Holder Law Group holderecolaw.com
2940 Summit St, Suite 2D
Oakland, CA 94609-3416
(510) 338-3759
[email protected]
February 4, 2026
Via Email Only (Please Confirm Receipt)
Kelsey Fletterick, Planner II
City of Arcata – Community Development Department
Email: [email protected]
Re: Comments on the Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Roger’s Garage Affordable Housing Community Project; Objection to Premature CDBG Eligibility Determination (File No. 242-020; APN: 500-191-002) Dear Ms. Fletterick:
On behalf of Building Bayside Better (“BBB”), a community group representing diverse array of City residents and constituents, we respectfully submit the following comments on the Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) for the Roger’s Garage Affordable Housing Community project (“Project”). BBB appreciates the opportunity to again comment on this process, but we must reiterate that the City’s environmental review remains procedurally and substantively compromised.
The present NOP continues the pattern established in the August 19, 2025 Request for Proposals (“RFP”) and the October 15, 2025 Council hearing: it limits the EIR’s scope to less than half (7 out of 20) of the subjects listed in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (see NOP, EIR Scope). This unduly narrow scope does not reflect City staff’s actual knowledge that the site’s baseline data are incomplete, project characteristics remain undefined, contamination remains unresolved, and multiple environmental topics require full, independent analysis.
While BBB appreciates City staff’s eventual acknowledgment – first confirmed last June – that preparation of an EIR is required for this Project and that the City will no longer improperly invoke a CEQA exemption in connection with Project permitting, the NOP confirms that the City intends to prepare a “Focused EIR” that will exclude several core environmental impact categories from full analysis and will instead dismiss them through a future Initial Study appended to the EIR. As explained below, that scoping decision is factually unsupported and legally indefensible given site conditions, history, and surrounding sensitive receptors. 1 1 The promotional video produced by the Project applicant, with City staff collaboration, similarly reflects an improperly constrained approach to environmental review. See Roger’s Garage Mixed-Use, Affordable Housing City of Arcata – Community Development Department February 4, 2026 Kelsey Fletterick, Planner II
Re: Comments re NOP for Roger’s Garage Project Focused EIR Page 2 The proposed unduly narrow scope of the Focused EIR, without an accurate description of the project and an explanation concerning proposed tiering, undermines the assertion in the NOP that: “The purpose of the NOP is to provide sufficient information about the project and its potential environmental effects to allow agencies and interested individuals the opportunity to provide a meaningful response related to the scope and content of the EIR including mitigation measures that should be considered and alternatives that should be addressed.” The narrow scope, incomplete information, and undisclosed baseline conditions, including unresolved contamination issues, also contradict the claim in the email transmitting the NOP that City staff are “committed to maintaining transparency throughout this environmental review process.” In light of the serious omitted issues and the eliminated relevant analyses, these statements are inconsistent with the disclosures required to support meaningful public participation.
These comments are submitted to ensure the record reflects that the City has been repeatedly advised of these deficiencies and that BBB has exhausted its administrative remedies with respect to any subsequently omitted analyses.
Contents:
I. Discussion.......................................................................................................................... 3 A. Improper Reliance on an Unexplained and Unsupported Tiering Approach .....................3 B. Unstable and Incomplete Project Description...................................................................3 C. Inaccurate and Incomplete Description of the Project Setting and Environmental Baseline.............................................................................................................................4 D. Improper and Premature Elimination of Key Environmental Issue Areas from Environmental Review ......................................................................................................5 E. Required Coordination of CEQA and NEPA Review, Including Preparation of a Joint EIR/EIS.............................................................................................................................12 F. Required Corrections to the Scope of Environmental Review.........................................13 G. The City’s Handling of the NOP Scoping Meeting and Related Presentation Materials Has Constrained Meaningful Public Participation ..................................................................14 H. CDBG Eligibility Determinations, Project Momentum, and CEQA’s Prohibition on PreCommitment. ..................................................................................................................15 II. Conclusion....................................................................................................................... 16 Project, available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMYzl8L_fz8; see also Appendix 1 Analysis of Misleading and Inaccurate Statements Made in the Roger’s Garage Promotional Video.
