Note: What is shown below is a copy of the original letter, made for this website. It is included here only so that the contents of the original letter can be searchable. (The PDF received from the City is in the form of an image, and so is not a searchable document.)
What is below is not the letter sent by the letter-writer. It will contain typographical errors and other departures from the original. The PDF displayed above is accurate. The text below is not accurate. It is printed here for indexing purposes, so that each word can be indexed and included in the search.
From: Fred Weis
Land Use Element notes
March 26, 2023 – for the March 27 Planning Commission Meeting
My comments are indented.
There is some highlighting, and some words in red.
Note: All references to State Route 101 should be replaced with “US Highway 101” —
In at least 5 locations in the Land Use Element it is “State Route 101.”
(In at least 7 locations in the Circulation Element it is “State Route 101.” )
In at least 20 locations in the Circulation Element, it is “US 101” or similar.
There are about 20 instances of typographical errors, grammatical errors, run-on sentences, clumsily-worded sentences, unclear meaning to a sentence, repetitive wording, and so on. These can be addressed separately.
Recognition of Arcata’s history
2.1 Introduction Page 2-1
“The early settlement of the town, initially called Uniontown, grew around a central plaza.”
Change to: The early non-indigenous settlement that formed a town, initially called Uniontown, grew around a central plaza.
or: The early European-American settlement that formed a town, initially called Uniontown, grew around a central plaza.
The very next paragraph in the Land Use Element is an acknowledgement to the Wiyott tribe.
History of Arcata: “Kori” was the name of the Wiyot settlement that existed on the site of what would become Arcata. The name “Arcata” comes from the Yurok term oket’oh that means “where there is a lagoon” and referred to Humboldt Bay which is a barrier lagoon. Potawot is the Wiyot name for what is now called Mad River https://www.cityofarcata.org/DocumentCenter/View/114/City-of-Arcata-Historic-Context-Statement—March-2012-PDF
Page 2-2, 2-3
Reference is made to the City’s Priority Infill Opportunity Zones.
It would be good to have a map of the City’s Priority Infill Opportunity Zones.
Page 2-3
“… commercial areas along Valley West Boulevard, a mix of businesses along Giuntoli Lane, and surrounding nearby high-density residential and light and heavy industrial areas”
The area is zoned R-M — it is not high-density residential.
Ministerial Review
LU – 1 b Page 2-10
Infill Opportunity Zones are intended to encourage and streamline infill development in these areas, based on available land and proximity to transit, services, jobs, and activity centers.
LU – 1 d Page 2-10
Streamlined Review and Standards in Infill Opportunity Zones. Infill Opportunity Zones are intended to identify areas where the City plans to accommodate high density residential uses through a ministerial review process in order to facilitate housing production. In addition to creating a ministerial pathway for residential projects, applicable standards (parking ratios, height limitations, site coverage, etc.) shall be consistent with development at greater densities with a larger reliance on multi-modal transit.
Until the word “streamline” and the phrase “ministerial review” are clearly defined, they cannot be used in the General Plan.
The word and phrase have different meanings to different people, and what’s more they may have different meanings in five years than they do currently. For the Planning Commission to establish their definitions is necessary. This is NOT something that can be put off — that the Planning Commission “can do later.”
In my view, there is no way that this General Plan could survive a legal challenge unless those phrases are clearly defined.
To use “streamlined review” and “ministerial review” without clear definitions is like saying “The terms of the divorce said that I would have to buy a house for my ex-wife.”
It is far too vague.
We can note that, for us here in Arcata, the phrase “ministerial review” had a different meaning on June 28th, 2022, than it did on June 29th, 2022 — after we were given definitions from Ben Noble that replaced the definition that we’d received from David Loya.
General Issue: The promise of Single-Family Home development
LU – 1 e Page 2-10
Development of a diversity of housing types. The land use plan map shall provide sufficient quantities of land in the various residential use categories to allow for development of a variety of types of new housing units and residential environments. The purpose shall be to maintain an appropriate balance between single-family housing on individual lots and multi-unit housing types.
This General Plan is not going to “maintain an appropriate balance between single-family housing on individual lots and multi-unit housing types.” It is not going to “provide sufficient quantities of land in the various residential use categories.”
