11-a. Email and Attachment from Jason Holder_Redacted — Arcata City Council, May 21, 2025

From: Jason Holder
To: David Loya; Rhea Varley
Cc: Building Bayside Better; City Manager"s Office; [email protected]; Subject: City Council Agenda Item 11.a.: Roger"s Garage -- BBB Follow Up Comments Date: Tuesday, May 20, 2025 1:00:19 PM
Attachments: Follow Up Letter to City re Roger"s Garage Project 052025.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Warning: Unusual sender IP
This message originated from a source not commonly seen for this domain, which could be an indication of a scam.

Dear Mr. Loya and Madam Clerk,
Attached, please find follow up comments submitted on behalf of Building Bayside Better. In a nutshell, and as illuminated in the comments, the letter raises the following substantive issues:

1. Defective CEQA Exemption Claim – Staff urges a Class 32 exemption without an unbiased analysis of contamination, wetlands, or air-quality risks and offers no substantial supporting evidence.

2. Brown Act Violations – The agenda omits any mention of the CEQA action (adoption of the Class 32 exemption), and the staff report misstates agency status, omits contamination history, does not mention the implications of the City purchasing the Project site, and withholds key documents, thwarting public participation (Gov. Code §§ 54950.1, 54954.2, 54957.5).

3. Missing Findings – Neither the staff report nor the resolution contains the explicit, evidence-based findings the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) demands, despite evidence of significant impacts caused by “unusual circumstances” that preclude the exemption.

4. Outstanding Environmental Issues – Lead and heavy metal contamination, hydrocarbons, shallow groundwater, and potential on-site wetlands remain unaddressed; traffic, air quality, noise, and cumulative analyses are still absent.

5. Timing Violations – Proceeding before the application is complete conflicts with AMC §§

9.78.030 & 9.78.110 and CEQA Guidelines § 15004(b)(2)(A).

6. Premature Pre-Commitment – The City twice invoked the common sense exemption and now asserts the in-fill exemption while key studies and agency consultations are ongoing, contrary to Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood.

7. Improper Delegation – Critical environmental assessments were left to the developer without independent agency consultation and review, compromising the objectivity required under CEQA.

8. Needed Corrective Action – The Council should deny the exemption, direct preparation of an Initial Study that delineates contamination, defines remediation scope and cost, and presents full fiscal and environmental implications before any further action.

The attached comments are being sent via email only, please confirm receipt.

Thank you in advance for your attention and consideration.

Regards,
-Jason
--
Jason W. Holder
Holder Law Group
Important: This electronic mail message, including any attached files, is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer; it is confidential and it may contain or constitute information protected by the attorney-client and/or the attorney work-product privileges. If the person actually receiving this message, or any other reader of this message, is not the named recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the named recipient, you are not authorized to retain, read, copy or disseminate this communication or any part of it. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify Holder Law Group at (510) 338-3759. Thank you Holder Law Group holderecolaw.com
2940 Summit St, Suite 2D
Oakland, CA 94609-3416
(510) 338-3759
[email protected]
May 20, 2025

VIA EMAIL ONLY
City of Arcata
City Council
Alexandra Stillman, Mayor
Kimberley White, Vice-Mayor
Meredith Matthews, Councilmember
Stacy Atkins-Salazar, Councilmember
Sarah Schaefer, Councilmember
C/O City Clerk:

Email: [email protected]
City of Arcata Planning Department
ATTN: David Loya, Community Dev. Director
736 F Street
Arcata, CA 95521
Email: [email protected]
Re: Follow Up Comments Regarding Proposed Project at the Roger's Garage site (1622 & 1632 Old Arcata Road; File No. 242-020; Agenda Item 11.a.) Dear Mr. Loya and Honorable Members of the Arcata City Council:

On behalf of Building Bayside Better (“BBB”) we submit the following comments reiterating BBB’s objections to the City’s proposed reliance on the CEQA Class 32 infill exemption for the Valley View Commons (Roger’s Garage) project (the “Project”). We submit these comments on (1) the incomplete May 21, 2025 agenda reference to Item 11.a, (2) the non-objective and internally inconsistent staff report and attachments, and (3) draft Resolution No. 245-46. For clarity, the core deficiencies are summarized below:

1. Defective CEQA Exemption Claim – Staff urges a Class 32 exemption without an unbiased analysis of contamination, wetlands, or air-quality risks and offers no substantial supporting evidence.

