Building and Massing Presentation
3: Proposed Setbacks and Massing Impacts
This is Part 3 of 5 of the Building and Massing Presentation. 9 minutes, 34 seconds.
Dated August 5, 2022. Released to the public August 12, 2022.
How to watch this video and read the transcription
The video is ready to start. Just press the Start triangle and it will go.
You can pause or continue at any point
The video takes 9-1/2 minutes to watch, if played at normal speed. You can change the playback speed on the video.
Sections of the Building & Massing Presentation:
- Current and Proposed Height Standards
- Solar Shading
- Proposed Setbacks and Massing Impacts
- Height Ratios and Unit Calculations
- Financial Feasibility of Development
(Click on the link to go to that section.)
To change the speed of the video: After starting the video, use the “Settings” tool button 
and change the speed to be 1.25x or 1.5x times faster. The video is displayed on a screen that stays in the lower right corner. If you want to watch the video on its own, you can enlarge the screen with the “Square” at the lower right of the YouTube screen.
The video times are showed, so you can easily jump to that section of the video.
This transcription is believed to be an accurate rendition of what was said. Any discrepancies between what was spoken and what is written here are unintentional and are not believed to alter the intent or meaning of the speaker. Many of the “uh” and “you know” and “um” words have been removed. Some sub-headings have been added.
The transcript is in black text. Highlights have been added as bold highlights. Notes and comments have been added in RED. The comments and opinions are those of the author and are not presented as fact, but as opinion — unless it actually is fact, in which case it is clearly stated as such.
This section of the presentation contains numerous flaws.
It is instructional and helpful as it is, and I’m glad that it is included. But if it did not have the misrepresentations it would be a lot more useful for those of us who are trying to evaluate the feasibility of this Gateway plan.
The first example: Community Development Director identifies 7 sites that are “vacant and ready to develop as soon as this plan is adopted.” The problem is: Only two of the sites are vacant. The other five sites are not vacant at all. Is it possible that what he meant was that just the 3 sites in green are vacant? But that’s not true either — only 1 of those 3 Green sites is vacant. Or that the sites “could” be vacant?
Aren’t there other sites that are “more vacant” that would be more likely to be part of the initial Gateway development? Such as the car wash site, and the AmeriGas site.
What’s going on? Why did David Loya select these particular sites and call them “vacant and ready to develop”? Did he think we wouldn’t notice? Does he know something that he’s not willing to tell us — such as those sites will soon be vacant? All of them? Not very likely. Why then?
I don’t know why and I don’t care. What I do know is that his statement is 100% false, and that all of us — The Planning Commission, the City Council, the Committees, and the public — we all deserve better.
David Loya 24:38 in full video – 1:29 in the
Proposed Setbacks and Massing Impacts section.
“I looked at these opportunity sites and broke them into sites that are vacant and ready to develop as soon as this plan is adopted.
These three sites [in green] could probably develop immediately.
There are some sites [in yellow] that have a few constraints that are going to take a little bit longer but within the first, say, three to five years they’ll probably be ready for development as well. A couple of sites there.
And then there are some sites [in blue] that have more constraints, but there’s high potential there and the property owners are interested and engaged in wanting to develop these sites out.
So from a market standpoint, these sites are the ones that are the most ready to go.”
He is regarding the Tomas building — Number 3 in green, above — as “vacant.” Perhaps he thinks that the beautiful building there will get torn down and the Montessori garden plot there will be plowed under. Calling the Tomas property “vacant and ready to develop” is a pretty large misstatement — to put it kindly.
The large blue site, Number 7, is a large industrial site of about 20 acres. The big building on that site (see aerial view, below) is where Wing Inflatables is located.
From the presentation: “And then there are some sites [in blue] that have more constraints, but there’s high potential there and the property owners are interested and engaged in wanting to develop these sites out.“
If David Loya believes that the property owners are interested and wanting to develop this site, then he should make that information known to us. The site should have soil tests done, to determine the feasibility of constructing tall buildings there. If taller buildings cannot be constructed there on a realistic basis, then perhaps site Number 6 can support a higher density to compensate.
The sites 4 and 7 are shown in the draft plan as being part of cohesive area designated for a master-planned development. If there’s been progress on a master plan here, we certainly have not been told.
There is also talk of using sites 4 and 7 as a location for the wastewater treatment facility, should it need to be expanded or to move portions of it to higher ground.
Again, I will remind us all of this sentence from the very first paragraph of the Brown Act: The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know.