City of Arcata – Community Development Department February 4, 2026 Kelsey Fletterick, Planner II
Re: Comments re NOP for Roger’s Garage Project Focused EIR Page 3 I. Discussion
A. Improper Reliance on an Unexplained and Unsupported Tiering Approach The NOP appears to presume that a “Focused EIR” may lawfully limit the scope of project-level environmental review by relying on prior General Plan–level analysis, yet the City has not identified whether, or how, the proposed review properly tiers from any prior EIR, as required by CEQA. Tiering is permissible only where a lead agency clearly identifies the prior environmental document relied upon, demonstrates that the earlier analysis adequately addressed the relevant impacts at the appropriate level of detail, and explains why additional project-level analysis is unnecessary. The NOP does none of these things. Instead, it summarily screens out numerous environmental issue areas without explaining whether those determinations are based on valid tiering, incorporation by reference, or independent projectspecific analysis. Absent a clear and legally sufficient tiering rationale, the City may not rely on generalized General Plan assumptions to dismiss potentially significant site-specific impacts.
Proceeding with a “Focused EIR” under these circumstances risks predetermining the scope of environmental review before the scoping process has meaningfully occurred. This approach conflicts with CEQA’s requirement that scoping inform—rather than follow— decisions about the appropriate breadth of analysis. This is not only a disagreement concerning the unduly narrow scope of analysis, it is also a temporal violation of CEQA’s decision-making sequence.
B. Unstable and Incomplete Project Description
The Notice of Preparation confirms that the City is initiating environmental revie while fundamental elements of the Project remain unresolved, resulting in an unstable and incomplete project description. CEQA requires that the project description be “accurate, stable, and finite” before meaningful environmental analysis can occur. 2 Here, core
parameters—including building massing, site layout, wetland interfaces, undefined stormwater pathways, necessary building setbacks, and circulation configuration—remain insufficiently defined, yet the City proposes to proceed with scoping and subsequent environmental review.
Initiating CEQA review under these circumstances improperly commits the City to analyzing a moving target and risks artificially constraining the scope of environmental analysis before the Project is adequately defined. CEQA does not permit agencies to defer or finalize essential project characteristics after the environmental review process has begun, and proceeding in this manner undermines the validity of both the Initial Study and any EIR that follows. 3 2 CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14), § 15124; see also Stopthemillenniumhollywood.com v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1, 18.
3 See Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd Dist. Agricultural Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 929, 938 ["[ only] through an accurate view of the project may affected outsiders and public decision-makers balance the proposal's benefit against its environmental cost, consider mitigation measures, assess the advantage of terminating the proposal . . . and weigh other alternatives in the balance. An accurate, stable and finite project description is the City of Arcata – Community Development Department February 4, 2026 Kelsey Fletterick, Planner II
Re: Comments re NOP for Roger’s Garage Project Focused EIR Page 4 C. Inaccurate and Incomplete Description of the Project Setting and Environmental Baseline
The City is well aware that the Roger’s Garage site (1622–1632 Old Arcata Road) remains the subject of an active cleanup case before the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (“Regional Water Board”) (Case No. 1NHU804) and that soil and groundwater contamination have not been fully characterized or remediated to residential standards. 4 For
more than 25 years, the City has engaged in documented inter-agency coordination concerning the site’s contaminated status, including ongoing involvement by the Regional Water Board.5 Despite this extensive history, since approximately 2023, when public funding for the current redevelopment of the site was first proposed—and continuing through at least last summer— City staff repeatedly disregarded contamination as a fundamental constraint on development, instead asserting that the Project was eligible for a CEQA exemption.6 Most recently, in September 2025, the Regional Water Board ordered additional sampling, monitoring, and evaluation of the aging storm-drain outfall extending under Jacoby Creek Elementary School property.
Despite this, the NOP does not disclose known site contamination nor the possibility of offsite migration of contaminants, and it disregards the associated impact implications. The City has not reconciled the site’s fractured environmental record. Four different consultants have investigated the property since 2005, using inconsistent testing and analytical methods.