City of Arcata, City Council May 20, 2025
David Loya, Community Development Director
Re: Follow up Comments re Roger’s Garage Project Page 2

5. Timing Violations – Proceeding before the application is complete conflicts with AMC §§

9.78.030 & 9.78.110 and CEQA Guidelines § 15004(b)(2)(A).

7. Improper Delegation – Critical environmental assessments were left to the developer without independent agency consultation and review, compromising the objectivity required under CEQA.

Each issue is detailed in the sections that follow.

I. Brown Act Compliance: Agenda and Staff Report Are Incomplete and Biased.

A. Agenda Description Is Inadequate; Staff Report Lacks Objective, Complete Information.

The Brown Act declares that local agencies “exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business” and that their deliberations must be open and informative. (Government Code, § 54950.1.) To help ensure that promise is fulfilled, Government Code § 54954.2(a)(1) requires that an agenda “briefly” yet clearly describe every action; courts hold that CEQA determinations—such as adopting a categorical exemption—are distinct items that must be listed. (See San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Ctr. v. County of Merced (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1167, 1178-79 [MND was separate agenda item that should have been listed in agenda but was not]; see also Hernandez v. Town of Apple Valley (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 194, 208-209 [the MND at issue in San Joaquin Raptor was “plainly a distinct item of business, and not a mere component of project approval, since it (1) involved a separate action or determination by the Commission and (2) concerned discrete, significant issues of CEQA compliance and the project's environmental impact”]).

City of Arcata, City Council May 20, 2025
David Loya, Community Development Director
Re: Follow up Comments re Roger’s Garage Project Page 3 Item 11.a on the May 21 agenda mentions only a CDBG Program-Income loan and is silent about the proposed Class 32 exemption. This omission violates the Brown Act’s procedural and substantive requirements.

The staff report then advocates that exemption while down-playing or omitting material facts already in the record—lead contamination, petroleum “hot spots,” a shallow three-foot water table, and a delineated on-site wetland—asserting instead that the project will have “no significant effects.” These data appear in the Phase I/II ESAs, the 2024 wetland delineation, and Water-Board correspondence summarized in BBB’s May 14 letter but are not quoted, linked, or addressed. The report further misstates agency feedback (calling the cleanup plan “approved” when, according to staff, the Water Board only “preliminarily indicated” comfort) and re-casts an incomplete application as lacking only “minor details.” Such selective presentation is incompatible with the Council’s duty to remain a neutral, unbiased adjudicator. (Woody’s Group, Inc. v. City of Newport Beach (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1012, 1021; BreakZone Billiards v.

City of Torrance (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1234).

B. Funding Discussion Is Opaque and Omits Key Remediation Costs.

The “Financing” section of the staff report scatters dollar figures—$180 k PLHA, ≈$820 k CDBG-PI, $331,773 administrative offsets—without a sources-and-uses table, definitions of acronyms (CPLHA, CTCAC, residual-receipts “soft loan”), or basic loan terms (interest, security, repayment). It also requests Program-Income funds “to support gap financing for the acquisition of property” (presumably the Project site) yet never discloses the purchase price, whether that price discounts the lead- and hydrocarbon contamination, or the estimated cost of the Water-Board-mandated cleanup. 1 Equally opaque is the casual statement that the City “will likely seek additional state funding” without identifying which program or how much remains unfunded. HUD guidance for CDBG acquisitions requires that the price be “reasonable in light of any required remediation,”2 information the report withholds. Without these fundamentals, neither the Council nor the public can gauge fiscal exposure or determine whether the City is effectively subsidizing unknown cleanup costs.

C. Resulting Brown Act Violations.

By failing to disclose the proposed CEQA in-fill exemption in the agenda and withholding (or failing to post or fairly describe) the critical environmental and financial documents required by § 54957.5(b)(1), the City frustrates “open and informed” deliberations (§ 54950). The City’s incomplete and non-objective staff report denies residents the very information they need to 1 The extent of contamination and rate and pattern of movement is particularly relevant to the City Council’s deliberations, considering one of the recommended actions is to purchase the Roger’s Garage property. (See draft Resolution 245-46 [allocating $819,672 for “Acquisition of Real Property”]. The extent of the contamination is directly relevant to the obligation for remediation.
2 See HUD Relocation & Acquisition Handbook 1378, ch. 5, § 5-2, available at:
https://www.hud.gov/hudclips/handbooks/cpd-1378-0.

