###

The vacant lot directly next to Greenview Market on 11th Street and Janes Road will likey be home to a new apartment building and two businesses, after the Arcata Planning Commission approved the design review for the proposed project during its Tuesday night meeting. 

Opponents of the project — many of whom spoke at the meeting — could still appeal the decision to the Arcata City Council.

The project, submitted by local ​​company North Star Development LLC, will include the construction of three two-story buildings, one that will face 11th Street and hold two commercial spaces, and two that will hold a combined 22 two-bedroom apartments. Design plans also include the addition of 23 parking spaces, 18 bike parking spaces and the addition of landscaping that will include native species and drought tolerant plants. 

Delo Freitas, a senior planner for the City of Arcata, began by giving the commission some background on the project, mentioning that for many years the site was home to the United Creamery plant, but has been vacant since the 1950s. A development was proposed for the site in 1992, but was not approved by the Planning Commission. Because the site is already zoned for mixed-use development, Freitas said, there are no zoning restrictions for the proposed project. 

Freitas also spoke to a rumor going around that one of the commercial spaces was going to be a tavern, something she said many neighbors were concerned about. Freitas said that the applicant confirmed with her that there are no plans for a tavern, adding that a tavern does not fall under the currently permissible uses on the site and would require applying for an additional use permit. 

But even without the prospect of a bar moving in, many residents of the neighborhood were not very happy about the proposed project.  More than a dozen community members – many of whom live and/or own property on Daniels Street, directly behind the proposed development – spoke up during the meeting, urging the commission to not approve the project as proposed, citing concerns over increased noise, traffic, parking and the height of the buildings. 

Christine Perry, a resident and homeowner on Daniels Street, voiced her concerns over the development increasing traffic and noise, and said that having a two-story building right against her property would compromise her privacy and safety, by allowing people to see right into her yard and home. She also had concerns about increased criminal activity in the neighborhood with the addition of up to 44 new residents. 

“With more people and businesses, more crime follows,” Perry said during the meeting, asking that the applicants alter the design to have fewer units and one-story buildings instead. “Should this complex be developed as proposed it would permanently ruin my quality of life, and that is unacceptable.” 

Another property owner on Daniels Street, Thomas Guy, said that the two-story buildings would cause excessive shading of the neighboring one-story houses and affect people’s solar panels, and said that the development will have a “massive impact” on water, traffic and parking in the neighborhood. 

Design showing the site plan

Some members of the community and members of the commission also voiced concerns over a section of the property that was being left vacant in the design plan. Project applicant Kyle Boughton said that the space was being left open to allow for additional development in the future. 

Commissioner Judith Mayer was not a fan of this explanation, and said that although it’s not formally required, she would prefer to see the applicants submit a “phased proposal” that indicates what exactly they plan to build in the future. 

Although several members of the Planning Commission said that they understood the neighbors’ concerns, most of the commission members felt that the need for more housing in Arcata far outweighed any of those issues. 

“Arcata has committed to strategic infill,” Commissioner Scott Davies said during the meeting, “and I don’t see how we’re possibly able to do that without impacting neighbors.” 

Ultimately the Planning Commission voted 4-1 to approve the proposed project, with Mayer dissenting. 

“I came in here planning to vote for this project,” Mayer said of her dissenting vote. “I’ve changed my mind. I think the principle of hedging on a parcel so that you can take advantage of changed standards in the very near future and not providing us with a phased proposal is not something I will vote for.”