Monitoring wells necessary for required Regional Water Board monitoring and reporting have gone missing, data are non-comparable, and the site’s wetland boundaries are uncertain.
These conditions make it difficult to establish a legally adequate environmental baseline as required by CEQA Guidelines §15125.
In connection with the current development proposal, BBB has repeatedly reminded City staff of the site’s unresolved contamination and incomplete environmental baseline.
Accordingly, an environmental review that proceeds without fully disclosing, analyzing, and reconciling these baseline conditions would not reflect mere oversight or inadvertence.
Instead, such an approach would reflect a deliberate decision to advance the Project despite a sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR." Thus, "[the] defined project and not some different project must be the EIR's bona fide subject."], quoting County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 192-193, 199.)
4 See Regional Water Board documents concerning the site, available at the Geotracker website:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report?global_id=T0602391099. BBB hereby incorporates by reference the documents concerning the Project site posted therein. 5 See, e.g., Exh 1: Letter from RWQCB staff to City staff, dated Oct. 1, 2001; see also Exh. 2: Staff Report to Arcata City Council, dated July 10, 2002, see also Exh. 3: RWQCB Letter to Danco re required soil sampling, dated April 29, 2025; see also Exh. 4: RWQCB email exchange with City staff, dated May 2, 2025; see also Exh. 5: RWQCB Letter to Danco re Requirement for Additional Sampling, dated Sept. 29, 2025. 6 See, e.g., Staff Report to City Council for May 21, 2025 meeting, p. 3 [improperly asserting Project qualifies for infill exemption].
City of Arcata – Community Development Department February 4, 2026 Kelsey Fletterick, Planner II
Re: Comments re NOP for Roger’s Garage Project Focused EIR Page 5 known, incomplete, and unstable factual foundation concerning serious public health and safety risks and environmental impacts affecting both the Bayside community and the nearby wetlands and associated habitat.
D. Improper and Premature Elimination of Key Environmental Issue Areas from Environmental Review
The NOP expressly states that the City has chosen to prepare a Focused EIR, and that environmental issue areas the City deems not potentially significant will be dismissed in an Initial Study appended to the EIR and “scoped out” of further analysis with only a brief explanation.7 The NOP further emphasizes that CEQA allows the City to limit the detail of discussion for effects it determines are not potentially significant. Based on the NOP’s framing—together with the City’s prior public statements and procurement documents—BBB understands the City intends to exclude several core impact categories from full EIR analysis, including: (i) Hydrology and Water Quality; (ii) Traffic/Transportation and Circulation; (iii) Land Use and Planning; and (iv) Public Services (including schools). Instead of evaluating these topics in full EIR chapters with significance determinations, mitigation measures, and residual impact analysis, the City prematurely proposes to scope these issues out.
The City’s preliminary decision to screen out several environmental issue areas appears to rely on assumptions embedded in the General Plan programmatic environmental review that do not apply to the Bayside community or to the proposed Project. The General Plan 2045 PEIR repeatedly concludes that impacts related to land use compatibility, aesthetics, and transportation would be less than significant based on the express assumption that development outside the City’s designated infill opportunity areas would not be substantially different in scale, intensity, or character from existing development. Bayside, however, is not identified as an infill opportunity zone, and the proposed Project—consisting of multi-story, high-density residential buildings at a scale not presently found in the surrounding neighborhood—plainly departs from those assumptions. Where a project does not conform to the factual premises underlying prior program-level conclusions, the lead agency may not rely on those conclusions to dismiss project-level impacts. CEQA instead requires a fresh evaluation of whether the Project’s scale, massing, and intensity are compatible with existing neighborhood conditions and applicable land use policies. The Draft EIR must therefore analyze land use consistency, aesthetics, and related community impacts based on actual site conditions in Bayside, rather than on General Plan assumptions that were never intended to apply to development of this nature or intensity in this location. 7 Such initial studies are typically released with the NOP so that the screening analysis is fully and transparently disclosed and the public has an opportunity to review and comment upon that analysis at an early stage. (See, e.g., Protect Our Water v. County of Merced (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 362, 366 [lead agency circulated a notice of preparation along with a CEQA initial study].) Here, City staff chose instead to disclose the initial study when the Draft EIR is released, thereby preventing timely review of the screening rationale and supporting evidence relied upon to exclude obviously relevant subjects from the forthcoming Draft EIR analysis.