City of Arcata, City Council May 20, 2025
David Loya, Community Development Director
Re: Follow up Comments re Roger’s Garage Project Page 4 comment intelligently, defeating the Brown Act’s goal of facilitating public participation in environmental decisions. By glossing over the significant contamination issue, ignoring the incomplete application, not mentioning the proposed City purchase of the contaminated Project site, and prematurely recommending adoption of an inapplicable CEQA exemption, the staff report does not fulfill these fundamental requirements.

The combination of an incomplete agenda and a biased, opaque staff report therefore violates §§ 54954.2 and 54957.5 and places any approval at risk of being set aside for lack of transparent, objective disclosure. To facilitate a fair and unbiased hearing, the staff report must present relevant information in an objective and informative manner.

II. CEQA Compliance: The Proposed Class 32 Exemption Is Both Substantively and Procedurally Defective, CEQA Applies and an Initial Study is Required to Determine the Appropriate Level of Environmental Review.

A. No Legally Adequate Findings
The in fill exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines § 15332 requires explicit findings on each of the five criteria. The City must also affirm that no § 15300.2 exceptions apply. The obligation to make findings supported by substantial evidence is heightened, where, as here, the agency is presented with evidence that the project will have significant impacts due to unusual circumstances. (Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, 1105 [“An agency presented with such evidence must determine, based on the entire record before it—including contrary evidence regarding significant environmental effects— whether there is an unusual circumstance that justifies removing the project from the exempt class”].)3
Neither the staff report nor the draft resolution contain written, evidence-based findings. Instead, the staff report offers a single conclusory assertion: “Based on information in the current application and the record to date, the project qualifies for an Infill Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15332.” This statement does not enumerate—or analyze— any of the five Class 32 factors, nor does it grapple with the considerable substantial evidence in the record concerning contamination, shallow groundwater, and potential wetlands that trigger the “unusual-circumstances” and “significant-effects” exceptions under CEQA Guidelines §§ 15332(d), 15300.2(c)-(d).
3 Under the California Supreme Court’s Berkeley Hillside decision, the City is required to support its decision to proceed with a categorical exemption with substantial evidence and to prepare at least an Initial Study whenever unusual site-specific hazards raise a fair argument of significant impact. (60 Cal.4th at 1103-05.) Here, the contamination and wetland conditions, and the related reasonable possibility that the Project would cause significant impacts, supply the substantial evidence to satisfy both prongs of the exception, so relying on the Class 32 exemption would constitute a failure to proceed in the manner required by law.

City of Arcata, City Council May 20, 2025
David Loya, Community Development Director
Re: Follow up Comments re Roger’s Garage Project Page 5 Arcata Municipal Code § 9.78.060(A) mirrors CEQA by requiring the City to evaluate exceptions before applying categorical exemptions and to state its reasons. Likewise, §

9.78.050(C) mandates public notice of any Notice of Exemption so that residents can understand why the exemption applies. Without written findings, the Council cannot comply with either provision.

Approving the exemption in its current form would: (1) leave the Council’s decision unsupported by substantial evidence; (2) violate both CEQA and AMC Chapter 9.78; and (3) deprive the public—and the Council itself—of a transparent explanation of how the project allegedly avoids the significant water-quality impacts documented in the Phase I/II ESAs and the potential wetlands identified in October 2024 reports. BBB therefore urges the Council to continue the item and direct staff to prepare a proper set of draft findings that:

1. Explicitly analyze each Class 32 criterion with record citations;

2. Address, in detail, whether Project construction in the presence of documented hazardous-material contamination, shallow groundwater, and adjacent wetlands constitute “unusual circumstances” or pose a “reasonable possibility” of significant effects under § 15300.2; and

3. Explain how the record demonstrates the absence of significant impacts required by § 15332(d).

Should staff be unable to make such findings—because, for example, cleanup levels, wetland jurisdiction, or air quality, noise, and traffic effects remain unresolved—the Council must instead reject reliance on a categorical exemption and direct initiation of an Initial Study per AMC § 9.78.110(G). By insisting on legally adequate findings now, the Council will protect both public trust and the City from unnecessary litigation risk while ensuring that environmental review fulfills its fundamental informative purpose.

