Estimate reading time 6 minutes.
Unfinished business is the burden that is carried into the future.
The letter below was sent on November 28, 2023 to the members of the City Council, the Planning Commission, and the Community Development Director.
It outlines some (not all) of the larger issues regarding the expansion of housing that have not been adequately brought up for discussion or resolution.
Among what has not been discussed is the statement from Arcata’s Community Development Director, David Loya:
“And our design standards and Community Benefits programs are unlikely to be implemented due to waivers and concessions.”
That is to say: Our design standards — the Gateway Form-Based Code — and the Gateway Community Benefits program are unlikely to be implemented. After two years of work on the Gateway Area Plan, Mr. Loya is telling us that the basis of the plan is unlikely to be implemented, as developers are more likely to utilize the State density bonus law. For more on this, see the article State Density Bonus Laws / Inclusionary Zoning / Community Benefits — David Loya presentation or view the Feasibility of creating housing in Arcata selection of articles here on Arcata1.com.
Since this letter was sent, the Community Development Director is now calling for the completion and adoption of the General Plan, including the Gateway Area Plan, by April 2024. (December 12, 2023, Planning Commission agenda packet.) Presumably a General Plan in April 2024 would not include an update of the Local Coastal Program document, which is an Element (chapter) in the General Plan.
- The Housing Element. Is there an intention to have even minor updates to the 2019-2027 Housing Element? Can minor edits be made without it having to be recertified? To note, from the Housing Element that would be a part of the General Plan 2045 update:
-
“Population growth estimates vary by method, but the City is planning on annual growth of between 0.25% and 0.5%, resulting in a population between 18,900 and 20,000 by 2027.“
(The current estimate is 27,000 by 2027.) -
“The City commits to allowing owner-occupied or rental multifamily housing “by right” without discretionary review if 20 percent or more of the units in a project proposed on the site are affordable to those with lower incomes.”
-
Arcata Gateway: “Ultimately, this is estimated to generate between 2,500 and 5,000 new units of housing, of which 20 percent will be deed restricted for residents with income below 80 percent of the area median income. The project has also received HOME funding in order to provide rental assistance to low-income tenants.” (Appendix, page 86)
-
- Affordable housing. As noted above, the Housing Element states that 20 percent of the Gateway housing units will be deed restricted for residents with income below 80 percent of the area median income. Will policy be put in place as a good-faith attempt to achieve that, or should the Housing Element be modified? If the City is not planning on pursuing a 20-percent lower-income policy, then this should be removed from the Housing Element.
- When will the General Plan and the Gateway Plan be completed?
What would be the current iteration of the projected date for the General Plan to be completed, when it would be sent to the City Council for deliberation and potential adoption? We’ve seen the projected delivery date be extended many times. What’s the current projection?A clue as to the new completion date can be seen on the Local Coastal Program Update page, updated November 22, 2023. (www.cityofarcata.org/549/Local-Coastal-Program-Update)
It shows that “the City creates a final draft” of the Local Coastal Program update in September 2024 for submittal to the Coastal Commission. The Local Coastal Program is an Element of the General Plan. If it’s not going to be ready until September 2024, neither is the General Plan. And to remind all of us, the Local Coastal Program, the General Plan, and the Gateway Area Plan — with its plans for a build-out of about 1,800 within the coastal zone — all have to be approved by the Coastal Commission.It has been two years now since the draft plan came out. The completion date on any calendar that the Community Development Director has provided just gets pushed farther and farther out. Currently the City’s SIRP webpage shows the draft EIR release on July 31, 2023, and shows “Adoption of EIR and revised Form-Based Code, General Plan, Gateway Plan” as occurring by March 30, 2024 — four months from now.
I get the impression that we are now looking at the end of 2024 for the General Plan and the Gateway Plan to be ready for discussion as completed documents. This would be after the November 2024 election and potentially after the swearing in of new Council members.
-
In connection with the above —
What’s the schedule for the draft EIR ?