Craftsman’s Mall / St. Louis Opportunity Zone
Page 2-5
The Craftsman’s Mall/St. Louis Road Opportunity Zone includes roughly forty-one acres near the geographic center of the urbanized potions of the City and Cal Poly Humboldt. The average parcel size is 0.7 ac or 29,145.7 sq ft, and the Craftsman’s Mall property, which has the highest immediate potential for redevelopment is owned by Cal Poly Humboldt. This area is near Cal Poly’s campus and is an ideal location for high density housing. It is surrounded by lower density residential zoning districts. The area also includes existing industrial uses.
This should be re-worded to reflect current reality. The available Opportunity Zone is no longer 41 acres.
An “average” parcel size is a meaningless figure. A smaller number are large parcels. A larger number are SFR low-density smaller parcels.
In calculating the average, my guess is that it includes the 8.5 acres for the new dorms — that has already been spoken for, and thus is no longer available as an Opportunity. An honest assessment would identify the possible high density building sites.
There are 32 parcels (that figure may be off by 1 or 2) that have access on Eye Street or Todd Court, coming from the south, off of Grant Street. These parcels have little in common with the parcels that have access from St. Louis Road.
In my view, the Opportunity Zone here is — or was — the larger parcels coming from St. Louis Road.
In my view, the southern section of this 2019-designated Opportunity Zone is no more an opportunity zone than many areas of Arcata that are near commercial or re-developed parcels. If you’re going to re-zone this area from low-density to high-density, perhaps we would want to explore re-zoning Northtown / Arcata Heights, East Arcata / Bayview, and sections of Westwood from low-density to high-density also – because the same logic would apply.
And hear public input from residents of those neighborhoods.
Page 2-8
G. Maintain community facilities such as schools, community centers, parks and recreation areas, and other civic uses and ensure they are equitably distributed and located in areas that are accessible to all segments of the community.
This is a tough one — because the facilities mentioned are not “equitably distributed” — and the City cannot “ensure” that they are. (Also, “civic uses” is not a facility.)
If the Gateway element talks about adding 3500 housing units — or even adding 500 — then schools, parks, community centers would no longer be equitably distributed.
Perhaps re-word as something similar to:
“Support existing community facilities — including schools, community centers, parks and recreation areas, and other civic facilities — and encourage new community facilities so that they are equitably distributed and located in areas that are accessible to all segments of the community.”
Page 2-8
B. Establish and maintain a greenbelt around the City that consists of agricultural, forest, and natural resource lands; in order to focusing future developing in infill areas, as opposed to annexation of these lands.
Natural resource lands could be annexed and still kept as natural resource. Re-word to say what you mean.
Preserve, as productive natural resources areas, the open agricultural lands in the Arcata Bottom, the forests on the eastern hillsides, and aquaculture in Arcata Bay.
Suggest: Remove the word “productive.”
Whether a natural resource area is productive has nothing to do with its preservation.
Page 2-8
C. Allow for a range of housing choices that includes affordable dwellings for community residents, accommodates families as well as individuals and groups, and varies in size and type to reflect the diverse character of the community and to provide equitable access to opportunities and resources in all of Arcata’s neighborhoods.
If this is a Guiding Principle that is wanted to be included in the Land Use Element, then these words will be difficult to justify in the future, and could result in a lawsuit.
In my view, it is an impossible goal, and should be recognized as that.
It’s the Commission’s choice about how to word this and whether to include it — but we can recognize the possibility of being sued from those people who view this as a promise — even though the operative word is “Allow” and is not, say, “Ensure.”
Further, it could be argued that the City is effectively creating conditions that will do just the opposite of this.
I would recommend removing Guiding Principle C — unless you think you can back it up.
Page 2-8
H: Encourage infill development of vacant, brownfield, and underutilized land designated for development as a way of meeting housing and employment needs without major extensions of infrastructure and services. …. Ensure displacement and affordability issues related to the City’s infill strategy are addressed.
I would break this sentence away from “Encourage infill development of vacant, brownfield, and underutilized land ” etc. and give it its own list item.
Again, we have the issue with the word “Ensure.” “Ensure” means “make certain that (something) shall occur.”
There is no way in the world that Arcata can “ensure” that the affordability issues related to the City’s infill strategies are addressed.
Seeing as the City cannot “ensure” this, any polite wording becomes duplicitous — false.
