the Gateway Area Plan as a standalone Element of the General Plan applicable only in the Gateway Area” — tell David Loya, yes, that is exactly what you want him to do.
- Request David Loya provide an outline, in writing, that shows his scheduled plan, on a month-by-month basis to:
- Create a feasible Community Benefits program that accomplishes our goals.
- Review the Privately-owned public-accessible open space program, to assure us that developers will use it.
- Review the homeownership situation. Talk with lenders and builders, as required.
- Review the workforce-affordable housing situation, with real numbers from developers showing expected cost of construction and rental rates.
- Require a re-do of the Urban Field Studio report, to provide information that’s useable and realistic, and showing their awareness of the Gateway goals.
- Establish protection in the Gateway Code for existing adjoining homes, as was promised many times during the introductory period of the Gateway plan.
- Provide a written summation of the enhanced form-based code improvements, graphics, and outreach. Is what we’ve received similar in form and degree of complexity to what will be the final product?
- Complete of Arcata’s Local Coastal Planning document.
- Update of the Planwest schedule of completion.
- Establish real dates for the EIR and the EIR studies — publish the studies in advance of the report, so they can be evaluated.
- Provide further guidance on Coastal Commission review process. Will redevelopment of the infill opportunity zone that includes the Uniontown Shopping Center require separate Coastal Commission review?
Transcription: Councilmembers Atkins-Salazar and Stillman, Commissioner Judith Mayer, and City Manager Diemer
The video appears first. The transcriptions are below the video.
Transcribed from the October 24, 2023, joint City Council – Planning Commission joint study session. Times are from the City version of the video of the meeting. For the YouTube times, subtract 2 minutes from what’s shown.
Highlights have been added in bold and in red.
You can just watch the video, or start the video and scroll down to read the transcription while you watch, or just read the transcription without starting the video.
Stacy Atkins-Salazar 1:14:44
So just so you know where I’m coming from. So there have been hours and hours and hours of talks and study sessions, and Alex and I have not been able to participate in any of them. So I might have a little bit more to say possibly because I haven’t had a chance.
Judith, when you brought up like looking at the General Plan as a whole. And I appreciate you bringing that up, because that is something I just — it’s not a question, but I just wanted to take this opportunity to comment on that, because I feel like I do have some agreement with what you were saying.
For me when I was reading through it, when I looked at the four different areas, which we’ll get to I know when we go down the road, like the infill opportunity zones and such, the question that kind of popped into my head was: Why would we be treating those three areas different than the Gateway Area Plan? And I know that this has evolved, like, you know, you’re all saying it’s a working document, I know that process has also been evolving. And I believe those neighborhood areas were added in like later after Gateway was singled out.
But just in looking through that, even though there might be some differences in the neighborhoods, I was really kind of struck with that they should, in my opinion, be treated fairly similarly with possibly, you know, with things like Form-Based Codes, or inclusionary zoning, ministerial review, all of those things that, so far, I’ve only heard, you know, when I’m listening to Gateway discussions, and I feel like those neighborhoods might need similar conversations.
And then just finally on that, you know, recognizing that they are different neighborhoods, and I would assume that they would be treated somewhat differently because of different characteristics.
And that there would be, you know, in those neighborhoods, we have other Councilmembers that live in those. So the same assumption would go that when we would get to that part that of policymaking, just as we recused for our area, that there would be other recusals. So just kind of looking at, for me, thinking of things more holistically, and then when we do get to the specific areas that we might need to pull back on and recuse for whatever reasons, I totally support that.
[Editor’s Note: If policies are part of the General Plan, individual Councilmembers would not be required to recuse themselves from the discussion. Those policies would be city-wide. Essentially, everyone lives somewhere in the City and so it’s not necessary for a person to recuse themselves if the policy is for everywhere. Only if a policy directly affected a Councilmember would recusal be required. For the sake of appearances and transparency, there can be a voluntary recusal if desired.]
But I’m just kind of, as I read it, I was just kind of wondering about why the separation and if it still should be so separated. But what I should have said, first, is I was overwhelmed by the amount of attention that you all — all the detailed questions, the pages and pages and pages of suggestions and modifications, and all of the discussion that I read from the Planning Commission. I was just really humbled by that and appreciative for the thoughtfulness of, like, every sentence of every page. So thank you so very much for all of that attention to detail. And I don’t have any questions. I didn’t have any on that specific section.