Here are the “sites that are vacant and ready to develop as soon as this plan is adopted.” As you can see, the sites are not vacant.
Green sites: Identified as “These three sites could probably develop immediately.”
On the left: Bug Press, Northcoast Fencing Academy, storage for the Arcata Fire District, a contracting business, at the right side a single-family residence. To the right: The Tomas building, occupied by Open Door Community Health Center. An extensive permanent-fenced garden for the Montessori school, including recently planted apple trees. (It also had been the site of the big-top tent for festivals and festivities — but that can come and go quickly.)
Yellow sites: Identified as “within the first, say, three to five years they’ll probably be ready for development as well.”
Lower right: The former SoilScape building. Expected to be the new long-term home for FedEx, after FedEx leaves the Greenway building. This was originally built as a 2-year “temporary” building for waste-transfer purposes, over 20 years ago. Center: An irregularly-shaped vacant site, behind the Schmidbauer building. Note the path through it. This area borders on protected wetlands to the south of it.
Blue sites: Identified as “that have more constraints, but there’s high potential there and the property owners are interested and engaged in wanting to develop these sites out.”
On the right: The large industrial site of about 20 acres. Currently has R&L lumber mill and the log deck. The large industrial building is where Wing Inflatables is located. In the Google satellite view here the logs are not shown.
(The property lines shown with the colored lines are close to being correct but are not exact.)
Flaw #2: Thinking that 36 acres of land will result in 1,800 apartments.
First off, this 36 acres is not empty. The Tomas building and Montessori garden being torn down to create an apartment block, just behind the Creamery building and taller than the Creamery tower? Not likely. The SoilScape building — reputed to be the new home of FedEx? Perhaps. The Bug Press building? Yes, but it would be a shame. And — the extensive industrial building where Wing Inflatables is located. Who knows what the owner has in mind for that.
David Loya continues to insist that the figure for housing units can be derived using simply multiplication. The figure of 1,800 units is based on 36 acres at a density of 50 units per acre. That’s it: 36 times 50 = 1,800. That factor –50 units per acre — is used extensively in the December 2021 draft plan. In my view, the units per acre is likely to be higher than that — and the quantity of acres that will be reasonably available will be fewer. Think of the new Sorrel Place building on 7th Street. It’s a four-story building with 44 units, on a 2/3rd acre footprint. Its density is 64 units per acre. If it were 6-story, with the ground floor being commercial space, it would have 55 units, for 80 units per acre.
To have 1,800 units, it would take 33 buildings of the footprint of Sorrel Place, each of them 6-stories high. To put this in some perspective, the entire Gateway area is under 60 buildable blocks in size, after accounting for wetlands.
Reader, tell me: Do you believe that is likely to happen?
Flaw #3: Many “misspoken” statements
Perhaps I should not be picky. But I would much prefer Arcata’s Community Development Director to be issuing pronouncements that are accurate and factually-based. Here’s one:
“Okay, so in terms of the market forces, I want to reflect back on a couple of maps that are in the draft plan right now.“
The maps shown here are NOT the maps that are in the draft plan, as David Loya explicitly says here.
He speaks of “a couple of maps that are in the draft plan right now.” They aren’t there “right now” and they never were.
The original maps are on Page 40 and Page 42 of the draft plan. The map on the right has had the white boxes with the maximum heights have been added – very helpful. The map on the left has had the “Vacant – Ready to Develop, Few Constraints – Easy to Develop, Constraints, with High Potential” legend box added and those 7 areas of the Opportunity Sites marked in color.
These new modified are a welcome addition now to our understanding of the City’s plans for the Gateway, but these two maps were not in the original draft plan.
from the presentation:
“There are only so much units that are going to be absorbed in any given year. And once those units are on the market, there’s a disincentive for others to develop their site. [David Loya’s opinion – and not based on the strong and urgent need for housing in Arcata.] So there are some market forces that drive which of these sites develop out to larger statue buildings. The vast majority of the area, under this analysis, is going to remain just as it is today in current uses as they are today. [David Loya’s analysis – which differs from my views. Again, not based on the strong and urgent need for housing in Arcata.]
In my view, these are opinions, but they are stated as though they were facts. This is a regular form of speaking of David Loya. In my view, he should be more precise in his speaking.
Further, to say “The vast majority of the area, under this analysis, is going to remain just as it is today in current uses as they are today” seems to be contradictory to the idea of tearing down the Wing Inflatables industrial building, tearing down the Bug Press building, theoretically removing the existing Tomas building etc etc — and bringing in buildings with 1,800 apartments. That is not “remain just as it is today in current uses.” If the vast majority of the area is going to remain the same, then we don’t get the apartments we say we need. What is the plan? Is it more housing… or not?