What’s the schedule for the Local Coastal Program document ? -
Terner Center data. Any update on when something useful might be available? This was pitched to us, with much hoopla, about how useful the information would be for these General Plan and Gateway processes. This was discussed at the February 11, 2023, and the August 22, 2023, joint study sessions; in August we were told that the Terner Center was “still working on developing the models.” When can we see something that could be useful?
-
3D Modeling. Is what we’ve seen the extent of what we’re going to get? What happened to the money that was spent on this?
It is my belief that the City and its consultants have the capability of creating very useful and informative 3D imagery — and that we have not been presented with this because the images would be unpopular.Images of the potential build-out of the section on K Street between Samoa and 11th or on M Street between 12th and 15th or for the Amerigas site would be very revealing. The images would incorporate the Commission’s current draft recommendations on height, street setbacks, upper floor stepbacks, and property line setbacks.
As an example of what these 3D images would show: These images would show that the stated requirement for minimizing the impacts on existing adjacent single-family homes (Gateway Design Policy GA-9q) is not being met. Throughout the long Gateway process, in in-person conversations, public meetings, presentations, building-height discussions, illustrations, videos, and statements, an acknowledgement of the importance of the transition to existing neighborhoods is what has been presented. In the current Gateway code this has been disregarded.
I’m not requesting that the five-person City Council discuss Gateway issues. I am requesting that there be a discussion and investigation into something that the City of Arcata has paid for and not received, and which can be viewed as a necessary component of the decision-making process.
-
Monitoring of the Planwest Contract deliverables. The Planwest proposal to provide planning services shows the scope of work that was contracted for. A large portion of this work has either yet to be completed or else seems that it is unlikely that it will ever be done.
An easy place to view the documents associated with this contract is on Arcata1.com in the article Planwest’s schedule: We’re completely off-course (https://arcata1.com/planwest-
schedule-completely-off/)
This article dates from June 1, 2022 — 18 months ago and has been viewed over 800 times.There has been no update to the original Planwest schedule, nor any public monitoring of the work or lack of results. We need to see which tasks of those contracted for by Planwest are still on the table, and which have been abandoned.
-
Is there any clue if there are intentions for owner-occupied housing, either in the Gateway infill opportunity zone or anywhere in Arcata? The Humboldt Association of Realtors asked for a 10% minimum, and that request was dispersed with no discussion. In many surveys, home-ownership comes up as a top concern of the public (alongside affordable rental housing).
-
State Bill SB9 allows for lot splits and greater housing density on existing single-family lots. Throughout the state it is not being used as much as was anticipated. Because of how homes typically sit on their parcels here in Arcata, it is possible that SB9 will result in only a very small increase in housing stock. Could a City survey be done (via GIS) to provide an estimate of just how many parcels might be eligible for increased density through SB9 ?
-
From my perspective, the interconnected issues of affordable housing / inclusionary zoning / State density bonus law / not creating barriers to development has stalled. The Community Development Director is not offering solutions that (in my view) have a chance of working on a practical basis. The Planning Commission’s requests a year ago to bring in outside experts was discarded unilaterally by the Community Development Director.
Would the Council and Commission consider seeking outside expert help to assist the City on this and other major issues, on a retainer basis?
This would be from a consultant that is not Planwest. The consultant would need some funding to “get up to speed” on the issues and would subsequently have an hourly fee. To avoid the kind of stalled impasse we’re currently seeing and to give the consultant a real chance for successful suggestions, I propose a task team of three persons — a City Councilmember, a Planning Commissioner, and a citizen — to be the liaison to the consultant, to be present on Zoom meetings, etc. (Ideal candidates might be Councilmemember Matthews, Commissioner Mayer, and myself — and, no, I have not previously approached those two officials on this.)The City uses the services of a lawyer for legal issues; the services of a pension fund expert for pension fund issues; the services of recruitment specialists for recuitment needs. Why not utilize the services of a professional urban planning company for our planning issues?
The issues of affordable housing / inclusionary zoning / State density bonus law / not creating barriers to development are complex. Other communities in California have achieved success in this arena. Why not consult with a firm that is aware of how this can be done?
To be clear, I am not suggesting a report. A report wouldn’t work. I am proposing having a planning consulting firm on retainer.