B. Continuing Substantive Deficiencies
The newly published staff report concedes that “the project is currently seeking land-use permits … [and] Danco Communities is working to complete the application, but preliminary plans have been submitted.” (Agenda Packet, Staff Report to City Council re Agenda Item 11.a. (“Staff Report”), p. 60 of 122.) By the City’s own admission, therefore, essential design details, technical studies, and mitigation measures are still in flux. At the same time, staff recommends that the Council immediately adopt a Class 32 infill exemption, claiming—without any supporting analysis and in the face of conflicting substantial evidence—that the project “will not result in significant effects related to … water quality” and that “there is no sensitive-species habitat on the property.” (Id. at p. 61 of 122.)
City of Arcata, City Council May 20, 2025
David Loya, Community Development Director
Re: Follow up Comments re Roger’s Garage Project Page 6 The conclusory assurances in the staff report regarding the potential for significant environmental impacts ring hollow when set against the record evidence:
• Contamination and Water Quality: Phase I/II ESAs document heavy metals and lingering hydrocarbons; the site sits atop a three- to four-foot water table in a 40- to 50-inch annual rainfall zone, dramatically heightening the risk of contaminant mobilization. The staff report acknowledges neighbor concerns and vaguely states only that Water-Board staff have “preliminarily indicated” the clean-up plan is adequate—a far cry from transparent disclosure of remediation measures, techniques and logistics (including disposal), coordinated regulatory efforts, and a completed remediation. • Wetlands and Sensitive Habitat: The October 2024 aquatic-resources delineation identifies potential jurisdictional wetlands and a spring-fed channel on the east boundary. The staff report’s blanket statement of “no sensitive species habitat” is unsupported and contradicted by the delineation.
• Air Quality Impacts: Disturbing the site’s lead- and petroleum-impacted soils during excavation, grading, or hauling would release contaminants to the air through two welldocumented pathways: fugitive dust and volatilization. The U.S. EPA advises that “high concentrations of airborne lead particles … can result from lead dust from contaminated soil” once that soil is disturbed,4 and OSHA’s construction-lead standard (29 C.F.R. § 1926.62) applies whenever construction activity may generate inhalable lead dust, confirming the routine nature of this risk.5 For petroleum residues, South Coast AQMD Rule 1166 presumes that excavating VOC-contaminated soil can emit significant volatile organic compounds and therefore mandates a mitigation plan with real-time vapor monitoring and dust suppression.
6 Accordingly, the Project should be subject to a
similar enforceable mitigation measure requiring that any earthwork on the project site adhere to controls such as wet suppression, negative-air enclosures, and vaporsuppression foams to ensure that airborne lead and VOC levels remain below ambientair and occupational health standards. • Traffic, Noise, and Cumulative Impacts: Staff relies generically on the General Plan 2045 EIR rather than a project-specific Vehicle-Miles-Traveled or noise analysis, even though neighbors have raised site-specific access and compatibility concerns. 4 See U.S. EPA, Lead's Impact on Indoor Air Quality, available at: https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-qualityiaq/leads-impact-indoor-air-quality. 5 See OSHA, Lead in Construction, available at:
https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/osha3142.pdf. 6 See SCAQMD, Rule 1166, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/compliance/rule-1166- site-specific-and-various-locations-soil-mitigation-plan. This adopted measure is substantial evidence supporting the conclusion of feasibility.

