###

Security National Properties Holding Company, LLC, one branch of the sprawling corporate tree founded by occasional Eureka resident Robin P. Arkley, II, has dumped nearly a quarter of a million dollars into the parking-lot-preservation measure dubbed “The Eureka Housing for All and Downtown Vitality Initiative,” according to a campaign finance disclosure form submitted to the City of Eureka.

Arkley in 2014.

From late July through September of last year the company contributed $200,000 in chunks of $25,000 and $50,000, plus another $36,000 worth of non-monetary contributions.

Where has that money gone? Out of the area, mostly. 

Those non-monetary donations to the Housing for All committee included a $16,000 payment from Security National Properties Holding Company to Regional Strategies Group, a San Diego-based communications consultancy, and a $20,000 payment from SN Servicing Corporation (part of the same corporate family) to La Jolla Group Consulting, Inc., also based in San Diego, as a retainer for signature gathering.

Meanwhile, more than $54,000 was paid to Gail Rymer Strategic Communications, based in Knoxville, Tenn. Rymer works as a spokesperson for Security National. During this election campaigns season she is also serving as the spokesperson for the Housing for All initiative as well as Citizens for a Better Eureka, a nonprofit coalition of business and property owners that has filed five lawsuits against the City of Eureka. 

Four of those suits are CEQA-related efforts aimed at stopping the city’s plans to convert under-used municipal parking lots into housing developments. The fifth argues that the city should have put the “Housing for All” initiative on the March primary ballot, even though the city’s next regular election is the November Presidential Election.

The Housing for All committee also paid La Jolla Group more than $116,000 for petition circulation. It paid SoCal digital marketing firm The Primacy Group more than $21,000 for consulting work. And it paid about $1,700 to River City Business Services, a Sacramento-based accounting and political reporting firm, for professional services.

The campaign also spent more than $5,200 in postage, mailing glossy fliers to Eureka residents, and nearly $10,000 on radio advertisements. 

Oh, and it spent $29,653.32 on lodging for the people who came to town for the petition effort. Eureka Assistant City Manager Pam Powell tells the Outpost that she noticed none of the hotels were in Eureka, so the city earned no Transient Occupancy Tax revenue. Most of the guests were housed at the Hampton Inn & Suites in Arcata, with other rooms rented at the Arcata Ramada and Motel 6. 

Again, this disclosure form covers barely two months of the campaign thus far – from late July, when Security National first started spending money on the campaign, through the September 31, the end of the reporting period. The next reporting deadline arrives on Wednesday of next week, Jan. 31. That report will cover the period from Oct. 1 through the end of 2023.

While Arkley has sought to distance himself from the “Housing for All” initiative, Security National’s fingerprints are all over it. Not only is Gail Rymer the spokesperson for both, as noted above, but Security National provided the startup funding for Citizens for a Better Eureka, according to the group’s website.

Furthermore, as Thadeus Greenson recently reported in the North Coast Journal, the attorney who filed all those Citizens for a Better Eureka lawsuits against the city, Brad Johnson, also signed the property exchange agreement between Eureka City Schools and a mystery developer called AMG Communities – Jabobs, LLC, a newly formed company that has agreed to purchase the former Jacobs Middle School campus for reasons it has yet to disclose. Citizens for a Better Eureka and the Housing for All campaign have presented that property as a preferable location for housing development.

In fact, glossy mailers recently mailed to Eureka residents by the Housing for All campaign lay out the plan, albeit in grammatically awkward phraseology:

Once the Initiative is passed and the Jacobs site is rezoned, it is envisioned a process whereby the community and the new owner work together to build housing well-integrated with the surrounding neighborhood, making it a crown jewel in the Eureka community.

The full name of the recipient committee for the Housing for All campaign is, “A Committee in Support of the Housing for All and Downtown Vitality Initiative, Sponsored by Security National Properties Holding Company, LLC” [emphasis added].

Earlier today the Outpost sent an email to AMG Communities – Jacobs, LLC, asking who is behind the company and what they intend to do with the Jacobs campus. We received a response from an unidentified “Community Coordinator” who thanked us for the questions and said, “We are working on it.”

Rymer, meanwhile, has taken pains to keep Arkley separate from these convoluted dealings. In October she replied to an email we’d sent Arkley asking about the latest lawsuits filed by Citizens for a Better Eureka against the City of Eureka:

As Rob is not a majority owner of Security National Properties Servicing Company, LLC, it is inappropriate for him to respond. Rob is not a Citizens for a Better Eureka member and does not participate in meetings or discussions.