City of Arcata – Community Development Department February 4, 2026 Kelsey Fletterick, Planner II
Re: Comments re NOP for Roger’s Garage Project Focused EIR Page 6 The NOP’s approach, and anticipated further narrowing within the forthcoming Initial Study, is factually unsupported by the Project setting (a contaminated site situated in a developed environment in close proximity to a school and protected wetlands) and legally flawed under CEQA because it pre-commits to “no significant impact” determinations on issues that are reasonably susceptible to significant effects. Excluding topics from analysis that are implicated by the site’s known contamination issues and its close proximity to an elementary school on an already congested two-lane roadway does not honor CEQA’s requirements for good faith disclosure and analysis.8
The Notice of Completion and Environmental Document Transmittal checklist circulated by the City identifies Water Quality/Groundwater, Traffic/Circulation, Public Services/Facilities, and Schools/Universities as project-related issue areas. These acknowledgments demonstrate that the City is aware these topics are implicated by the Project and cannot be dismissed as irrelevant or speculative. Having identified these categories in its own CEQA notices, the City cannot lawfully pre-commit to findings of no significant impact without undertaking the level of analysis CEQA requires.
For the reasons below, each of these issue areas must be analyzed in the Draft EIR with the level of detail required by CEQA for potentially significant impacts, rather than being relegated to a screened-out checklist conclusion.
1. Hydrology and Water Quality Cannot Lawfully Be Screened Out Appendix G, Section X, of the CEQA Guidelines directs lead agencies to analyze a project’s potentially significant impacts to hydrology and water quality when there is substantial evidence in the Record that the project may cause such significant impacts. The Project site is a known contaminated property with a decades-long regulatory history involving unresolved soil, groundwater, and stormwater impacts that directly implicate hydrology and water quality under CEQA. The site’s historic fueling, auto repair, dismantling, fluid storage, and vehicle crushing uses have resulted in documented petroleum hydrocarbon and heavymetal contamination, much of which remains incompletely delineated and inadequately monitored.
As early as 2001, the Regional Water Board expressly rejected a “no impact” conclusion for hydrology, advising the City that development could not proceed until the complete vertical and horizontal extent of soil and groundwater contamination had been defined, and warning that installation of subsurface utilities and building footings could degrade water quality if undertaken prematurely. Those concerns remain unresolved today. Recent Regional Water Board correspondence confirms the persistence of groundwater contamination, the loss or 8 See Association of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1390 [“In reviewing an EIR, [courts] focus on adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure”]; see also Santa Monica Baykeeper v. City of Malibu (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1547 [“An EIR must include detail sufficient to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed project”].
City of Arcata – Community Development Department February 4, 2026 Kelsey Fletterick, Planner II
Re: Comments re NOP for Roger’s Garage Project Focused EIR Page 7 destruction of multiple historical monitoring wells, and elevated petroleum hydrocarbons and benzene in recent samples collected in areas proposed for residential development. The Board has required additional confirmatory groundwater sampling specifically because the site is proposed for residential use and existing data are insufficient.
The Regional Water Board has identified an active stormwater pathway that carries runoff from the Project site through on-site infrastructure to downstream properties, creating the potential for off-site migration of metals and hydrocarbons. Because no stormwater sampling has been conducted since 2010, the Board has required new sampling at both the inlet and discharge point to assess ongoing impacts. The Board continues to exercise active jurisdiction over the site, requiring ongoing reporting, additional investigation, and coordination prior to and during redevelopment, and reserving enforcement authority under Water Code sections 13267 and 13304.9
These documented conditions must be evaluated in light of the site’s physical setting:
shallow groundwater (including artesian conditions), high annual rainfall, sloping topography, immediate proximity to jurisdictional wetlands, and hydrologic connectivity to Humboldt Bay.
