Reader: This is a living, growing document. Originally written before the Planning Commission meeting on the Housing Chapter, it will be updated as new input comes on.
Your comments are welcome, through the Contact Us page or directly to Fred Weis.
Thank you!
At the Tuesday, June 28th, 2022 meeting, the Planning Commission will take up the Housing “chapter” of the December 2021 draft Gateway plan. I put the word “chapter” into quotes because in the draft plan Housing is allotted 1-1/2 pages of text — a little too brief of a summation, I think.
In advance of the meeting, I made notes for distribution to the Planning Commissioners about my ideas and views. In apologies to the Commissioners, I did not get this to them until the morning of the meeting date.
I do not expect immediate response or action on the themes I’ve brought up here — I simply want to get this out to the community.
I say, in my opinion:
Without substantial innovation, the housing developed as part of the Gateway plan will be “business as usual.”
I say, in my opinion: Without substantial innovation, the housing developed as part of the Gateway plan will be “business as usual.” There will NOT be opportunities for home ownership. There will NOT be adequate affordable housing. There will NOT be housing for Arcata’s working citizens. There will NOT be housing for the medical workers that Open Door Community Health Center CEO Tory Starr seeks, or that Lulu Michaelson passionately pleads for.
We need innovation. As this website says: Arcata, we can do better.
My notes, below. Following that will be the 2 pages of the draft plan that compose the Housing chapter. The text in blue is copied from the draft plan.
Gateway draft plan Chapter 3. Housing
Notes from Fred Weis
GA-3a. New Units.
Plan for an approximate maximum of 3,500 new residential units in the Gateway Area.
Where does this figure of 3,500 come from? Why not 2,000 — or 8,000?
If David Loya says that this is a mathematically-derived figure from the Table of “Key Opportunity Sites” (Page 37) that is not an acceptable answer. That Table based on the ~60 available acres of the “Key Opportunity Sites” at a density of 50 units per acre which is not what is specified here (See GA-3b.). (The figure in that Table is also suspect, as it involves the REMOVAL OF EVERY STRUCTURE in those 60 acres in order to achieve the density shown.)
Consider: A maximum number of units per year. The City of Healdsburg has this in place. Say, 200 per year — that would be a ~18-year build-out. As Andrea Tuttle and many others have said, there is a tremendous demand for housing from out-of-the-area incoming residents. We should not fool ourselves into thinking that development would proceed at a gradual pace. To put it another way, development over the next 10-20 years is not going to be like the past 10-20 years.
To put 200 units per year in perspective: The Sorrel Place apartments (7th Street, between I & J) is 44 units on 4 stories. It’s a full block long, with a density of 64 units per acre, average unit 825 square feet. A similar building with commercial space on the 1st floor would be five stories. The development of 200 units is equivalent to about FOUR “Sorrel Place” sized buildings – per year
So that any “unused” number of units would not be lost, the unused amount would carry-over to the next year.
Among the reasons for putting a yearly limit on development: So that we can learn from experience. This has been brought up by Commissioners and in public comment. If a developer were to build a project that, while fitting into the way the Zoning Code is written, is not in keeping with the intent of the Gateway plan then the Planning Commission will have an opportunity to amend the plan.
GA-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.
Any discussion that includes a discussion of “dwelling units” needs to define what those units are. That is: The balance of housing units of all sizes and types. Do we encourage, say, that 50% of the housing types be 2-bedroom or larger? Do we let the market (i.e. the developers) decide what Arcata wants? And: What is a “dwelling unit”? Do we give the same importance to developing 500 micro-units as we would to building a blend of 1-, 2-, and 3-bedroom units?
From the Overview: “The City aims to accommodate up to 3,500 new residential units in the Gateway Area, provided primarily through high-density multifamily, townhouses, lofts, work-live units, quads, small space clustered units, and mixed-use development.”
The wording of GA-3b is: “Instead, encourage the maximum of dwelling units feasible within the allowed building envelope….”
- This wording may be okay for high-density multi-family housing. It is not suitable wording for all the other types of housing: townhouses, lofts, work-live units, quads, small space clustered units, etc.