Today, however, in response to more questions about the Arkley family’s involvement, she sent a reply acknowledging a connection:

As I’m sure you are aware, the Arkley Family and Security National have a long history in supporting Eureka, both philanthropically and through their business — such as the 5th Street Plaza, Arkley Center for the Performing Arts, North Coast Co-op, the Sequoia Park Zoo,  Cal Poly Humboldt, Eureka waterfront revitalization, Eureka High School, and North Coast Dance, to name just a few.

The support of the initiative to provide needed housing in Eureka and concern for the continued vitality of downtown and the businesses that keep Eureka vibrant is another way they are giving back to their community. 

When viewed together, the actions of these interrelated groups and companies – Security National, Citizens for a Better Eureka and AMG Communities – seem to be executing a plan articulated by Arkley more than two and a half years ago. 

Appearing on KINS Radio’s “Talk Shop” program on Memorial Day 2021, Arkley fumed about the city of Eureka’s “crazy” initiative to convert city-owned parking lots into housing and vowed to take political and legal action, telling host Brian Papstein, “Now we’re organized, there’s going to be litigation and I think we can almost bet … I think we can probably put a ballot initiative on the ballot to prevent it.”

Press release from the Humboldt County Drug Task Force:

On January 24th, 2024, Humboldt County Drug Task Force Agents, assisted by the Fortuna Police Department (FoPD) and the Rio Dell Police Department, served a search warrant at the residence of Adam SMITH (43 years old from Rio Dell) located in the 100 block of Painter Street in Rio Dell. 

Adam Smith.

Upon arrival at the residence, Agents located and detained Adam SMITH and his son, Noah SMITH (26 years old from Rio Dell) without incident. Once the scene was secure, Agents and Officers searched the residence and located 16 firearms, one flare launcher, 25 grams of cocaine, multiple digital scales, packaging materials, and indicia of drug sales. Two of the firearms were non-serialized AR-15’s (ghost guns), and three of the firearms were illegally possessed assault weapons. FoPD K9 Cain assisted in this search warrant and positively alerted to the narcotics that were located. 

Noah Smith.

Adam SMITH was transported to the Humboldt County Correctional Facility where he was booked on the following charges:

• HS11370.1(A)- Possession of a Controlled Substance while Armed
• HS11351- Possession of Controlled Substance for Sales 
• PC30605- Possession of an Assault Weapon
• PC33215- Possession of a Short-Barreled Rifle 
• PC29180(G)- Manufacturing or Assembling a Firearm

Noah SMITH was transported to the Humboldt County Correctional Facility where he was booked on the following charges:

• HS11370.1(A)- Possession of a Controlled Substance while Armed
• PC30605- Possession of an Assault Weapon
• HS11350- Possession of a Controlled Substance 

Anyone with information related to this investigation or other narcotics related crimes is encouraged to call the Humboldt County Drug Task Force at 707-267-9976.

It’s put up or shut up time for dozens of cities across the San Francisco Bay Area.

Last January, local governments across the region were required to submit “housing elements” to state regulators — future development blueprints that spell out how each jurisdiction intends to make room for its share of the more than 2.5 million new homes the Newsom administration wants to see built across California by the end of the decade.

One year later, on Jan. 31, many of those same jurisdictions are now required to turn key components of those blueprints into law. That means re-inking their zoning maps, converting thousands of suburban-style tracts into apartment-ready parcels and proving to the state that they are, in fact, going to do what they said they would do to address California’s chronic housing shortage.

The Bay Area zoning crunch is just the latest inflection point in a years-long tussle between California’s housing agency and local governments over how many new homes California needs to plan for and where this anticipated influx of development ought to go. The Bay Area’s end-of-month due date is the first big one in a series of rolling regional deadlines. Next up: Santa Barbara County on Feb. 15.

Whether Bay Area local governments comply — and how the state responds to those that don’t — could indicate just how seriously the Newsom administration takes its ambitious housing goals.

“This is kind of the test case,” said Will Sterling, a land use attorney with the San Francisco firm Holland & Knight, which regularly represents real estate interests in cases against development-averse cities. “It’s going to be interesting to see what (the state) does, how firm they are.”