Perhaps: “Incorporate and promote available methods to assist with displacement and affordability issues as is possible.”
Page 2-8
I. Permit vertical and/or horizontal mixed-use development close to clusters of activity and at major transportation crossroads where they can take advantage of higher levels of access.
Remove the words “vertical and/or horizontal “ — there is vertical development and there is horizontal development. If you’re promoting one or the other or both, then there’s no need to make a distinction.
What is meant by “major transportation crossroads”? 101 and 299? 101 and Samoa Blvd.?
“Permit” — as in “Permit mixed-use development” — is a very weak word. Isn’t mixed-use development permitted everywhere, just about?
Do you want to say “Promote mixed-use development close to clusters of activity….”?
Page 2-8
J. has been removed. “Promote racial equity, diversity, and accessibility in all City land uses.”
Why is this removed? Not worded well? It is similar to A.
2.2 Policies
LU – 1 Page 2-10
Objective. Establish a pattern of development that concentrates activity and amenities in a pattern of centers, clusters and mixes of uses to support the City’s focus on infill development and active transportation. Provide an overall land use arrangement that concentrates city-wide uses and functions in these areas with an emphasis on areas within walking distance of the central Plaza Area, Cal Poly Humboldt, and existing neighborhood and employment centers which provide a mix of commercial services, residential uses, and community facilities.
I’m not at all clear what is being said here. To me, it is vague and non-communicative.
Concentrate “city-wide uses and functions” in areas — but they are city-wide so how do you concentrate that?
Concentrate activity and amenities in a pattern of “mixes of uses”? What does that mean?
How about something like:
Objective. Establish development that concentrates activity in centers that support the City’s focus on infill development and active transportation. Provide an overall land use arrangement that concentrates functions in these areas with an emphasis on areas within walking distance of the central Plaza area, Cal Poly Humboldt, and existing neighborhood and employment centers, to create a mix of commercial services, residential uses, and community facilities.
LU – 1 a Page 2-10
Their productive, open space, and natural resource values are important to the community and shall be preserved.
It is impossible to preserve productivity or to insist on it. Suggest remove the word “productive.”
LU – 1 b Page 2-10
The City encourages appropriate redevelopment of certain parcels of land that are either underutilized, brownfields, or vacant, but surrounded by existing urban development.
Definition of brownfields: A brownfield is a property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant.
Unless there is a good reason, I would omit “brownfields.” Just say “underutilized or vacant.”
The parcels may not be “surrounded” by existing urban development. They may be just touching other parcels — that is, at the edge of the urban services boundary.
Make the sentences simpler.
Perhaps:
The City encourages appropriate redevelopment of parcels of land that may be underutilized or vacant and within or near to existing urban development.
LU – 1 c Page 2-10
Prioritization of transit and active transportation. Reduce or eliminate minimum parking requirements in areas where transit and active transportation is planned to support the transportation needs of the community, including neighborhoods where biking infrastructure, trails, complete streets, and transit is or is planned to be accessible.
Do what you want on this one. Legally it is a very weak premise to say that you are taking an action because of something that is planned to take place.
If you want, you can simplify and just say something like:
“Reduce or eliminate minimum parking requirements to promote use of public transit, the use of bicycles and other non-motorized vehicles, and walking.”
2.3 Implementation Measures Page 2-31
LU-4 Pedestrian-friendly activity centers
Update zoning to improve the walkability of commercial activity centers using such strategies as:
Update land use plan and zoning to concentrate retail land use designations in areas that are less than ½ mile across, and ideally along a single street that is less than 1000 feet from end to end. • Require maximum pedestrian block sizes of less than 1,600 or 2,000 feet in primary areas of activity.
What does this refer to – Pedestrian block sizes less than 1,600 or 2,000 feet?
To put this into perspective – From F Street to the entrance door of Safeway is 400 feet. The entire length of Valley West shopping center is under 800 feet. From 9th Street to 14th Street is 1500 feet. The entire length of the Barrel District along Samoa Boulevard is 1500 feet.
Where is it that we have to regulate a pedestrian block size of 1,600 or 2,000 feet?
And why would we want a block of that size? A pedestrian-friendly block is 250 or 300 feet or so.
2.3 Implementation Measures Page 2-32
LU-7 Affordable Housing
Include inclusionary zoning measures and/or incentives in the next update of the Housing Element.
