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.
Hello, David and Jen —
(and cc’d to Julie)
(and cc’d to Julie)
These questions came up with four different people last week. Some of this, Jen, you went over in your presentation to the Economic Development Committee back in May. I thought I knew the answers, but now I’m not so sure, so I am asking the two of you for clarity. The questions are below.
The public’s confusion over non-conforming business use seems to continue, regardless of your outreach on this issue. I can point people to the SIRP FAQ page, but it seems that some people are distrustful of what is there. Here’s what’s there, with highlights added:
Those few legal non-conforming businesses with low-employment—such as ministorage and natural gas distribution (some of which consume entire City blocks)—would be encouraged to relocate to other parts of the City under the Gateway Zoning Code. However, they would be allowed to stay in place for as long as they continue operations. Gateway Plan policy will be revisited to ensure this intent is clarified. Existent non-conforming uses would be allowed to rebuild if destroyed, but would generally not be allowed to expand, and would lose non-conforming status if the business ceased to operate for 12 months. There may be exceptions made to non-conforming businesses that wish to expand with the added provision of housing.
Thank you for your answers here. Your responses don’t have to be lengthy — actually, the shorter the better, in some ways. Or perhaps provide two sets of answers: A one- or two-sentence answer (as in the FAQs) and a paragraph-length answer, if that is what is needed for clarification.
Thank you for your work and your involvement. I have said this before and may say it again: We have our differences, but at the heart of it all we want a good plan — or superb plan — for Arcata. Some people may regard me as a nay-sayer or against progress or whatever but that is not how I feel about what I’m doing. I appreciate your work, and I am optimistic that the efforts of the many people involved will converge into forming a great plan.
On the questions below, I originally wanted this simply to be able to give an accurate viewpoint in situations where I’ve been asked. But it might be a good article, to use as a reference — because people are going to keep asking this, and the City’s FAQs are not enough.
By the way, I really do feel that the university (or the State) should be contributing at least a few million dollars toward this redevelopment process. David, when you say that we don’t have enough money for this or that, it really bothers me. I want to get the money, so the Community Development Department can do a good job.
Thank you,
— Fred
Questions on non-conforming business use.
Some of these have come from real-life questions that have been asked of me, for my opinion. Rather than speculate, I bring these questions here to you for discussion.
Some of these have come from real-life questions that have been asked of me, for my opinion. Rather than speculate, I bring these questions here to you for discussion.
We know that we’re dealing with a draft plan, the language may change, we don’t know all of what will be specified, and so forth.
On a general basis:
- Will a business that is either non-conforming now or would become non-conforming after the passage of the Gateway Plan be allowed to continue its business.
- Would a non-conforming business that has been in continuous operation be allowed to sell the business as a business, and the new owner be allowed to continue to operate the business, with the same guidelines and restrictions to the business as existed for the previous owner (the seller).
- If the business is to be relocated, and assuming relocation funding is available, would the business have to be relocated in the city limits of Arcata to be eligible for the funding, or could it be in Eureka, or in Humboldt County.
- Perhaps a little trickier: If relocation is not desired (for whatever individual reasons), would funds be available to just “retire” the business. On the one hand, to end the business doesn’t keep the employment (except there may be a need for that business, and so a start-up might occur). On the other hand, if an owner is getting along in age, he/she might have been happy to continue in the same location but would have no interest in relocating. Could there be a 5 or 10 year phase-out for a business in such a situation?
- For a non-conforming business, would there be any difficulty or issues optaining what we can call standard minor building permits for either building maintenance (e.g. water heater, furnace, roof) or typical business needs (fence, shed, new electrical panel).
- Same question as above, but with what would be seen as a major improvement to the property. At the September 13th meeting, David, you brought up the process by which an auto shop could potentially add a new service bay onto their auto shop — that it could go through a standard planning commission review process. (You proposed that a new service bay would likely be approved, but of course there is no guarantee of that.)
- Any other questions that have come up for you, if you’d like to include here.
Thank you.