Developers, attorneys, elected officials and housing advocates are watching closely because this is uncharted territory. For more than 50 years, California’s Department of Housing and Community Development has been setting eight-year planning goals for cities and counties, but only recently have state bureaucrats had the legal and political backing to drop the hammer of serious litigation and funding cuts on municipalities that don’t play along.

Suddenly, everyone is taking the once-obscure “Regional Housing Needs Allocation” process seriously.

“It’s been a doozy this time,” said Michael Brilliot, deputy planning director for San Jose. On Tuesday, the city council there raced through a final round of zoning changes to beat the end-of-the-month deadline. Compared to past cycles, Brilliot said the city had to triple the number of employees tasked with planning San Jose’s housing future from two to six.

How forcefully Newsom’s housing department plans to wield its new hammer is an open question, though its special treatment of San Francisco earlier this winter may offer a hint.

After conducting an unprecedented audit of the city last year, the department called upon San Francisco to overhaul its ponderous permitting process under threat of litigation, funding cuts and the possible revocation of its local planning authority. The city’s Board of Supervisors ultimately blinked, passing Mayor London Breed’s proposed reform package. The state’s housing department signed off on the changes last week.

Bay Area cities and counties “know that they’ll take on a lot of risk by blatantly not complying” come Jan. 31, said Jenny Silva, an advocate for denser development in Marin County and board chair for the Marin Environmental Housing Collaborative. “They see what happens in San Francisco. They hear what happens elsewhere.”

Nuts and bolts

Even with the state breathing down its neck, meeting the deadline has proven to be a “heavy lift” for pint-sized Fairfax in Marin County, said Mayor Barbara Coler.

At a recent town council meeting, where discussion and debate lasted three hours, public commenters agonized over what denser construction would do to the “heart and soul” of the town of less than 7,500, long-defined by its “village-like quality.” Some raised concerns about heightened fire risk, while others promised litigation and threatened the elected officials at the dais with recall campaigns.

Coler said she too would have preferred the state require Fairfax to plan for fewer homes (the town is setting aside space for 540) and that she and her colleagues had the power to require new developments to set aside more units for lower-income residents.

But when locals encourage the city to fight back, she said she points to the community’s sheer need for extra places to live. “What I tell folks is, ‘Who do you think is waiting on you in the restaurant? Don’t you want them to live here?’” Coler said.

It’s not surprising that so many local officials across the region are facing a special kind of political pressure as the rezoning deadline approaches.

Housing elements are big picture plans that identify development sites and commit to future policy changes. In their high-level abstraction, they can sometimes read like the urban planning equivalent of a vision board.

Zoning rules, in contrast, are “the nuts and bolts of how to take a site and get a certain number of units on it…rezoning is really where the rubber meets the road,” said Martha Battaglia, a planner with the nearby city of Corte Madera, which has already met the state’s upcoming deadline.

Changing a zoning code puts to paper a city’s decision to raise maximum building heights, reduce parking requirements or increase the allowable density of a specific parcel. These are changes that neighbors can readily identify, envision and, frequently enough, dread, bemoan and rally against.

Nuclear options on the table

Not every city and county is feeling the heat equally. State law gives jurisdictions that followed the rules earlier in the process a more leisurely schedule, while tightening the screws on scofflaws.

That places cities around the state into three buckets:

• On time: Cities that had their housing plans certified prior to a drop-dead deadline — which vary across the state — have another three years to make any necessary zoning changes. Of the Bay Area’s 109 cities and counties, which had until May 31, 2023, fewer than 30 fall into that category.

• Forgivably late: Those that got their elements approved, but after that deadline, have just one year to follow up with zoning changes, if required.
 In the Bay Area, that’s Jan. 31.
• Unforgivably late: Cities and counties that still don’t have certified housing plans by the end of that one-year deadline will be deemed out of compliance and open to a slew of possible legal and financial penalties until they do their rezoning too.


Most of Southern California faced an earlier compliance deadline, but all jurisdictions except for those in the “unforgivably late” category received a legislative extension and now have until next year.

The state plans to review the work of the Bay Area cities and counties that are on the hook for rezoning, said housing department spokesperson Alicia Murillo, in an email. If found lacking, those jurisdictions will be issued a warning and given 30 days to catch up. After that, the department “will revoke” its findings that those local governments are complying with state housing law.

The consequences for that will depend in part on how tough the state decides to be. For local governments they range from irksome to catestrophic.