Now here is the video:
Building and Massing Presentation Video
3: Proposed Setbacks and Massing Impacts
David Loya 23:16 in the full video in Proposed Setbacks and Massing Impacts: 0:00
Okay, in light of these design standards, how many properties are likely to build out taller than five stories? I’ve seen some commentary in the public forum that, you know, we’re going to have 5-6-7-8 story buildings all throughout the entire Gateway area. That’s just unrealistic for a couple of reasons. First, I want to address some market factors that are driving those trends. And then I also want to look at how the standards that we adopt into this Form-Based Code can really change how many sites would be subject to the five stories so that we have a sense for how making good decisions about certain areas in the future will help to ameliorate those concerns.
David Loya 23:55 in Proposed Setbacks and Massing Impacts: 0:46
Okay, so in terms of the market forces, I want to reflect back on a couple of maps that are in the draft plan right now. To the right you see the districts: There’s the Barrel district in yellow, the Gateway Hub in blue, Corridor in orange, and the Neighborhood in brown, showing both the maximum stories and the maximum height that developments can build out to currently based on the draft plan. On the left, you have the sites that are identified as opportunity sites within the Gateway Area Plan. These are sites that have a lot of potential for future development and are largely viewed as the areas that are going to provide the majority of future development over the next 20 to 50 years in this plan.
[Note: The maps shown here are NOT the maps that are in the draft plan, as David Loya explicitly says here. He says “a couple of maps that are in the draft plan right now.” They aren’t there “right now” and they never were. For more this, see here, above.]
David Loya 24:38 in Proposed Setbacks and Massing Impacts: 1:29
I looked at these opportunity sites and broke them into sites that are vacant and ready to develop as soon as this plan is adopted. These three sites [in green] could probably develop immediately. There are some sites [in yellow] that have a few constraints that are going to take a little bit longer but within the first, say, three to five years they’ll probably be ready for development as well. A couple of sites there. And then there are some sites [in blue] that have more constraints, but there’s high potential there and the property owners are interested and engaged in wanting to develop these sites out. So from a market standpoint, these sites are the ones that are the most ready to go.
[The problem is that five out of the seven sites specified here are not vacant — and David Loya tells us that they are vacant. See the description of this, above.]
David Loya 25:16 in Proposed Setbacks and Massing Impacts: 2:07
There are economic factors that inhibits someone making the decision for tearing down an existing building and building a new one, even if that new one could produce marginally higher rates of return. Within those sites, we have 36 acres, so of the 183 acres or so [a small misspoken error: He means “138” acres] there’s 36 acres that run between 1400 and 1800 units with that amount of development potential.
David Loya 25:42 in Proposed Setbacks and Massing Impacts: 2:31
So the proposition I’m making here is that most of the sites — if you wanted to know how many sites are going to develop out with those taller stature buildings — most of the sites are going to be late to market. [David Loya’s opinion – not necessarily the view of the parcel owners.] If you have a site that’s already got development on it, they’re not likely to redevelop as quickly as these sites are. There are only so much units that are going to be absorbed in any given year. And once those units are on the market, there’s a disincentive for others to develop their site. [David Loya’s opinion – and not based on the strong and urgent need for housing in Arcata.] So there are some market forces that drive which of these sites develop out to larger statue buildings. The vast majority of the area, under this analysis, is going to remain just as it is today in current uses as they are today. [David Loya’s analysis – which differs from my views. Again, not based on the strong and urgent need for housing in Arcata.]
Let’s switch gears a little bit and look at how the Form-Based Code can be used to address this question. We’re looking again at the Samoa and K Street Corridor. So this is this greenish color is in the Corridor District. And this pinkish color is in the Gateway Neighborhood. We’re looking at some models that were developed for the AmeriGas site, Bud’s mini-storage, and the former St. Vinnies here.
[Note: The AmeriGas site and Bud’s mini-storage are the entire blocks between 5th and 7th along K and L Streets, and the former St. Vinnies is at the corner of 5th and K, across the street from Bud’s.]
And then you can see again in white the existing buildings in this area, along with the parcel lines around those properties.
David Loya 27:10 in Proposed Setbacks and Massing Impacts: 3:58
So before we answer the question: “How many of these properties are likely to develop out at 5-stories or greater?” I want to look at some of the principles that we talked about Form-Based Code for shading, because we would apply those in these areas to ensure that adjacent neighbors don’t get unduly shaded by this new development.