City of Arcata, City Council May 20, 2025
David Loya, Community Development Director
Re: Follow up Comments re Roger’s Garage Project Page 7 Because these issues remain unresolved, the City cannot lawfully find that “approval of the project will not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality,” as CEQA Guidelines § 15332(d) requires. Nor can it conclude, under § 15300.2, that the contamination, shallow aquifer, and potential wetlands do not constitute “unusual circumstances” giving rise to a reasonable possibility of significant impact. Consequently, the City must prepare an initial study for the Project to determine the appropriate level of environmental impact analysis. (See Davidon Homes v. City of San Jose (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 106, 113 [If a project does not fall within any exemption, the agency “must proceed with the second tier and conduct an initial study”], citing Guidelines, § 15063.) C. Violations of Arcata Municipal Code Chapter 9.78 (Environmental Impact Assessment)
The staff report effectively asks the Council to put the CEQA cart before the factual horse. CEQA forbids a lead agency from approving a categorical exemption until it possesses substantial evidence demonstrating that none of the § 15300.2 exceptions apply and that the § 15332(d) significance test is met. Yet the report admits that the applicant’s design review submittal is still incomplete and that environmental studies are “continuing.” By urging an exemption now, the City would: (1) contravene AMC §§ 9.78.030(A) and § 9.78.110(A), which, read together, mandate that environmental review be conducted “at the earliest feasible time” after an application is complete, not before; (2) flout AMC § 9.78.110(E)-(F), which requires an Initial Study when significant information gaps exist, and (3) nullify the informative purpose of CEQA Guidelines § 15004(b)(2)(A), which prohibits a public agency from taking actions that “foreclose the formulation or implementation of any project alternatives or mitigation measures” prior to environmental review.

In short, adopting the exemption now would finalize a finding of “no significant impact” before the evidence needed to support—or refute—that finding even exists. Such an approach conflicts with CEQA’s core requirements and purposes.

Indeed, as a starting point for the analysis, the City must accurately and consistently describe the development project. Here, the staff report describes the project as a “proposed 53-unit multi-family affordable housing development” whereas the preliminary design plans attached to the staff report describe the project as consisting of 45 units. Without an accurate and consistent project description, it is impossible to analyze project impacts and inform decision makers and the public about the environmental implications of this approval. (See McQueen v. Bd. of Dirs. (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1143 [“An accurate project description is necessary for an intelligent evaluation of the potential environmental effects of a proposed activity”], citing County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 199.) City of Arcata, City Council May 20, 2025
David Loya, Community Development Director
Re: Follow up Comments re Roger’s Garage Project Page 8 D. Premature and Unfounded Exemption Assertion
Notably, the invocation of the infill exemption is not even necessary for the purely funding decision before the City Council. The staff report does not explain how this approval is distinguishable from the November 2023 loan approval and the May 2024 approval for the application for Permanent Local Housing Allocation (“PLHA”) funding, wherein the City twice relied upon the common sense CEQA exemption. The circumstances here are not distinguishable. Yet staff urges the council to declare, without factually supported findings and before the project is fully and accurately defined, that the in-fill exemption to CEQA applies.

Because the Planning Commission will consider land use entitlements, the Planning Commission should also consider, when the application is complete, the exceptions to the in-fill exemption that prevent its application.

The timeline attached as Exhibit 1 exposes an irreconcilable contradiction between the June 2024 assertion of the Class 32 in-fill exemption and the fact that essential environmental information is still being gathered nearly a year later. The pattern — loan funding, staff assurances they are “motivated to see this project through,” and substantive agency work during rejection status—constitutes the very “pre-commitment” condemned in Save Tara v.

City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal.4th 116, 138-142.

E. Improper Delegation & Biased Information Gathering
The staff report’s promise that “the City is working closely with the Water Board” is belied by e-mail threads in which staff ask the applicant to flesh out wetlands and drainage questions and then relay the applicant’s answers to agencies as if they were neutral data.

CEQA Guidelines § 15084(e) obligates the City, not the developer, to prepare and control the environmental analysis. By advancing an exemption while simultaneously outsourcing critical studies to an interested party and ignoring the evidence of potentially significant impacts, the City risks the very self-serving study problem addressed Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, 1103-04 [holding that, where opponents submit conflicting evidence creating a fair argument of significant effect, the agency must treat that conflict under CEQA’s fair-argument test rather than simply credit the applicant’s experts]. The Water Board’s merely “preliminary” comfort with the clean-up plan (as reported in the staff report, but not corroborated) underscores that meaningful, independent review is still underway.

F. Renewed Demand for Corrective Action
BBB therefore reiterates that the Council must decline to adopt the Class 32 exemption on May 21. Instead, the Council should direct staff to:

1. Defer any CEQA determination until the applicant submits a complete design-review package and all technical reports necessary to assess traffic, noise, air-quality, waterquality, wetlands, and hazardous-materials impacts.