Included among the possible penalties listed in state law are cuts in state funding for affordable housing and transportation. The state’s housing department could also refer a city to the state Attorney General, who has shown a past eagerness to take local governments, like Huntington Beach, San Bernardino and Coronado, to court over failure to plan for enough new housing.

“It’s going to be interesting to see what (the state) does, how firm they are.”
— Will Sterling, Land use attorney, Holland & Knight

More extreme consequences — sitting, mostly dormant, in the state’s government code — include the automatic approval of certain proposed affordable housing developments. The state could also ask a court to either suspend entirely a city’s ability to issue new permits until it follows the rules or to put its entire planning apparatus into receivership.

Jurisdictions without certified housing plans also open themselves up to the so-called builder’s remedy, in which developers can completely ignore a city’s zoning map, building as much as they like wherever they like, so long as 20% of the units are designated affordable.

“There’s quite a bit of discretion built into whether HCD wants to go nuclear on a jurisdiction,” said Sterling with Holland & Knight. But if not for political reasons, the state’s housing department may be limited in how aggressive it can be state-wide.

“They certainly have cities that are more on their radar than other cities. They don’t have all the staff in the world,” said Sterling. “If only everyone got the San Francisco treatment.”

Next stage, but not the final one

Where the state declines to step in, there are other sheriffs in town.

Matt Gelfand, attorney with the legal nonprofit Californians for Homeownership, said he doesn’t expect the state to be “ultra aggressive” in looking over each jurisdiction’s shoulder as it redraws its zoning maps. “Nor do I think that’s necessarily the role of the state,” he said.

That, in Gelfand’s view, is his job. “We are ultra, ultra aggressive,” he said.

The nonprofit, sponsored by the California Association of Realtors, has sued roughly a dozen cities across the state for failing to plan or zone for enough housing. Last month, they secured a judgment from a Southern California judge against Beverly Hills for that city’s failure to pass a state-sanctioned housing plan on time. The penalty: The government of the tony enclave lost its ability to issue any new construction and remodeling permits, save those that would bring it into compliance with state law.

The group also took La Cañada Flintrdige and Hawaiian Gardens to court last year, forcing both to re-do their zoning maps. In December, Gelfand asked a court to subject the city of South Pasadena to the Beverly Hills permit moratorium treatment, but rescinded the request after city officials agreed to conduct more rezoning.

“That is ultimately the point: To provide the right carrots and sticks to get folks to come into compliance,” said Gelfand.

Last week, South Pasadena’s city council voted to nearly double the number of new units that can be constructed in parcels in some of the city’s denser neighborhoods. Mayor Jon Primuth said it was the city’s “intent all along” to do so, lawsuit or not.

South Pasadena’s housing element still hasn’t been certified by state regulators, a fact the mayor attributed in part to the state’s approval process itself. “I think everyone would have to agree, given the number of revisions cities have had to make over and over, that there was a lack of clarity,” he said.

City officials in the Bay Area may ultimately have the plight of Beverly Hills and South Pasadena in mind as Jan. 31 approaches. That, anyway, is the hope of Leora Tanjuatco Ross, organizing director with YIMBY Law, another regular on the housing element lawsuit circuit.

“We’re going to have to have a conversation about revising the sacredness of single family zoning…This is just the beginning. There’s a lot of work to do.”
— Michael Brilliot, Deputy Planning Director, San Jose

“Historically these have just been paper exercises, they’ve been empty promises,” she said of the state’s planning process. “What we’re trying to do is make sure that these housing element policies are actually implemented this time.”

“If a city commits to doing a policy and they don’t pass it, that is grounds for a lawsuit,” she added.

In San Jose, the city is facing double deadline pressure. The Bay Area’s largest city has yet to have its housing element certified by the state, though a draft is under review by the housing department. With a final change to its zoning code, enacted with a unanimous early-evening vote by the council, city officials are hoping to convince state regulators to sign off on both plan and zoning maps before Jan. 31.

But even if the city is able to get everything squared away in time, there are more housing debates to come, said Brilliot, the planning director. Housing elements are more than just a list of sites ripe for development. They also include pledged policy changes for the coming years. San Jose has more than 130 of them in its draft proposal — and there are some biggies.

They include cutting local restrictions on infill development, allowing for taller and denser buildings if developers include affordable units and allowing small multifamily housing projects across most of the city’s traditionally suburban-style neighborhoods.“When we come back down the road it’s going to be messy,” said Brilliot. “We’re going to have to have a conversation about revising the sacredness of single family zoning…This is just the beginning. There’s a lot of work to do.”