- In its simplest sense, building smaller units creates more units per acre. That’s not necessarily what we want.
From the draft plan:
“While this plan does not envision establishing residential density standards, the 18 du/ac [dwelling units per acre] baseline provides a conservative estimate of what may actually be constructed since not all developers seek to achieve the maximum allowed units.”
You really think that 18 dwelling units per acre is what developers will build? I think the opposite. The 6-story buildings in Santa Cruz are at 150-200 units per acre. I think the developers will maximize what they can do.
GA-3d. Range of Unit Sizes.
Encourage a range of unit sizes, from micro-units (200 square feet or minimum per building standard) to units with three or more bedrooms.
GA-3e. Student Housing.
Encourage new low-cost housing for students, including single room occupancy housing, group living accommodations, and micro-units.
GA-3f. Multiple Strategies to Promote Affordability.
Employ multiple strategies to promote the creation of affordable housing, including affordable-by-design studios, student housing, deed-restricted affordable housing, single room occupancies, and housing for low-income families.
I say:
Deed-restricted affordable housing: Yes.
Single-room occupancies: Maybe, in limited quantities.
“Group living accommodations” – to the extent that this is geared toward students:
*** NO ***
“Student Housing”: *** NO ***
“Affordable-by-design studios”: *** NO ***
“Student housing” might mean dormitory-style housing. The design of these apartments may consist of 4 or 5 bedrooms of 10’ x 11’ (for 1 bed) or 10’ x 15’ (for 2 beds) clustered around a central space for eating and cooking. Community rooms are separate.
This design lends itself for one purpose only. It is not considered suitable for any occupants other than students.
Recommendation: That the Planning Commission prohibit this form of housing.
Clearly a building built in this style serves to REDUCE the available housing stock for non-student housing, as it would be constructed on a parcel that could otherwise have been utilized for more universal housing needs.
The phrase “affordable-by-design” units or studios appears five times in the draft Gateway plan. Let’s get one thing straight: A studio, no matter how small, is not inherently “affordable-by-design.” It may be MORE affordable than if it were to be larger. But that does not ensure that it is actually affordable.
At this time in Santa Cruz, 400 square foot studios average rent is $2,700. If “affordable-by-design” 400 sq,ft. studio units here in Arcata rented for $1,200 to $1,600 per month, would that be considered to be affordable ?
In Santa Cruz now, developments exist, are being built, and are proposed for buildings that are 100% studios. As an example: 233 units of 400 square feet average, 1.2 acres (city block size), ~200 units per acre.
Recommendation: That the Planning Commission set limits on the numbers or percentages of studio-size (or smaller) units, and promote a mixture of studio, 1-bedroom, 2-bedroom, and 3 or larger bedroom units.
Such as: No more than 25% of the total number of units in the project will have a floor area of under 500 square feet. Or: The average unit square foot size will not be less than 700 square feet. (Sorrel Place average is 824 square feet. It has 16 1-bedrm, 17 2-bdrm, and 11 3-bdrm units.) Averages are bad and can be abused, i.e. 50% micro-studios and 50% large luxury units will yield a high average, but not a desirable outcome.
Note: Promoting the “creation of affordable housing” by creating 200-square foot micro-studios is a terrible disservice to Arcata. Certainly there can be some. But not many. As a means of creating affordable housing, it is the LEAST palatable method.
Design of small units: In looking at floor-plans for proposed or recently built projects with small spaces, it seems that some of them are okay and most of them are terrible. I lived and had my business in a ~280 sq.ft. studio for five years – but that was an almost-square format with a wall of south-facing windows and a small but useable deck… and it was very comfortable. The trouble with the 400-sq.ft.-and-under designs is that they tend to be long and narrow, based on the overall format of the building. The drawing on the left has no scale — Based on the 5’ bathtub, the size is about 25’ x 15’.