So taking a look at that, if you imagine that this outer box is the parcel boundaries — this blue box here with parcel boundaries — before you start a development that’s going to be five stories tall you’re going to want some pretty significant setbacks.
So let’s put a 20 foot setback on the ground level — before you start building, you have to have at least 20 feet setback. We’ve talked about upper floor setbacks. I think it’s appropriate to evaluate 20 feet as an upper floor setback. So you might be able to build three floors — this blue box here that’s inside the lighter blue box — I’d be able to build three floors with a 20 foot setback. And then to build to the fourth and fifth floor, you’d have to have another 20 foot setback. So greater than three floors, 20 and 20, or 40 feet back. The minimum building distance [width] is 30 feet we’re using here. Certainly unique designs could be created that have, you know, 20 foot or maybe 10 foot wide building footprints. [A ten foot wide 3-story building? Yes, it is done in dense cities. Not likely in Arcata.] But we’re going to anticipate under this scenario that 30 feet is sort of the minimum width that you would want for habitable space. And then we’re going to put some setbacks on the backside too: 10 and 10.
David Loya 28:34 in Proposed Setbacks and Massing Impacts: 5:23
So you can see this is in the North-South axis, because the sun is in the South and our shading is cast to the North. So we’re going to have a bigger setback on the North and a smaller setback on the South. Using these parameters, we basically end up with a 90-foot minimum North-South axis. If you have less than 90 feet, you’re compromising either the setback or this minimum building footprint. So using that to evaluate the parcels that were in that image that I showed you previously, we can tell which of these parcels meet that 90 foot access requirement. Evaluating these parcels here, they don’t have 90 feet minimum.
[In these situations, it is common for a developer to acquire two or more sites, to meet that minimum. Setbacks do not prevent development on smaller lots — they only make it necessary to consolidate two more more lots to make up a buildable lot.]
So they can’t be developed with five-story buildings under this scenario, it’s just not going to happen with that that standard set. These sites here, it’s an open question. It depends on what we do with the East-West axis setbacks. And so we’ll come back to that. But these properties here, yeah, you can build those with larger statue buildings because there’s plenty of room to accommodate the setbacks. So we give both on the North-South axis as well as on the East-West axis. So let’s come back to these questionable properties. We want to know, well, are these going to get developed or not? And the answer is: It depends on how aggressive the decisions are made about how much development we want in these given areas. And we can tune this in for certain areas. If we want to have more development and certain areas, we won’t have less development, we can fine tune those with that Form-Based Code.
David Loya 30:10 in Proposed Setbacks and Massing Impacts: 6:58
Let me explain what I mean here. If we have building setbacks like we have in the downtown — zero lot line setbacks, between adjacent buildings, between adjacent properties, as you see here, with no separation between buildings, the property line goes right between buildings that are smashed right up against one another. In that kind of scenario, then these sites would be completely developable. You could have North-South axis setbacks that ameliorate impacts to the neighbors to the North, and you can add wall-to-wall adjacent developments on the East-West axis. And you’d be able to develop all of those properties. So that’s a choice — zero lot line setback is a choice, which would increase the development potential and allow for larger statue buildings on the sites. What if we wanted to have some separation. We’re going to allow for zero lot line setback on one side. So in this diagram, on the low end, you have zero lot line. But we want to ensure that there’s some clear space and some breathing room between buildings on the other side. So each building is allowed to be offset with a zero lot line setback on one side and a slightly larger setback on the other. What would happen to these properties, then? Well, the answer is “maybe.” It depends on how wide do you want that separation distance and how wide these parcels are. So some of them might be able to be developed. And some of them probably wouldn’t under this scenario. And then sort of the third option would be to have a greater setback. So in this situation, you have setbacks from each building type on both sides of the property. And maybe you want to have large setbacks and ensure that those large setbacks are used for other purposes. In this case, the answer is “no.” None of these properties would be developable.
David Loya 31:59 in Proposed Setbacks and Massing Impacts: 8:48
What you’re seeing in the photo above here is a setback that’s being used for outdoor seating and dining. What you might see that used for in this neighborhood setting is more for yard space. And so you know those are the kinds of decisions that can be made in the Form-Based Code that would go from one end of the spectrum — creating a lot more development potential, and allowing for larger buildings, even including those setbacks on the North-South axis — to a lower development potential where these sites would be able to potentially to develop to 3 to 4 stories even though the district allows them to develop to 5, those particular site conditions would only allow them to develop to three or four.