###

CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.

Thomas Nathan Shorey, 31, of Valdez, Alaska, passed away in an accident while working on Friday, January 12, 2024.

Tom grew up in Humboldt County, among the fog and the redwoods. He spent his happy childhood with his sister, Chelsea, and treasured cousins Matt, Russ, and Andy, racing through the woods, camping, hiking, and fishing. Tom loved the natural beauty of the world and found immense joy in being outside. As a child, he spent many happy hours tromping through Rohner Park with his sister. He loved gardening, helping his mother plan the vegetable garden each year. He convinced her to plant blueberry bushes along the outside of their fence so that people walking by could stop and enjoy fresh berries.

Tom had as much love for animals as he did for the outdoors. When he was 14, he snuck into the animal scramble at the Fortuna Rodeo, and much to the shock of his family and dismay of his mother, came running home with a baby goat in his arms. This was the first of many goats the family would adopt, and one night years later, Tom would be the one to successfully deliver two goat kids while his father was out of town. While working in Washington as a timber cruiser, he found two black lab puppies abandoned in the woods, brought them home, and named them Max and Ralph. Ralph became one of Tom’s closest companions, accompanying him on backpacking trips, bike rides, and walks on the beach, always with a tennis ball hanging from his mouth.

In high school, Tom found a group of friends, the Crew, that became his family, whom he was close with until his passing. They went fishing, swimming, hung out in the forest, and took part in all sorts of hijinks. On one occasion, they commandeered his family’s inflatable kayak and floated it down the Eel River, worrying his parents but eventually turning up exhilarated and triumphant (and late to his senior prom). He was a gifted musician, playing both piano and trumpet and singing in the high school choir, and could teach himself to play any instrument he picked up within a few short hours. He had a deep curiosity about the world, and found his passion in environmental and earth sciences.

Tom moved to Valdez, Alaska, where he grew a beautiful family with his partner, Abbiegail Murphy. Abbiegail was a wise and grounding force in Tom’s life, and together they had two boys, Joseph, age 4, and Shaun, age 2. Tommy always had an open and generous heart, but his love grew exponentially when he became a father. Raising his two boys was his greatest joy and accomplishment in life. He remained close with his family despite the distance, calling them at least once a week to brag about how deep the snow was, the pleasure he found in chopping wood and foraging for wild blueberries, and to share the wonders of fatherhood.

Tom’s passing was preceded by his loving grandparents, Vickie and Gene Coda and Patrick Dempsey, his beloved Auntie Caron, and his loyal dog Ralph.

He is survived by his partner Abbiegail, sons Shaun and Joseph, parents, Liz and Russell, sister Chelsea, uncles Chuck, Tom, and Hal, aunts Jackie, Diane, and Anita, and cousins Matt, Emma, Russ, Andy, Julie, Jesse, Melissa, Riley, and Gradey, as well as many dear friends and loved ones.

Tommy was gentle, loving, fearless, and fiercely independent. He had an irreverent, relentless sense of humor that occasionally drove one to the brink of insanity. He was a beam of light for all who knew him.

A memorial service will be held on Sunday, February 18 at 1 pm at the Fortuna Monday Club, 610 Main Street, Fortuna, CA 95540. His ashes will be spread in his beloved Humboldt County at a later date.

###

Richard Tognetti, 78 years old, passed away on January 22, 2024, at his home in Fortuna.

Rich was born and raised in Half Moon Bay and graduated from HMB High School in 1963. He went on to become a diesel mechanic working in the South San Francisco area for 35 years.

Everyone who knew Rich knew he was an avid duck hunter and fisherman. He also enjoyed going to car shows, rebuilding hot rods, camping, bowling, traveling, gardening and working on projects, never letting any grass grow under his feet.

Rich was a loving husband, father, friend and all-around great guy with a great sense of humor. He would tell crazy funny stories that made you laugh so hard you cried and there was never a dull moment in his presence.

Rich is preceded in death by his parents, Elia and Rose Tognetti; his sisters, Gloria Bettencourt and Yolanda DalPorto; his brother-in-law, Bruno DalPorto; his niece, JoAnne Nerli; and granddaughter, Mikaila Lucido.