The design possibilities are constrained: There’s a hallway and an entrance door at one end, and a window at the other – everything has to fit in-between. As you can see in the unit shown here, the kitchen is immediately “in the way” when you walk in the door –there’s no place to put things down, no place for shoes, grocery bags, etc. The living area is arranged so that there’s hardly room for a bed. Typically residents will have a pull-out sofa bed. It’s a bedroom + kitchenette.
In the units below, A1 = 387 sq.ft., A3 = 413, B1 = 497, B2 = 518. C1 is a 1-bedroom at 622 sq.ft., and D5 is 802 sq.ft.
As comparison, the Sorrel Place design has units that are 26 to 32 feet deep. The 1-bedroom units there are 21’ wide, 31’ deep, 609 sq ft. in size.
A question is: How can “good design” studio units be promoted within a Form-Based Code? Perhaps by the aspect ratio – the ratio of length to width – not to exceed 1.5 for a space that is under 20’ in interior width.
GA-3g. Mixed-Tenure.
Encourage a mix of both owner-occupied and rental housing.
“Encouraging” a mix of owner-occupied and rental housing is not going to be enough.
Planning Commission: Do something bold! Make a recommendation that will actually and substantially IMPROVE living quality for hundreds or thousands of residents.
Currently the ratio of owner-occupied housing to rentals is about 37% to 63%. This figure is skewed even by college-town standards, making home-owning opportunities difficult. In theory, the presence of more owner-occupied housing will allow more Arcatans to buy their homes.
For any new housing built in Arcata, if fewer than 37% of the units are not individually-owned and owner-occupied, then that 63% rental figure will get WORSE.
San Luis Obisbo is 41% owner-occupied; Santa Cruz is 47%.
The math shows that to make a change from 37% to even 41% is daunting. If 2,000 housing units were to be built, there’d need to be 57% of those 2,000 to be owner-occupied for a shift in overall owner-occupied units to go from the current 37% to just 41%.
If 1,000 housing units were to be built, there’d need to be 73% of those 1,000 to be owner-occupied for a shift in overall owner-occupied units to go from the current 37% to just 41%.
This sounds pretty much impossible to achieve.
Certain developers will build condos, because they like to and that’s their business model. But as Planning Commissioner Dan Tangney said at the February 8, 2022 Planning Commission [Read the full transcription here]:
In the last decade or more that I’ve been on the Commission nearly every project that’s gone through — particularly large projects — is rental-based, including our most recent four-story downtown project. I sure hope that this ambitious development in Arcata would include a lot – a lot — of options for home-ownership. I’m just wondering how we can influence that. I get that market forces are very real. However if there is something that we can codify on this, I would sure love to see that included.
GA-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.
GA-3i. Owner-Occupied Affordable Housing.
Encourage new home ownership opportunities for lower-income households including through condominium (e.g., deed restricted owner-occupied condominium units and for-sale micro units).
Consider: Change the word “should” to “shall.” And give a percentage – one that is greater than 37%. And if the developers say that they won’t build here, then find some developers who will.
The draft plan talks about equity and opportunity and about home-ownership opportunities. This is where we specify just that.
Suggest:
Housing in a mixed-income neighborhood shall include deed-restricted units… at a minimum of 45% (or 50%) of the units….
Small affordable-by-design units, student housing: Same argument as above. Remove this. Building student housing effectively robs non-students of needed housing. Home-ownership of a micro-unit? You’ve got to be kidding. That’s an opportunity? I don’t think so. If anything, it just lends itself to speculation, from an “I got here first” standpoint that only leads to higher prices.
Recommend: Remove “for sale micro-units” from GA-3i.
How to create the 45% or 50% of owner-occupied housing? Various possibilities – I would imagine that this has been done in other communities, somewhere in the country. More research is needed.
Perhaps there is no legal way of creating a minimum of owner-occupied units. (And, by the way, there must be inspections to ensure that it indeed is the owner who lives there. Then let’s make new law, from right here in Arcata. The public input has been very vocal about this. Keep in mind, again – Anything less than 37% owner-occupied only makes the situation worse.
A possibility: The figures here are for example only.