Alex Stillman 1:18:12
I wanted to say, you know, since the very beginning, I keep thinking that we have to have — everything has to be equal in Arcata, so we just don’t have the Gateway that has things and that we don’t have them out in Valley West or in Westwood or Sunny Brae, etc.
And I remember Form-Based Code were something, probably maybe 15-20 years ago. I was at a presentation, on historic preservation actually, where they were talking about Form-Based codes and how they could make neighborhoods and commercial areas actually work so much better I remember coming back to the City and it was strange, you know, strange talk at that time, because no one really had seen that or understood it.
And it’s taken years for us finally to get to this point of really considering what Form-Based Codes could do, and how now, I mean, you’ve heard a lot of hearing where people were scared of them. But I think in the overall it offers opportunities for historic buildings, buildings next to historic buildings, etc. to create cohesiveness and livability and walkability. And so I want to see it everywhere. Of course, Karen reminded me, you know, you talk about you want these things not just limited. You want to see them everywhere. And I do. I don’t want anything to be just in one area like the Gateway. It has to be everywhere. Right? Just as you said, Stacy, thank you.
[Other discussion on annexation, etc. for ~16 minutes]
The video appears first. The transcriptions are below the video.
Video starting from Heather Equinoss (meeting facilitator) speaking, 1:33:35 on the YouTube video. Times in the transcript are from the City version of the video of the meeting. For the YouTube times, subtract 2 minutes from what’s shown.
You can just watch the video, or start the video and scroll down to read the transcription while you watch, or just read the transcription without starting the video.
Heather Equinoss (meeting facilitator) 1:35:26
All right. Other questions that anybody wants to pick up? I know that this one was like, really about — I think it’s building off of what you’re offering about the General Plan as a whole, and why are we treating certain areas like these three areas different? I see many people want to go here.
Judith Mayer 1:36:05
You know, I was getting that too, and that’s actually come up with the Planning Commission. And I think that, you know, staff is basically emphasized to us that the Gateway is the first of the opportunity zones that we’re dealing with. And I think that’s one of the reasons why it’s been so agonizing, because, you know, we haven’t done it before. But, you know, at some point, there’s going to be a debate about, well, do we use the same standards, the same pattern, the same kinds of approaches with the other three opportunity zones? Or do we recognize each of their uniqueness and do them sort of one-by-one, so that each area has its own area-specific Form-Based Code, with its own area-specific benefits, and, you know, to really recognize that uniqueness. We haven’t decided that yet, have we?
Karen Diemer 1:37:11
I don’t think all those final decisions have been made. I mean, I feel like staff needs to reconsider what we’ve heard this evening. But I don’t I really just don’t want to get ahead of ourselves. We’ve only heard from a couple of Councilmembers and one Planning Commissioner. There are two separate areas around Gateway and not to talk about that a lot while we have two here to recuse that in detail. But, you know, there’s the policy side of it. And then there is the Form-Based Code. I do think that each of those infill areas could have their own Form-Based Code, and that could reflect that unique character of that region. The question, I think that or what I heard starting with you tonight, you know, that was reiterated, then, is that there may be interested in looking at larger policies that — I mean, I’m not going to say “eliminate the Gateway Plan,” right, because that seems too extreme. Please don’t panic, everyone out there, right? You know, but if, but that is sort of the conversation that I feel like was opened with that concept. That these are policies that are good city wide, and is that something, I have no idea if that’s something that the Council would want to revisit?
Alex Stillman 1:38:22
It’s something I would personally like, because I think that we need to treat everything and look at all those possibilities throughout the whole city and not just relegate it to one section of town.
Karen Diemer 1:38:35
Well, I’d suggest we put a pin in that one for now, and let’s do some analysis before we send shockwaves, please.
Policies proposed in the November 15, 2023, City Council staff report for being implemented on a city-wide basis.