In the draft Land Use Element, this is removed. (There is a strike-through on all of it.) Why ? Does it still have to be implemented in the Housing Element?
What does that mean – the “next update” of the Housing Element?
It can be seen at LU-2b.
Policy LU-2 Residential Land Use
Objective. Allow for a mix of housing types and densities to ensure residents at all ages and abilities have safe, healthy, and affordable homes that meet their physical, social, and economic needs through housing production, preservation, and conversion that is compatible with established and planned neighborhood design elements.
- With “mix of housing types” defined in the usual way, the Gateway Plan does not allow for a mix of housing types and densities.
- The City cannot possibly “ensure” that residents will have “affordable homes” that meet their “economic needs.”
The definition of “ensure”: make certain that something shall occur or be the case. - It has been suggested by members of the senior community that for them to have a “safe” home that meets their “physical, social” needs, they will have to have a car and a parking space.
- What do you want to do? Leave this paragraph phrased as-is? Re-word it? Eliminate it entirely?
For the record: The phrases “with new and converted housing designed to be compatible with the established neighborhood character” and “that is compatible with established and planned neighborhood character” have been discarded.
LU-2a Residential Land Use Classifications.
Residential – Low Density [R-L].
Small change. Where it says “Under current state land use and planning law…” –
Suggest putting in the date, as: “Under current (2023] State land use and planning law…”
Those law may change and change again during the time of the 2045 General Plan.
Also, capitalizing State.
Residential High Density [R-H]
High density residential uses are designated in central Arcata and other areas to allow multi-family housing located in proximity to commercial and employment uses, public services, schools, and parks.
Suggest removing “in central Arcata and other areas”
Because R-H is all over the place.
Such as: “High density residential uses are designated to allow multi-family housing located in proximity to commercial and employment uses, public services, schools, and parks.”
LU-2b Diversity and choice in residential environments.
The City shall encourage residential developments which that collectively provide a variety of choices for housing consumers in terms of types of units, location, unit sizes, costs, design, amount of privacy, and neighborhood environment. Inclusionary measures shall be provided for affordable housing. To encourage this, the City will implement inclusionary zoning in higher density developments and provide incentives to developers to include low and moderate income housing units in their proposals.
Why inclusionary zoning only in higher density developments? What is the objective standard of a “higher density development”?
Why not remove “in higher density developments” ?
“To encourage this, the City will implement inclusionary zoning and provide incentives to developers to include low and moderate income housing units in their proposals.”
See: Policy LU-2 Residential Land Use, above.
LU-2b says: “The City shall encourage… a variety of choices for housing consumers in terms of types of units, location, unit sizes, costs, design….”
The City cannot possibly provide “a variety of choices” as outlined here.
Why pretend that the City can?
LU-2c Planned Development – residential
The purpose of a Planned Development shall be to: incorporate a mix of residential types, unit sizes, affordability levels, and styles in a coordinated manner; to allow clustering of units; to provide larger, more usable areas of common open space; and to protect natural resources or site features, such as creekside riparian areas, wetlands, and significant vegetation such as trees to incorporate health-promoting design.
Based on our experience with the “Westwood Gardens Apartments” Planned Development in September-October, 2022, it does not appear that there is any change in LU-2C that would prevent that from happening again. In actuality, the addition of requiring “affordability levels” and “to incorporate health-promoting design” seems like that would squash any Planned Development instantly.
Change this? Or leave it in its impossible-to-satisfy state?
Policy LU-3 Commercial Land Use
Objective. Grow a pattern of activity centers that meet the daily needs of the community and visitors and with a variety of retail goods, food, and services that are convenient, safe, accessible and affordable to all.
“with a variety of retail goods, food, and services that are …affordable to all. “
Affordable to all? Can’t be done. Impossible.
Choices are to re-phrase this, or live in a world of make-believe.
Policy LU-4 Industrial Land Use
Objective. Provide for a variety of industrial uses which that will retain and generate livingwage jobs, including labor-intensive manufacturing, processing, assembly, warehousing, services, and complementary non-industrial uses, in appropriate locations. Build on the City’s 50-year history of supporting industrial jobs, businesses, and product generation by supporting new and existing users in identified industrial nodes.
“the City’s 50-year history of supporting industrial jobs”?