Under these circumstances, routine construction activities—grading, excavation, dewatering, trenching, and foundation installation—present an obvious risk of mobilizing contaminants, altering subsurface flow paths, and degrading surface waters and wetlands.
Under CEQA’s low threshold for environmental review, an issue may not be screened out where there is a “fair argument” that a project may have a significant environmental effect.10 The fair-argument standard applies with particular force where expert agencies have identified unresolved contamination and hydrologic pathways.11 Courts have repeatedly held that known contamination and uncertain subsurface conditions preclude dismissal of hydrology and water-quality impacts at the initial study 9 See, e.g., Letter from RWQCB to applicant, dated Oct. 3, 2006 [“You need to submit the best management practices that will be implemented prior to the onset of the winter rainy season... Section 13267 of the California Water Code contains the authority for this request"]; see also Letter from RWQCB to applicant, dated March 6, 2007 [citing Water Code, § 13267 when requiring “additional best management practices and the time schedule for implementation” to reduce copper and zinc in storm water runoff]; see also Letter from RWQCB to applicant, dated May 27, 2009 [“The California Water Code, and Title 27 clearly indicate that the current property owner is responsible to cleanup and abate discharges from sites”]; see also Letter from RWQCB to applicant, dated March 2, 2011 [“You are considered in violation of Section 13267 of the California Water Code” for failure to submit required reports, and “Failure to comply may result in additional enforcement actions”]. 10 No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75–77. 11 See Friends of B Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 1002–1003 [agency may not rely on conclusory assertions to negate expert evidence of potential water-quality impacts].
City of Arcata – Community Development Department February 4, 2026 Kelsey Fletterick, Planner II
Re: Comments re NOP for Roger’s Garage Project Focused EIR Page 8 stage.12 An agency may not assume, without analysis supported by substantial evidence, that regulatory compliance will avoid impacts.
13 Here, the administrative record contains substantial evidence—spanning more than twenty years of Regional Water Board, applicant, and City correspondence—demonstrating unresolved contamination, incomplete delineation of contaminant plumes, active stormwater discharge pathways, and hydrologic connectivity to sensitive wetlands and downstream waters.
At a minimum, this evidence supports a fair argument that the Project could significantly affect groundwater quality, surface water quality, wetlands, and downstream receptors during both construction and operation.
Accordingly, any attempt to screen out Hydrology and Water Quality from detailed analysis in the Draft EIR through Initial Study dismissal would violate CEQA as a matter of law.
These impacts must be fully analyzed in the EIR, including baseline conditions, contaminant mobilization and migration, stormwater conveyance and discharge effects, cumulative impacts, and enforceable mitigation measures coordinated with Regional Water Board requirements.
2. Traffic and Circulation Cannot Lawfully Be Screened Out Appendix G, Section XVII describes the required analysis of a project’s potentially significant impacts to traffic and traffic safety. While the NOP does not specify the Project’s proposed development intensity, previously released project documents indicate the Project will include approximately forty-five (45) to fifty-three (53) residential units on an approximately 1.68-acre site. This level of intensive development on a constrained site adjacent to Jacoby Creek Elementary School and along already busy Old Arcata Road implicates potentially significant impacts. Predictable peak-hour traffic conflicts, pedestrian and bicycle safety issues, school-related circulation impacts, and emergency access considerations are inherently site-specific and were not analyzed in any meaningful detail in any relevant programlevel EIR.
Treating Traffic and Circulation as a “scoped out” topic is inconsistent with the Project’s setting and foreseeable operational characteristics. CEQA does not permit an agency to presume insignificance where common-sense and record evidence indicate a reasonable potential for adverse traffic and safety effects.
3. Public Services, Including Schools, Cannot Lawfully Be Screened Out While CEQA limits purely fiscal analyses of public services, it does not authorize agencies to ignore environmental effects that manifest through service demands, operational 12 See McQueen v. Bd. of Dirs. (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1149–1150 [hazardous waste presence constitutes unusual circumstances requiring environmental review]; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 309–311 [deferral of investigation and mitigation of subsurface environmental risks violates CEQA]. 13 Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 90–92.