Problematic on a City-wide basis |
| 1a. Maximum and Minimum Residential Density Standards. Except for in designated natural resource and open space areas, permit all land use designations in the Plan Area to allow residential uses. In each of these land use designations, do not establish a maximum residential density standard. Instead, allow residential density to be naturally restricted through other development standards, such as building height and Building Code requirements for minimum unit size. In addition, establish a minimum residential density standard in each of these land use designations, with exceptions established for some use types (such as theaters) and some building types (such as historically significant structures and the adaptive reuse of existing buildings). |
| 1b. Relationship of Building Height to Open Space. Allow for buildings over four stories using Community Benefits Program but require greater percentages of Open Space to be retained at ratios set in the Form-Based Code to ensure residents of high-density housing retain an excellent quality of life and easy access to high-quality open space. |
| 1c. New Non-residential Uses. Except for in designated natural resource and open space areas, permit all land use designations in the Plan Area to allow mixed uses to complement residential uses. Ensure that all new non-residential mixed-use development supports an active and livable neighborhood, with residential, retail, office, and light-manufacturing uses thoughtfully blended together to create a cohesive neighborhood that feels complete. Allow flexibility in non-residential uses, with targeted limitations on uses that do not encourage street level human activity, livability, or neighborhood identity. Examples of uses that do not encourage human activity include heavy industrial uses, mini-storage, and outdoor automotive sales. |
| 1h. Relocate Existing Uses that are Incompatible with Plan Vision. Facilitate the relocation of nonconforming uses that are incompatible with the Plan Vision and explore opportunities to reduce conflicts between new and existing users (e.g., noise attenuation). Target uses that conflict with or otherwise detract from the intended character of the Plan Area by being incompatible with human activity, livability, or neighborhood identity/cohesion. Support relocation of existing uses with affordable housing, large workforce, or high sales-tax. |
| 2a. Base Standards and Bonus Tier Standards. Utilize the tiered incentives system presented in Table 6, Table 7, and Image 2, where projects that provide higher levels of community benefits are permitted greater intensity. |
| 7b. (continued) 3. Throughout the entire Plan Area, the presence of on-street parking may be eliminated in favor of adding or enhancing non-motorized facilities, such as sidewalks, bike lanes, landscaping, Class I trails, etc. |
| 3b. No Maximum Residential Density. Regulate building bulk and massing through design and community benefit measures; do not directly limit units per acre. Instead, encourage the maximum of dwelling units feasible within the allowed building envelope and allow other standards (e.g., height, setbacks, minimum units sizes) to collectively establish natural limitations on the number of dwelling units that can be developed. |
| 2b. By-Right Approval. Allow development projects participating in the community benefits program with by-right approvals when the project conforms to all applicable standards and design guidance. |
| 7b. (continued) 9. The trail within the Q Street right-of-way south of 10th Street may eventually need to be converted into a full vehicular roadway with a cross-section similar to other two-way roads proposed within the Plan Area. |
|
Unlikely to be successful |
| The list below includes the Gateway Area Plan policies that, in my opinion, are unlikely to be successfully implemented as they are written even within the Gateway area. It is doubly unlikely that they would be successfully implemented as city-wide policies. Highlighting has been added. |
| 3h. Mixed-Income Neighborhoods. Provide for mixed-income neighborhoods with housing options available for all income groups. Housing in a mixed-income neighborhood should include deed-restricted units affordable to very low-income households, small affordable-by-design units, student housing, moderate income owner-occupied condominiums and townhouses, market-rate rental units, median-priced family-sized dwellings, and penthouse units for high-income households. |
| 3a. New Units. Plan for approximately 500 new residential units in the Gateway Area in the next 20 years, recognizing the full buildout potential in the Area is close to 3,500 units, as shown in Table 5. |
|
1g. Form-based Design Standards. |
|
3i. Owner-Occupied Affordable Housing as a Community Amenity. |
| 6m. Incentivize Privately-Owned Open Spaces as a Community Amenity. Utilize the community benefit program to incentivize the creation of new privately-owned, publicly-accessible open spaces in the Plan Area. |
| 9b. Transitions to Lower Intensity Uses. Require buildings to incorporate massing strategies to minimize impacts on adjacent single-family homes. |
| 9f. Incentivize Enhanced Architectural and Exterior Design as Community Amenities. Through the Gateway Area community benefit program, allow increased development intensity and simplified development processes for projects that provide enhanced architectural and exterior designs that go beyond base standards. |