This article was written May 23, 2022, in the early days of Arcata1.com
It is being “bumped up” to appearing as a new article because the subject is important.
As part of the Environmental Impact Report for any Gateway plan, the City of Arcata is required to report on the financial impact of the development. This is the “Financial Impact Analysis” section of the EIR.
This is necessary to understand the full economic impact of the Gateway buildout.
Questions
What will Gateway area development mean for the City’s operating budget?
The new Gateway residents will need greater infrastructure and more services. Are the police, the fire department, the school system, City staff, etc etc able to handle a greater population?
Will the costs borne by Arcata be greater than the revenue? By considering the potential projected revenue from the proposed land-use change, will General Fund expenditures exceed revenues?
If yes, by what percentage in 20 years?
Do fiscal projections show that the City could be heading towards operating at a deficit as a result of this expansion?
Planning Commission Involvement
In the Arcata Community Development Director’s staff report for the April 12, 2022, meeting of the Planning Commission there is this sentence:
“Development that cannot be supported by existing infrastructure would be required to provide the new necessary infrastructure, or it would not be approvable.”
Page 8, 1st paragraph. Link here [162 pages, full packet] and here [staff report, 4 pages].
What does this mean? It can be interpreted to mean:
- IF existing infrastructure cannot support the new development…
- AND the new development will not provide the new necessary infrastructure…
- THEN the new development would not be approved.
This seems to mean that no Gateway development can occur until the infrastructure can support it – or until funds exist – bonds, developers fees — to develop the infrastructure in conjunction with the project development.
Here’s the full paragraph from the staff report — April 12, 2022
An area plan provides a slightly higher frame of reference than a specific plan does. An area plan is an element of the General Plan and can provide the detailed planning framework similar to a specific plan. Area plans are sometimes referred to as precise plans, neighborhood plans, or community plans. The infrastructure need to support development within such plans are provided in the regular capital improvement program. Development that cannot be supported by existing infrastructure would be required to provide the new necessary infrastructure, or it would not be approvable. The cost to develop the less granular area plan and evaluate its environmental impacts is less, but the benefit to streamlining and subsequent housing production is considered very similar. For these reasons, the Council directed the development of an area plan instead of a specific plan.
There’s no Capital Improvement program that supports the Gateway plan
“The infrastructure need to support development within such plans [that is: Area Plans] are provided in the regular capital improvement program.”
So: We need to see the “regular” capital improvement program that would support the Gateway Area Plan development. There is no indication that there’s a current capital improvement program that supports it.
An Area Plan costs less
An Area Plan costs less to create than a Specific plan. But it does not require proof of fiscal responsibility that a Specific Plan would need. A Specific Plan, with its accompanying fiscal plan, is suitable for a development where the entire build-out is scheduled to occur in a set time-frame. For the Gateway area, development may occur in an unscheduled manner over an unknown number of years. In theory the area plant does not need the degree of financial planning and projections that would be inherent in a Specific Plan.
“The cost to develop the less granular area plan and evaluate its environmental impacts is less, but the benefit to streamlining and subsequent housing production is considered very similar.”
So: The cost is less, the benefit to streamlining and housing production are similar. What’s missing in the Area Plan is the evidence that the Plan is fiscally responsible or feasible (i.e. wastewater, roads, traffic, schools, police, etc etc etc).
Any development is required to provide new necessary infrastructure
Again, the one sentence:
“Development that cannot be supported by existing infrastructure would be required to provide the new necessary infrastructure, or it would not be approvable.”
And here, in one sentence, is a key to what’s going to enable this plan to move forward or not — or to what degree supporting evidence of fiscal responsibility will be required.
This is what stalled the 1996 Janes Creek West proposed annexation. The City Manager was forced to acknowledge that the revenue to the City would not cover the costs to the City.
Opinion: The Gateway Plan, in just about any sense, cannot be supported by existing infrastructure and there is no evidence that “new necessary infrastructure” is on the table, except perhaps by promises.
Arcata Police are already understaffed
The situation of an understaffed police department could be a real consideration here. The understaffed police department is considered to be a huge issue. From the Lost Coast Outpost, October 28, 2021:
APD Chief Brian Ahearn: “Two years ago, we had 29 sworn officers, now we’re at 20,” Ahearn said. “We have three pending departures that have been relayed to me by our officers. If we get down to 17, that will be unprecedented territory for us.”
https://lostcoastoutpost.com/2021/oct/28/arcata-police-department-staffing-crisis-force-cou/
Arcata Fire Department very concerned
From the Mad River Union, March 16, 2022. “Fire Dept. concerned about Gateway Area preparedness”
“We are already out-gunned and need more staffing,” said AFD Fire Chief Justin McDonald. “We are woefully understaffed.”
When the district reaches full staffing, it will have two stations with two firefighters each and one station with three firefighters. McDonald noted that three firefighters on an engine is the industry standard. So even with full staffing, AFD will have two engines with only two firefighters, which is below the industry standard.
Another issue with the draft Gateway Plan is how the fire district would respond to high-rise fires. [Note: Firefighters consider a “mid-rise” building as 3 to 6 stories, and a “high-rise” building as 7-stories — 75 feet — or taller.] According to McDonald, the industry standard is to have at least 42 firefighters respond to a high-rise fire. At full staffing, AFD would only have seven firefighters available. Even with mutual aid from adjacent fire departments, it’s unlikely that 42 firefighters would be on scene.
“The District concludes that the additional residential units and population anticipated in the Gateway Area Plan is likely to exceed the capacity of the District to ensure safe and effective response to fulfill our obligations,” McDonald wrote. “Moreover, the current capacities of the District do not include fire suppression in mid-rise and high-rise buildings. Issues that need addressing include water supply (sufficient water to put out a fire), traffic flows and patterns (space to quickly move fire & EMS vehicles into the Gateway Area), access to buildings, and equipment and staff with appropriate skills/training for high-rise fire suppression.”
“Analysis of these issues needs to be a component of the EIR, with the EIR providing a recommendation on appropriate staffing and equipment and analyzing the costs of any anticipated required increases. Since the EIR has the option of including analysis of alternatives, it would be beneficial to conduct the analysis, so it compares requirements with alternative height buildings,” McDonald wrote.
AFD Fire Chief Justin McDonald is recommending that the city conduct a full risk analysis for the Gateway Plan.
“To conclude, I can say without a doubt that a development of this magnitude will have a substantial impact on our already understaffed organization and likely to the north bay region’s fire service,” McDonald wrote. “Based on the information currently available to the District, there is not enough information regarding the Gateway Area Plan to properly make recommendations on the mitigation of the direct and indirect impacts this project will have on my organization.”
https://www.madriverunion.com/articles/fire-dept-concerned-about-gateway-area-preparedness/
Schools ? Playgrounds ?
Who knows ? There’s no mention in the draft Gateway Plan of impact on schools, playgrounds, doctors and health care, and so many aspects of what makes life in Arcata work for our residents.
These aspects can be discussed later, with the introduction of the Environmental Impact Report, but don’t these admittedly large items merit discussion?
Planning Commissioner Dan Tangney asked a question about playgrounds at the February 8, 2002 meeting. His question was not adequately answered. A transcription of parts of that meeting are on this website here. Commissioner Tangney’s section about parks and play spaces for children is here.
The Wastewater Treatment Facility
Required improvements and expansion of capacity of the Wastewater Treatment Facility is of such large concern that it cannot be adequately discussed in this article.
It merits a large, informed, expert-based discussion.
The Bottom Line
Considering that Arcata’s police and fire departments are already stretched thin, what’s going to happen?
Can anyone tell us ?