Vote NO on Measure F!

This initiative makes 3 major changes to Eureka's general plan.

First, it creates a zoning overlay for 21 city owned parking lots in Old Town Eureka. This will restrict development of those lots to high density residential buildings over ground level parking structures with the current number of parking spaces.

Second, it sets 40% of the former Jacobs Middle School campus aside for high density residential zoning. The remainder of the 8.6 acres will allow a broad range of industrial and commercial uses.

Third, it strikes the city's housing goal numbers. Instead of specific goals, the language is changed to open ended statements of intention.

"Since 1969, California has required that all local governments (cities and counties) adequately plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in the community. California’s local governments meet this requirement by adopting housing plans as part of their “general plan” (also required by the state). General plans serve as the local government’s "blueprint" for how the city and/or county will grow and develop and include eight elements: land use, transportation, conservation, noise, open space, safety, environmental justice, and housing.

California’s Housing Element Law acknowledges that, in order for the private market to adequately address the housing needs and demand of Californians, local governments must adopt plans and regulatory systems that provide opportunities for (and do not unduly constrain) housing development. As a result, housing policy in California rests largely on the effective implementation of local general plans and, in particular, local housing elements." -- California Department of Housing and Community Development.

The "Housing for All" initiative erases required housing projections and goals from Eureka's housing element and subjects development to expensive requirements that make it unfeasable for developments to meet affordability requirements according to the average income for Humboldt County. This will put Eureka's general plan in conflict with state regulation. Noncompliance with the State Housing Element Law has several repercussions. It may result in the loss or delay of state funds that require a compliant Housing Element. Programs affected include the Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Program, Local Housing Trust Fund Program, Infill Infrastructure Grant (IIG) Program, Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program, and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. The city risks losing awarded funds, including the current grant funds of $3,199,524 from CDBG and PLHA programs. Additionally, the city may face court-imposed penalties for persistent noncompliance, potentially amounting to significant sums. The financial impact extends to eligibility for future grant programs, such as the $6,250,000 additional grant amounts the city could apply for if our Housing Element was compliant. Penalties for persistent noncompliance, as per Government Code Section 65585(l)(1), may range from a minimum fine of $10,000 per month, up to $100,000 per month, with a potential sixfold multiplication if the jurisdiction remains noncompliant.

Because only another ballot initiative could amend this, Eureka could be subject to these penalties forever.

Affordable housing isn't the same as low income housing, but it includes it. Eureka has a housing affordability problem. Median rent in Eureka is $1090 for a one bedroom. This is an increase of 12% in the past year. As rents rise and housing stock stays the same, this means renters, of which Eureka has a higher percentage than the state average, have to compete for housing. The federal government definition of “affordable housing” is housing that costs no more than 30% of a person’s income, including rent and utilities for renters, and mortgage, interest, insurance, taxes and utilities for homeowners. In Eureka, residents with moderate income ($38,433) pay an average of 67% of their income on housing (38%) and transportation (29%) costs. 

State housing laws establish the following income levels: 

According to the Census, median household income in Eureka is $46,926 (2017-2021). However, for the purpose of determining affordable housing prices, California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has set the 2023 median income in Humboldt County at $83,800 for a family of four (HCD raised Humboldt County’s area median income to equal California’s non-metropolitan median income). HCD uses the $83,800 median income value to determine which Humboldt County households qualify as very-low income, low income, and moderate income as follows:

 
As shown in the table, if a four-person household earns the median household income in Eureka of $46,926, that household qualifies as low-income. A one-person household earning $46,926 qualifies as moderate income. For context, the minimum wage in California will increase to $16.00 per hour in January 2024. A person working full time (2,080 hours per year) and earning minimum wage will bring home $33,280 in 2024.

Eureka's housing plan must accomodate our working class families. Imposing expensive restrictions on housing development means that the income categories of the majority of Eureka won't be expanded. This will raise prices across the city as housing shortages drive costs up. 

Because striking the goals set by the state will bring us in conflict with state housing regulations, Eureka will be subject to a minimum fine of $10,000/month (maximum fine is $600,000). Since these changes could only be changed by another initiative, these fines could be forever.