City of Arcata – Community Development Department February 4, 2026 Kelsey Fletterick, Planner II
Re: Comments re NOP for Roger’s Garage Project Focused EIR Page 9 constraints, or safety impacts—particularly where a project is immediately adjacent to an operating elementary school. Due to the contaminated Project site’s close proximity to the school, the applicant and City must also satisfy the consultation and analytical requirements of CEQA Guidelines § 15186.
Here, school-related impacts may arise through traffic safety conflicts, constructionphase disruptions, emergency access limitations, and interaction with contaminated site conditions. The City’s proposal to exclude Public Services (including schools) from full EIR analysis improperly conflates fiscal impacts with physical and operational effects in the environment.
4. Land Use Consistency and Neighborhood/Community Impacts Must Be Analyzed, Not Screened Out
The Project site is located within the established Bayside community context and directly adjacent to Jacoby Creek Elementary School. The City cannot lawfully “scope out” land use and neighborhood/community impacts where, as here, the Project entails the first-time conversion of a long-standing, historically contaminated commercial site to residential use, and where the Project’s intensity, massing, circulation interface, and sensitive-receptor adjacency raise foreseeable conflicts with applicable land use policies and compatibility objectives.
Critically, although the site is presently zoned commercial with an allowable residential use (C-M), residential use has never been entitled or established as a matter of right at this location. For decades, the property operated exclusively as a commercial garage and fueling facility. Any historical on-site residential occupancy was limited to nonconforming owneroperator housing, which was demolished in or about 2000. The subsequently referenced “manager’s apartment” was never independently entitled and cannot be treated as evidence of an established residential baseline. Accordingly, the NOP’s implicit treatment of residential use as a settled or continuing condition—based solely on zoning—mischaracterizes both the factual record and the nature of the Project for CEQA purposes.
The administrative record further demonstrates that residential suitability at this site was affirmatively questioned by environmental regulators prior to initiation of CEQA review. In a May 2, 2025 email, North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Senior Engineering Geologist Heidi Bauer stated that the site “currently is a Regional Water Board open case with existing contamination, and it may not be suitable for residential development in its current state,” and requested that the City consider conditioning any future occupancy on Water Board sign-off due to unresolved mitigation concerns. In the same email thread, City staff nonetheless characterized the site as having had “the same zoning and land use allowances since 2008.” This contrast underscores that zoning alone does not resolve land use compatibility, policy consistency, or environmental exposure issues associated with introducing sensitive residential receptors on a contaminated legacy commercial site.
City of Arcata – Community Development Department February 4, 2026 Kelsey Fletterick, Planner II
Re: Comments re NOP for Roger’s Garage Project Focused EIR Page 10 The NOP improperly assumes that residential use of the Project site is environmentally appropriate based solely on existing zoning, without evaluating whether residential occupancy is suitable given site conditions. The administrative record demonstrates that this assumption is unfounded. The Regional Water Board staff’s comments in May concerning residential suitability precludes treating residential use as a settled baseline condition for purposes of CEQA scoping.
CEQA requires the Lead Agency to evaluate whether a proposed land use itself gives rise to potentially significant environmental effects, not merely whether those effects might be addressed through later remediation or permitting. Where, as here, the Project proposes the first-time introduction of permanent residential receptors on a historically contaminated commercial site, CEQA must evaluate residential suitability as a threshold environmental question, rather than presuming compatibility and deferring analysis to later stages.
Under CEQA Appendix G, Section I(d) (Land Use and Planning), the Draft EIR must evaluate whether the Project would conflict with policies adopted to avoid or mitigate environmental effects. That inquiry necessarily includes whether converting a historically contaminated commercial site to housing for the first time—particularly adjacent to a school— raises land use policy conflicts distinct from routine residential infill. Treating residential use as “expected” without addressing the change in use itself improperly substitutes a zoning conclusion for the policy-based analysis CEQA requires. Relatedly, Appendix G hazard considerations, including those addressing hazardous materials and proximity to sensitive receptors such as schools, are also implicated where residential exposure assumptions remain unresolved and cannot be deferred as mere implementation details.