City of Arcata, City Council May 20, 2025
David Loya, Community Development Director
Re: Follow up Comments re Roger’s Garage Project Page 9

2. Prepare and circulate an Initial Study pursuant to AMC § 9.78.110 to determine whether a Mitigated Negative Declaration or, more appropriately, a full Environmental Impact Report is required. The Initial Study must include an analysis that:
 delineates the full extent of lead- and hydrocarbon-contaminated soil and groundwater;
 identifies all remediation requirements, schedules, and costs in consultation with the Regional Water Board;
 analyzes the resulting air-, water-, traffic-, noise-, and biological-resource impacts; and
 evaluates feasible means to avoid impacts and, for those that cannot be avoided, feasible mitigation measures.7

3. Consult in writing with the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board and U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers regarding remediation and wetlands jurisdiction before making any exemption or significance finding.

4. Direct staff to provide a transparent sources-and-uses statement showing total development costs, acquisition price, remediation budget, loan terms, and any remaining funding gap, so the Council can assess both environmental and fiscal implications.

5. Provide BBB and the public with notice of each subsequent filing, study, and hearing so that CEQA’s core promise of informed public participation is fulfilled.

Taking these steps will not impede affordable-housing goals; it will simply ensure that the project proceeds with full public disclosure, careful analysis, and feasible mitigation that protects both human health and Humboldt Bay’s coastal wetlands.

III. Conclusion and Recommended Action
The record now reveals a two-fold lapse: (1) a CEQA failure—staff seeks to invoke a Class 32 exemption while critical facts about contamination, wetlands, and incomplete project design remain unstudied—and (2) a Brown Act failure—the agenda hides the CEQA decision and the staff report withholds material environmental and fiscal information, contravening Government Code, §§ 54954.2 and 54957.5. Together these errors deprive both the Council and the public of the full picture needed for a fair, unbiased adjudication.

To cure these defects and place the Project on a legally defensible footing, BBB respectfully requests that the Council take the corrective actions outlined above and re-notice 7 See, e.g., Exhibit 2: Proposed Mitigation Measure Haz-1, concerning remediating soil contamination prior to Project construction. This measure is feasible, specific, enforceable, and ensures that contamination is fully remediated and safely disposed of before any construction proceeds.

City of Arcata, City Council May 20, 2025
David Loya, Community Development Director
Re: Follow up Comments re Roger’s Garage Project Page 10 the matter on a future agenda that explicitly lists the CEQA determination as a separate action and ensures that all technical studies and financial analyses are posted in full at least 72 hours before the hearing. By resetting the process in this manner, the City will satisfy CEQA’s informative purpose, comply with the Brown Act’s disclosure mandates, and protect itself—and the public—from avoidable litigation and financial risk. * * *
Please address any questions and provide all future notices to the undersigned at [email protected] and to BBB at [email protected]. We appreciate your careful attention to this important matter and look forward to your prompt response.

Very Truly Yours,
Jason Holder
cc: (Via e-mail only)
Merritt Perry, City Manager, City of Arcata ([email protected]) North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
([email protected])
Client contacts
Attachments:

Exh. 1. Recent Timeline for Project
Exh. 2. Proposed Mitigation Measure Haz-1.

City of Arcata, City Council May 20, 2025
David Loya, Community Development Director
Re: Follow up Comments re Roger’s Garage Project Page 11 Exhibit 1
Date Key Event CEQA / AMC Implications
Nov 15, 2023 City Council adopts Resolution No.
234-17 authorizing a $150,000
Permanent Local Housing
Allocation (PLHA) pre-development
loan to Danco Communities for
studies, design, and permitting at
1622 Old Arcata Rd. (Roger’s
Garage). Loan later amended to
$180,000
Commits public funds and signals
project approval before any Phase
I/II ESA, wetlands study, or Initial
Study, implicating the “precommitment” doctrine of Save Tara and violating AMC § 9.78.030(A)
timing requirements.

May 29, 2024 City Council adopts Resolution No.
234-56 authorizing an application
to the Competitive PLHA Program
for additional state funding for the
Valley View Commons project at
1622 Old Arcata Rd.