If we were to limit the number of units to 200 per year. Of that 200, half (100) would be rentals and half be homeownership. (Those numbers could be further refined, to ensure that there were not a large proportion of micro-units or studios.) On either a calendar or a rolling 3-year basis: Suppose Developer “A” has plans approved for 80 units of rentals. Developer “B” wants to build 75 units, but there’s only 20 rental units left that year. So he can build 20 rentals and the balance of 55 have to be owner-occupied.
GA-3j. Incentivize Residential Density as a Community Amenity.
Through the Gateway Area community benefit program, allow increased development intensity and simplified development processes for projects that provide residential densities above established minimums.
GA-3k. Incentivize Affordable Housing as a Community Amenity.
Through the Gateway Area community benefit program, allow increased development intensity and simplified development processes for projects that provide residential densities above established minimums.
“Provide residential densities above established minimums.” These are kind of silly paragraphs. Worth keeping in, I guess. But I would imagine that just about all projects will provide densities above the minimums.
GA-3l. Resident Displacement.
Support the re-housing of existing residents displaced by the redevelopment of properties containing existing dwelling units.
Important: This is recognition that there will indeed be existing residents who will be displaced. Which residents? Where are they now?
Important: These are PEOPLE we are talking about, not a number or a category.
What I say is: This is Arcata. This is not some big city. There aren’t that many cases where this displacement is likely. How about being honest and specifying exactly which residents are likely to be displaced.
One example is “Site J” of the “Key Opportunity Sites” (Page 43). This is the Arcata Trailer Court. From the draft plan:
“The site is currently home to approximately 27 trailers/RVs, a single-family residence, and a garage. The site is presumably home to over two dozen low-income individuals/families.”
“The site presents an excellent opportunity to create a multi-story affordable housing development that provides substantially upgraded residential accommodations for the site’s current residents.”
In the Gateway video presentation, Rob Holmlund says:
“Site J” is currently residential and could be affordable housing residential where all of the current residents could be provided opportunities for equivalent-priced residential units but at a higher level of density.”
How about talking with the residents? Their trailers are their homes. Do they want to be renters in an apartment building where they can’t walk around their home on the outside – even if their rent is stabilized and low?
This is terribly assumptive that “substantially upgraded residential accommodations” are indeed what’s desired.
What other potential residential displacement might be envisioned? There are not so many sites here that a list couldn’t be made, so we could look at all of them.
Housing Implementation Programs
Imp-GA-3.1. Housing Monitoring.
Monitor the size, type, and affordability of new housing proposed, approved, and developed in the Gateway Area. Revise policies and programs in the Gateway Area Plan and implementing development regulations as needed to achieve the Plan housing goals. Monitoring will be completed in conjunction with the City’s annual Housing Element Annual Performance Report.
Suggest: Do not wait for the annual Housing Element Performance Report to come out. When a development is complete, do a tour. Have a review of the development as an agenda item and discuss. LEARN from what is built, and modify the Zoning Code as desired.
Monitor annually in addition to the per-project monitoring also.
Imp-GA-3.2. Resident Relocation Assistance.
Establish a program to require developers to assist with the re-housing of low-income residents displaced from their housing as a result of a redevelopment project.
See GA-3l above. We’ll be displacing people. What are you going to do – give $10,000 when a resident – or business – is displaced? What are we thinking here?
— End of the notes —
Quotes from the draft plan:
Clarifying the term “Units”: The draft plan says “with housing options available for all income groups, ranging from 200 square foot deed-restricted microunits to luxury condominiums for high-income households.”
“Owner-occupied affordable housing, affordable-by-design studios, student housing, mixed-tenure condominiums, market-rate units, and luxury penthouses.”
“Encourage the creation of market-rate units for singles and families as well as upper income units, such as luxury penthouses. Promote the benefits of truly mixed income neighborhoods.”
“Rapid production of new housing, high-density housing, small units (which are naturally more affordable), multi-bedroom units for families, owner-occupied multi-family development, single-room occupancy, preservation of existing affordable housing, creation of new deed-restricted affordable housing, and related amenities that create valued forms of housing.”
from the December 2021 draft Gateway plan, pages 52 and 53.