At minimum, the Draft EIR must analyze:
• consistency with relevant General Plan and zoning policies governing community character, compatibility, and protection of sensitive receptors, including policies addressing contaminated or remediating lands;
• whether the Project would introduce land use incompatibilities by placing permanent residential uses adjacent to an elementary school and within a constrained access and circulation environment;
• the Project’s relationship to any adopted community plans, neighborhood context standards, and buffering or transition expectations;
• whether the first-time conversion from legacy commercial use to residential use raises distinct policy conflicts under Appendix G § I(d) and related hazard thresholds; and
• how proposed or contemplated design changes, including potential increases in height or massing, would alter the land use compatibility analysis.
City of Arcata – Community Development Department February 4, 2026 Kelsey Fletterick, Planner II
Re: Comments re NOP for Roger’s Garage Project Focused EIR Page 11 Screening out land use and neighborhood/community impacts through a generalized statement of zoning consistency would be legally improper and would mask precisely the type of land use and policy conflicts CEQA is intended to surface and evaluate through reasoned environmental analysis..
5. The EIR Must Analyze Cumulative Impacts and Cannot Rely on Conclusory Tiering or “Scope-Out” Dismissal
CEQA requires an EIR to evaluate whether a project’s incremental contribution to cumulative impacts is cumulatively considerable, even where individual impacts might be less than significant when viewed in isolation.14 The City may not evade this requirement by “scoping out” cumulative impacts through an Initial Study conclusion untethered to a transparent description of the relevant cumulative scenario.
Here, the Project’s setting—adjacent to sensitive receptors (including a school), within a constrained transportation network, and in proximity to wetland resources and known contamination—makes cumulative analysis indispensable. At a minimum, the Draft EIR must (i) identify a reasonable cumulative baseline and geographic scope; (ii) describe other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects and infrastructure actions in the vicinity; and (iii) analyze whether the Project’s incremental contribution to cumulative effects is cumulatively considerable for the issue areas that are plainly implicated here, including hydrology/water quality, traffic safety and circulation, public services, air quality/health risk, and biological resources/wetlands. A conclusory statement that cumulative impacts are “addressed” elsewhere is not a substitute for the project-level cumulative evaluation required by CEQA.
6. Alternatives to the Project Cannot Lawfully Be Screened Out The Draft EIR must also consider a reasonable range of feasible alternatives to the proposed Project, including feasible off-site alternatives. The Planning Director’s reported description of a possible taller “five-story” design as a “throw-away” alternative underscores the risk that the alternatives analysis will be structured to defend a preferred outcome rather than to evaluate environmentally superior options in good faith. CEQA requires a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives capable of avoiding or substantially lessening significant environmental effects.15
An alternative conceived merely to justify the preferred project and protect the applicant’s preferred development intensity, rather than to meaningfully explore impactavoidance options, does not satisfy CEQA’s mandate for good-faith analysis. It demonstrates predetermination, not objective evaluation. The City must therefore identify and analyze at least one genuine environmentally superior alternative / locally preferred alternative—such as a reduced-scale, reconfigured, or relocated alternative that better avoids wetland constraints, 14 CEQA Guidelines, § 15130.
15 CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6.
City of Arcata – Community Development Department February 4, 2026 Kelsey Fletterick, Planner II
Re: Comments re NOP for Roger’s Garage Project Focused EIR Page 12 reduces contamination-risk pathways, and improves school-adjacent circulation and safety outcomes—along with other feasible alternatives sufficient to inform decision-makers and the public.
E. Required Coordination of CEQA and NEPA Review, Including Preparation of a Joint EIR/EIS.
The Project is subject not only to CEQA, but also to review under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) due to the acknowledged federal funding nexus. Where both CEQA and NEPA apply to a project, CEQA expressly requires that environmental review be coordinated and, where feasible, conducted in a single, joint environmental document.16 Here, preparation of a joint Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement (“EIR/EIS”) is not only feasible, but mandatory as a practical and legal matter. The Project involves the same site, the same proposed development, the same baseline environmental conditions, and the same set of potential environmental effects under both statutes. Fragmenting review—by proceeding with a narrowly scoped CEQA “Focused EIR” while deferring or separately conducting NEPA analysis—would defeat the coordination requirements of CEQA, undermine informed decision-making, and prejudice public participation.