Further financial commitment while
environmental review remains
incomplete; no CEQA analysis
accompanies the funding action,
reinforcing pre-commitment
concerns and undermining the
neutrality required for later CEQA
determinations.

Jun 3 2024 City executed Environmental
Verification claiming Class 32 infill
exemption for CPLHA loan.

Exemption claimed by staff before
any Phase I/II, wetlands, or public
review; violates AMC § 9.78.110(A)
& CEQA timing rule.

Jun 23 & Jul 1
2024
Phase II & Phase I ESAs prepared,
confirming heavy-metal and
hydrocarbon contamination.

Evidence of “unusual
circumstances” negating categorical
exemption (Guidelines §
15300.2(c)).

Oct 2024 Aquatic Resources Delineation
identifies 0.05 acre potential
wetlands.

Wetlands trigger possible § 404
permitting; contradicts § 15332(d)
water-quality finding.

Mar 3 2025 Internal e-mail: City “just received”
environmental documents and
begins routing for comment.

Confirms exemption was claimed
without “substantial evidence.”
City of Arcata, City Council May 20, 2025
David Loya, Community Development Director
Re: Follow up Comments re Roger’s Garage Project Page 12 Date Key Event CEQA / AMC Implications
Mar 20-21 2025 Planner admits “finalized
environmental documentation”
still pending.

Violates AMC § 9.78.030(A) (early
study required).

Apr 21 2025 Design Review application formally
rejected as incomplete.

No active discretionary project.

Apr–May 2025 City continues wetland
consultations and directs Danco to
investigate water source.

Work in “procedural no-man’sland”; improper delegation (Guidelines § 15084(e) [DEIR
preparation may be delegated but
requires lead agency to subject “the
draft to the agency’s own review
and analysis because “[t]he Lead
Agency is responsible for the
adequacy and objectivity of the
draft EIR”]).

Apr 29 2025 Regional Water Board orders
bimonthly cleanup status reports;
re-affirms mandatory remediation.

Underscores contamination
severity; exemption untenable.

May 16, 2025 Staff report to City Council
released, recommending adoption
of infill exemption for an
inconsistently described project.

Premature determination
unnecessary for the funding
decision before the council. No
supporting evidence or explicit
findings are provided addressing the
potentially applicable exceptions to
the exemption.

City of Arcata, City Council May 20, 2025
David Loya, Community Development Director
Re: Follow up Comments re Roger’s Garage Project Page 13 Exhibit 2
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Pre-Construction Soil Remediation and Safe Disposal Performance standard (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(2) No soil remaining on-site shall exceed the most stringent DTSC/USEPA residential Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) for lead, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), or any other contaminant identified in the Phase I/II ESAs. All excavated contaminated soil shall be removed to a licensed Class I or Class II disposal facility in full compliance with Title 22 hazardous-waste regulations.

1. Regulatory Oversight. Prior to grading-permit issuance, the applicant shall execute a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement with either the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board and submit an agencyapproved Remedial Action Plan (RAP).

2. Soil Management Plan (SMP). The RAP shall include an SMP that identifies hotspots, excavation depths, dust- and vapor-control methods, worker Health & Safety Plan, and sampling/analysis protocols.

3. Remediation and Disposal. Before any foundation work, the applicant shall:
o Excavate all soil exceeding the RSL performance standard; o Stockpile, manifest, and transport that soil to a licensed hazardous- or nonhazardous-waste facility, as dictated by lab results; and o Implement real-time dust suppression and VOC monitoring.

4. Confirmation Sampling. Following excavation, collect confirmation samples per the approved RAP. If residual concentrations still exceed the RSLs, repeat excavation and sampling until the standard is met.

5. Verification and City Sign-Off. Within 30 days of field completion, submit a Closure/Completion Report summarizing disposal manifests, laboratory data, and confirmation sampling. The City shall not issue building permits until the oversight agency issues a “No Further Action” or equivalent clearance letter.

6. Mitigation Monitoring. The City’s Building Division shall incorporate the RAP, SMP, and oversight-agency conditions into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and verify compliance at the pre-construction meeting, during excavation, and prior to final grading approval.

Arcata City CouncilMay 21, 2025

Arcata City Council
May 21, 2025