Fifty years = 1973. Doesn’t Arcata have a 150-year-history of supporting industrial jobs?
What does “the City’s 50-year history of supporting industrial jobs” mean or refer to?
Important consideration — Sea Level Rise issues on South G Street
Is the City promoting development in the South G Street area?
See also: LU1-m Page 2-14
And simultaneously discussing moving people and business out of the South G Street area?
LU-4a Industrial uses.
The following land use designations are applicable to industrial lands. Table LU-6 defines permitted uses, densities, lot sizes, and coverages for each classification.
The major I-L areas are the West Samoa Boulevard Employment Center, and the portion of the West End Employment Center (near the State Route 299/Giuntoli Lane interchange and including the Aldergrove Industrial Park and Happy Valley; and areas south of Samoa Blvd. including Little Lake and along south G Street), the area west of “K” Street, South “G” Street, and South “I” Street. These two industrial areas will be the primary focus of industrial and mixed-industrial development and investment during the timeframe of this General Plan.
Typo note: Should have a closing parenthesis at “Happy Valley) and areas….”
LU-4b Little Lake.
Development of a new industrial “business park” at the site of the The former Little Lake Industries lumber mill on South “I” Street shall [be] developed for industrial or business park uses.be a priority of the City. The site shall be planned as a mixed-use development including passive recreational uses and regionala dog park. Development shall be consistent with the adopted Long Range Property Management Plan.
Typo note: Missing the word “be”
LU-6d Uses allowed in diked/reclaimed former tidelands. Page 2-30
Allowable uses and development in grazed or farmed diked former tidelands wetlands are limited to uses compatible with the Public Trust. These uses are summarized below:
- Agricultural operations limited to accessory structures, apiaries, field and truck crops, livestock raising, greenhouses (provided they are not located on slab foundations and crops are grown in the existing soil on site), and orchards.
- Farm-related structures, including barns, sheds, and farmer-occupied housing, necessary for the performance of agricultural operations. Such structures may be located on an existing grazed or farmed wetland parcel only if no alternative upland location is available for such purpose and the structures are sited and designed to minimize adverse environmental effects on Public Trust resources and uses. No more than one primary and one secondary residential unit shall be allowed per parcel.
Note: Language in (2) should be consistent with “diked former tidelands”
Without a map of what the “diked former tidelands” – this is ambiguous.
I have a map of the diked former tidelands, supplied by Aldaron Laird.
This can be left as-is, but it is weak.
LU-5c Limitation of corporation yard expansion.
Development of the City corporation yard facilities shall be restricted to its existing boundaries.
Suggest put in the location or address – as this could possibly change during the life of General Plan 2045.
Such as: “Development of the City corporation yard facilities at its current [2023] 600 South G Street location….”
Mad River Hospital Area
Table LU-5 Specific Considerations for Certain Public Facility Areas
Page 2-27
Area: Mad River Hospital Area APN’s 507-191-033, 507-191-076, 507-291- 032 & 507-191-077
Specific Consideration: “Hospital development on APN’s 507-191-077 and 507-291-032, in conjunction with an overall shall be developed consistent with the Master Site Plan adopted in 2011.”
A reference as to what the “Master Site Plan adopted in 2011” is required.
The text of what has been struck out on Page 2-27 includes “If a Master Site Plan for the Mad River Hospital Area is not approved by the year 2020….” – so we know that the Master Site Plan is something other than that.
The Area lists four parcels. The Specific Consideration speaks to just two parcels. What about the other two parcels?
I have found a one-page diagram dating from 2011 of a Mad River Hospital Master Site Plan, from the engineering consultant LACO. I have at this time found no record of the adoption of a 2011 Master Site Plan. The Community Development Department would have these documents.
The Arcata General Plan 2020 and the Land Use Element are very specific as to open space and other environmental requirements for the Mad River Hospital parcels. These requirements appear to have been substantially altered in 2011.
The 2011 Master Plan shows 712 parking spaces.
This includes 75 parking spaces for a 60 to 75 room Assisted Living facility, and 109 spaces for a 95 to 100 room Assisted Living facility.
The one-page LACO diagram is general, and has no mention of permeability requirements or other environmental concerns.
The Planning Commission should look into this and see if the 2011 Master Plan is acceptable for the future. Arcata’s vision for the next 20 years includes less parking.