Rich is survived by his wife, Chris Tognetti; his daughter, Linda Taylor (TJ); his son, Eddy Lucido and stepsons, Peter and Matthew Rice; his grandchildren, Travis Taylor, Tiffinny Hoisington (Tate), Carina Jackson (Brad) and Dante, Dominic and Dio Lucido; his great-grandchildren, Jayden and Lacey Taylor and Quintin and Kolby Hoisington; he is also survived by numerous nieces and nephews.

In accordance with his wishes, no services are planned. Donations can be made to Ducks Unlimited in Rich’s memory.

###

Carleene Blaire Luther, age 77, of Eureka, passed away December 25th, 2023. Carleene was born on August 21st, 1946, to Carl and Miriam Compton (Business owners of the local Union 76 Gas Station, in Eureka.)

Carleene grew up in Eureka, where she attended Eureka High School with two of her lifelong friends Arlene and Suzie, just to mention a few.

She lived in Eureka, where she enjoyed the ocean and the nature thriving here. She enjoyed many live community events throughout the years here.

Carleene may have had some struggles, but lived life to the fullest. She loved bowling, attending the senior league at Harbor Lanes every week with her husband Art Luther.

Carleene loved baseball, especially the San Francisco Giants, which she shared a common interest with her long-time friend Bonnie. They would always sing their song “Our boys are on fireeeeee!” every time the Giants won a game.

Carleene enjoyed Yahtzee nights with the girls every Friday. She and her girlfriends Renie, Susie, Sherrie, step-daughter Tammy and step-granddaughter Katalina would play and enjoy the evening together.

Carleene Luther was predeceased by her father, Carl Compton and her mother, Miriam Compton. She is survived by her husband, Art Luther.

Our family is grateful to know that Carleene is finally at peace. While no services will be held per Carleene’s wishes, our family would feel honored if you kept us and Carleene in your thoughts during this difficult year. We were not prepared to lose Carleene as suddenly as we did, but know that unlike most, she accomplished much of what she set out to do.

###

Residents of Eureka’s Highland Park neighborhood filled city council chambers on Tuesday evening seeking answers about the impending sale of the long-blighted Jacobs Middle School campus. No such answers would be revealed. At least at the meeting, that is. 

“Our purpose for this town hall is to talk about what we think should and shouldn’t happen at the old Jacobs campus site in Eureka’s Second Ward,” Councilmember Kati Moulton said during Tuesday’s town hall. “The future development of Eureka is a complicated machine with a lot of moving parts. Tonight we are really going to focus on just one very specific very important part, and that is what the people of Eureka want to see done with this 8.3-acre [site].”

The town hall was spurred by the Eureka City Unified School District’s recent decision to sell the Jacobs Campus. Last month, the school district’s board of trustees unanimously voted to exchange the Jacobs Campus to a mysterious private developer, known only as “AMG Communities-Jacobs, LLC,” for a small home on ⅛ acre lot, plus $5.35 million. The controversial decision put an abrupt end to years-long property negotiations between the school district and the California Highway Patrol, which had hoped to build its new headquarters on the site.

It remains unclear who exactly is behind AMG Communities-Jacobs, an LLC that was registered with the Secretary of State’s Office just two days before the land swap was approved by the school board. Some have speculated that proponents of the “Eureka Housing for All and Downtown Vitality” initiative or Security National President and CEO Rob Arkley, the initiative’s financial backer, could be behind the property exchange. Both parties have emphatically denied any involvement.

However, a recent report from the North Coast Journal identified a common thread between Arkley and AMG Communities. The NCJ obtained a copy of the property exchange agreement from Eureka City Schools that is signed by attorney Brad Johnson, the same attorney who filed lawsuits against the city on behalf of the Arkley-affiliated group Citizens for a Better Eureka.

“Housing for All” proponents Mike Munson and Michelle Costantine.

We spotted Mike Munson, local business owner and proponent of the “Housing for All” initiative, at the meeting and asked if he knew anything about Johnson’s relationship with AMG Communities. Munson said he didn’t know who was behind AMG Communities, adding, “It’s just like a doctor, you know? They’re not going to talk to me about their other clients and I don’t know who they are [or] what their overall plan is for the property.”

Munson added that he’s “super excited to see with what the developer wants to do with the property.”

The “Frequently Asked Questions” section of the developer’s new website – thejacobscommunity.com – specifically addresses the question: “Is Rob Arkley an owner or investor in AMG Communities?” The website maintains that he is not.