Building earthquake safe housing over parking structures is costly, and puts prices out of affordable housing ranges for Humboldt County. Combined with striking the specific goals in our housing element this makes Eureka's housing element non-compliant with California's Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) regulations, since we won't be able to prove we have a viable plan to expand our housing access across a range of affordable housing tiers. Being in legal conflict with the HCD will cost us millions in legal fees and fines. Without clearance from the HCD, Eureka will no longer be eligible for millions more in grant funding, some of which is already spent on projects underway.  

The initiative limits uses to public parking and high-density residential development. Eureka currently has the flexibility to develop a range of community development projects, including housing, parking, or other community services, on the 21 lots that would receive the initative's new zoning overlay. The initiative would lock those lots into a single development type and remove community input and oversight from developments in Old Town. This, combined with being forced into expensive construction needs, will make these lots unappealing to developers and community investors. This means those lots will remain underused parking lots, drawing crime and costing the city money in maintenance.

"Housing for All" claims to balance this effect by rezoning the former Jacobs Middle School campus. But when the initiative was written the campus was owned by the Eureka School District, which is not bound by zoning regulations as a municipal agency. When it became clear that Eurekans weren't fooled by the idea of supplementing our housing with land that couldn't be used, a mysterious developer (with the same lawyer as Housing for All's committee) proceeded with a shady land swap behind closed doors that has put the site in escrow with a private entity. Now that zoning seems like it may apply to the site, however, it's become clear that alloting 40% of the site to high residential housing won't offset the losses from housing zones in Old Town.

This initiative will cost Eureka tens of millions in legal fees and fines. It throws away millions that the city has received and disbursed to developments that have already started in Old Town. It guts our general plan's housing element, rewriting it with a vague non-plan that cannot be changed without another ballot initiative. Eureka can't afford this short sighted, corrosive vision for our future. 

Apartments built above an open first floor, like a parking structure, are referred to in construction as "soft story" or "soft belly" buildings. Soft bellied buildings are vulnerable to collapse in a moderate to severe earthquake in a phenomenon known as soft story collapse. The inadequately-braced level is relatively less resistant than surrounding floors to lateral earthquake motion, so a disproportionate amount of the building's overall side-to-side drift is focused on that floor. Subject to disproportionate lateral stress, and less able to withstand the stress, the floor becomes a weak point that may suffer structural damage or complete failure, which in turn results in the collapse of the entire building.

The construction materials and techniques required to make a soft story building that meets earthquake safety standards are much more expensive. Developers recoup those expenses through building rentals. Since the initiative's zoning overlay doesn't allow commercial units, all increased rent is an increase in housing costs. This means housing in the unit doesn't conform to affordable housing ranges that we need to develop to absorb projected population growth. 

Forcing this new zoning overlay into Eureka's general plan for Old Town will lock 21 lots into this poison pill arrangement, making them effectively unusable. This is a large part of what will put us out of compliance with California's Department of Housing and Community Development. It will also scuttle multiple development projects already underway. This isn't a compromise Eureka can afford.

If passed, the only way to correct flaws in the initiative is by running another initiative. No amount of public input or municipal action can change any part of it, including the striking of our housing goals.

Eureka has been in this position before, with the same people. Through intermediaries, Rob Arkley gave Eureka Measure N in 2010 to allow him to build a "Marina Center" on the Balloon Track. After voters passed the initiative, the new zoning needed to be cleared through the Coastal Commission. Arkley refused to complete this process and instead left 43 blighted acres of land unused and unusable. Eurekans are unable to amend the zoning that keeps it locked up without raising tens of thousands of dollars to run a new ballot initiative.

Eureka can't afford for Old Town's 21 empty lots and the Jacobs School campus to remain unusable. Arkley has done this to us before, we can't let it happen again.   

No. 

Zoning an area for housing doesn't guarantee housing will be built, especially if other expenses and restrictions makes the zoned area undesirable to build on. In fact, since this initiative will scuttle at least 3 housing developments which have already begun, it will result in a net loss for Eureka's housing supply.