How do you feel about new buildings that would be taller than existing buildings in Arcata?

— Matthew

Responses

Dan Shahin

I support building dense housing in Arcata — especially housing that’s actually affordable to low- and moderate-income families. But taller buildings need to be built safe.

Arcata Fire has no ladder truck and is already short 24 firefighters for a fire in a building as tall as the Gateway Plan allows (7 stories!), and state law limits how much a city can say no on height alone.

On January 2, a two-story fire took out seven businesses and eight apartments on 10th Street — an estimated $18 million in losses. Fighting it took 14 fire agencies from across the county. In Arcata Fire’s own words: “Every ladder truck in Humboldt County was deployed to this incident.”

In an earthquake or other large natural disaster, we’d easily see that same countywide firefighting coverage stretched past its limits — and risk a monumental catastrophe.

So let’s be smart: charge new fee revenue from taller buildings to fund the truck and staffing AFD needs, and require real fire-safety systems — not just sprinklers — in every building over 3 stories. Build the housing. Fund the fire department to protect it.

Don’t take my word for it — read the nearly 300-page report by the Arcata Fire District. Search for “Maximum-Risk Fire Incidents” (around page 248 in most PDF readers) to see the numbers that matter most. We must codify this report into the upcoming changes to our land use code if we have any hope of pushing back on builders to require safe development.

https://lostcoastoutpost.com/loco-media/loco-media/agendizer/attachment/19856/1.pdf

Kimberley White

I’m definitely supportive of infill and building more housing in Arcata. We have limited land, and I think we need to look at building up rather than continuing to build farther out and creating sprawl.

That’s one of the reasons I supported the Gateway Area Plan. The GAP was specifically planned for greater density, and it allows for taller buildings than what we have in most of Arcata, including buildings up to 90 feet at the highest bonus tier. We have the opportunity to put more housing in an area where we’ve already planned for that kind of growth.

I also want to be clear that my concerns about taller buildings have never been about not wanting housing or not wanting density. I absolutely want more housing. My concern has always been making sure that when we build taller, we have the ability to safely protect those buildings and the people who live in them.

And I would never want to take the attitude of, “Well, I got my piece of the pie, so we’re done.” That’s not how I see it. Arcata is going to grow, and we need to be planning for that growth and making room for people who want to live here, including people who haven’t come here yet.

I think the downtown fire earlier this year was a reminder of why that matters. That fire spread through multiple interconnected buildings, and if it weren’t for mutual aid, things could have been much worse. It showed us how important it is to have the resources, equipment, infrastructure and mutual aid we need when there is a fire.

Infill and building tall buildings align perfectly with our values of protecting our green space, open space, forests and the natural environment and why we all choose to call Arcata home. If we want to preserve those spaces, we need to be thoughtful about where we put new housing and how we use the land we already have and to build responsibly. 

So yes, I’m open to taller buildings. I’m very much for infill. I want more housing. But I also want to make sure that as we build up, our water, sewer, transportation and most importantly our emergency services can support that growth, and that the Arcata Fire District has the capacity and resources to safely respond. To me, those things go together.

Blase Bonpane

Thanks for this very evocative question, Mathew.

Affordable housing is  a fundamental human right.  Tall buildings are not. While I’ll remain open to a few slightly taller buildings, well placed; We don’t need to go for taller buildings, we need to go for taller justice. More justice environmentally and socially can be achieved by incorporating mixed-income neighborhoods and housing. 

Instead of three five-story buildings we can develop five three-story apartments in five neighborhoods selectively. We don’t need to be led by NIMBY tendencies which are content for working people to be confined in overcrowded high rises so the few can live the dream in the outskirts without seeing us.

Mixed-income diverse neighborhoods are an important part of Martin Luther King’s “Beloved Community” and I share in dedication to his vision. I live with about 400 people in an apartment complex in Arcata and it is all two stories. That is plenty of density and I love my brothers, sisters and siblings of all genders at Sunset Terrace!

We don’t need to lose our views of redwoods and sunsets to provide affordable housing. We don’t need to max out our fire department and earthquake safety response systems. Save risk, save views, save insurance costs, save environmental impact all while integrating people of diverse incomes during this era when solidarity is needed more than ever. That’s why for now I say, keep Arcata “on the D.L.”

Genevieve Serna

Hi Matthew, Yes. I would say that I was in favor of taller buildings (like the ones permitted in the general plan) being built in Arcata. One of my top priorities for my campaign is to address the issue of housing affordability in the city. I’ve made it a point to study and learn from decades of research from urban planners, housing advocates and other cities to view what best methods we have at our disposal to achieve this critical goal and the finding are this: Restrictive building requirements (like excessive height restrictions) will cause housing prices to inflate significantly over time. Allowing higher density or multi family housing alone, without changing these other aspects of zoning, will not solve a cities housing crisis. After decades of studying the effects of communities that adopted restrictive zoning the numbers bear out the hard truths that these cities experience higher levels of segregation in their neighborhoods, lower levels of diversity of race/income/education in their residents and consistently higher housing costs for working families. When I think of what gives the city of Arcata character its built environment is undoubtedly one of its most striking features, so I understand completely the hesitation to change how a city might look. But what I fear more is that the artists, activists, students and working families that actually give this character life will not be able to live in our city in the coming years. I’ve canvassed with my union, AFSCME 1684, recently and this reality is already here for those workers. The best time to look at the housing crisis in Arcata was 40 years ago, the most dire time to do something about it is now. Thank you for your question. www.SernaForArcata.com

Abigail Strickland

Thanks for this question, Matthew!

I will admit that as a newer member to the Planning Commission I was concerned about taller buildings in Arcata. Not because they would result in solar shading or feel “out of place”, but because we heard concerns from the Arcata Fire Protection District that it was ill equipped to fight fires in buildings over 40ft in height. I am not sure what conversations have occurred between the City Council and AFPD in recent past but am interested to know…

There is no denying that Arcata needs more housing, and building up is the future of Arcata. More multi-family, affordable, and moderate housing is needed. I hope in 2035 we are able to celebrate meeting our required share of new state-mandated housing units (RHNA numbers).

 

 

Are you a candidate? Log in here.

... or post a press release.