AMG Communities refers to itself as “a single-purpose entity that was formed solely for the purpose of acquiring” the Jacobs Campus. “No firm plans have been developed yet,” the FAQ states. “The site, which is approximately 8.6 acres, is large enough to support a mix of housing and some neighborhood-serving commercial uses. The site will not be developed entirely into affordable housing. Any redevelopment plans will be formed with community input.”

If the sale of the property goes through, the developer can initiate a zoning change. Moulton emphasized that, in general, any zoning changes are subject to city council approval. 

“The City of Eureka does not own [the property] … but what we can do is affect the zoning,” Moulton said. “And through the zoning, we can control [and] we can dictate what kinds of development are there.”

Another factor at play is the “Housing for All” initiative, which, if passed, would force the zoning change through an amendment to the city’s General Plan. The ballot measure seeks to rezone the Jacobs Campus, currently designated as “public facilities,” to accommodate single and multi-family housing. 

Cristin Kenyon, the city’s Director of Development Services, noted that the initiative would rezone “at least 40 percent” of the site to high-density residential, which could result in as many as 44 dwelling units per acre.

“If you’re looking at 40 percent of the entire [11.4-acre] site, that would be 5.6 acres dedicated to high-density residential,” Kenyon said, adding that the pending property sale is for 8.3 acres. “Assuming that the ball fields will remain a public facility, 40 percent of the area being sold to the private developer would be 3.3 acres. Higher-density residential equates to 22 to 44 dwelling units per acre. On 3.3 acres, that would be somewhere between 73 and 145 new dwelling units.”

Following a staff’s presentation, meeting attendees were divvied up into large groups to discuss their concerns with the current state of the Jacobs site and how it could be improved.

The Outpost sat with a group of about 15 people who spoke in favor of more community-oriented development, such as a community center, a children’s park, or a dog park. They weren’t too crazy about the prospect of a housing development on the site, especially high-density housing. “It just wouldn’t fit in with the neighborhood,” one woman said.

Another woman in the group said she was disappointed that the CHP deal didn’t work out because it could have enhanced safety in the neighborhood. “Pardon my language, but I really think they got screwed,” she said. “I think the school district did them dirty.”

The rest of the audience had similar views on how the land ought to be used, with most folks advocating for community-oriented facilities and low-density housing in the neighborhood. One person thought it would be cool to build a planetarium on the property.

The conversation returned to the zoning issue during the Q&A period. One person asked if the city council would have the authority to change the zoning designation of the Jacobs Campus if the “Housing for All” initiative passes. For example, he asked, what if the site ended up unused like the Balloon Track? Moulton said the zoning overlay would remain in place “unless or until another ballot initiative removes it.”

Another resident expressed concern about the process surrounding the land exchange between the school district and CHP.

“This secret stuff bypassed all … four years of negotiations with CHP,” he said. “There’s the problem and that’s why we’re here, because of what [Eureka City] Schools did and the developer was able to do in private. No one to this day really knows.”

If there were any representatives of AMG Communities or Eureka City Schools in the audience, they didn’t make their presence known. AMG Communities emailed a statement to the Outpost shortly after Tuesday’s meeting:

We appreciate every member of the community who showed up to share their ideas for the future of the Jacobs site. We understand there are very strong opinions on the potential plans for the site, and want to be clear that we are listening and all want what is best for Eureka.  

We are very early in this process, as the property is still in escrow.  AMG Communities invites the community to engage with us in this process through both continuing to share their opinions and, if they’re interested, becoming a financial community partner. More information can be found on our website at thejacobscommunity.com

We are excited for the potential of this property, and all that it can bring and mean to the local community.  We look forward to continuing this important dialogue as the process moves forward.

###

PREVIOUSLY:

• Who Will Get the Former Jacobs Campus? Bidders for Blighted Site in Highland Park Are the City of Eureka and California Highway Patrol, with a Decision Coming Soon
• The CHP Would Like to Build New Headquarters on Property Championed by People Opposing Downtown Housing Development, and There was a Meeting About it Yesterday
• Mystery Item on Tonight’s Eureka City Schools Agenda Suggests Imminent Action on Jacobs Campus, but the School District Won’t Share Details
• Eureka City Schools Board of Trustees Unanimously Votes for So-Called ‘Land Exchange’ with Mystery Developer
• The Eureka City Schools Board Voted on a Resolution Last Week That Was Not Published Before the Meeting. Is That Legal?