A CEQA document that screens out core issue areas—such as hydrology and water quality, traffic and circulation, public services/schools, land use compatibility, and cumulative impacts—cannot be reconciled with NEPA’s requirement for a “hard look” at direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, nor can it serve as the state component of a legally adequate joint EIR/EIS. Moreover, CEQA’s sequencing and information-disclosure requirements prohibit the City from proceeding with a constrained CEQA review that effectively commits the Project to a defined scope or outcome before completion of the federally required NEPA analysis. Doing so would constitute improper segmentation and would risk predetermination of issues that must be evaluated comprehensively under both statutes.
Accordingly, the City must:
1. Formally acknowledge the applicability of NEPA to the Project based on the federal funding nexus;
2. Identify the responsible federal agency(ies) and coordinate early and meaningfully with those agencies;
3. Prepare a single, integrated joint EIR/EIS that satisfies the substantive and procedural requirements of both CEQA and NEPA; and
16 Pub. Res. Code, §§ 21083.5; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15170, 15220, 15221.
City of Arcata – Community Development Department February 4, 2026 Kelsey Fletterick, Planner II
Re: Comments re NOP for Roger’s Garage Project Focused EIR Page 13
4. Ensure that the scope of the CEQA analysis is not artificially narrowed in a manner that would foreclose or undermine the federally required NEPA review.
Failure to coordinate CEQA and NEPA review through a joint EIR/EIS would violate CEQA’s express coordination mandates, frustrate the purposes of both statutes, and expose the Project approvals to substantial legal risk. Additionally, if the City proceeds with a narrowed CEQA document now, it risks being forced later to reopen analysis when the federal agency defines its NEPA scope—creating inefficiency and further legal vulnerability. BBB therefore expressly objects to any attempt to proceed with a stand-alone, narrowly scoped “Focused EIR” that is not designed from the outset to function as the state component of a joint CEQA/NEPA environmental review.
F. Required Corrections to the Scope of Environmental Review To comply with CEQA, the City must correct course before issuing the Draft EIR.
Specifically, BBB urges the City to:
1. Stabilize the Project description—including building heights, footprints, circulation layout, wetland setbacks, and grading limits—before proceeding further with environmental review;
2. Accurately describe the current environmental baseline for the Project site and surrounding area;
3. Revise the EIR scope to include full analytical treatment (not Initial Study dismissal) of Hydrology and Water Quality, Traffic/Transportation and Circulation, Land Use and Planning, and Public Services (including schools);
4. Release the Initial Study with a revised NOP or assume significance and analyze the issue areas described above in full EIR chapters;
5. Ensure the EIR fully analyzes the Project’s contributions to cumulative impacts;
6. Consider and assess a reasonable range of feasible alternatives to the Project;
7. Satisfy NEPA’s analytical requirements as they apply to the Project in a joint EIR/EIS;
8. Provide substantial evidence and reasoned analysis supporting any decision to exclude an environmental topic from full EIR review, rather than relying on conclusory screening determinations; and
9. Coordinate meaningfully with responsible and trustee agencies, including the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the local school district, before finalizing the scope of environmental review.
City of Arcata – Community Development Department February 4, 2026 Kelsey Fletterick, Planner II
Re: Comments re NOP for Roger’s Garage Project Focused EIR Page 14 Absent these corrections, any EIR prepared for the Project will remain legally vulnerable for failure to analyze all potentially significant environmental impacts and for proceeding on an unstable and incomplete factual foundation.
G. The City’s Handling of the NOP Scoping Meeting and Related Presentation Materials Has Constrained Meaningful Public Participation
Finally, BBB has observed a pattern of choices that have unnecessarily constrained meaningful public participation at a critical early stage of CEQA review, as most recently reflected in City staff’s preparation for and administration of the Notice of Preparation scoping on January 26, 2026. Although the scoping meeting was planned and budgeted months in advance—as reflected in the City’s consultant procurement documents identifying scoping as an early, scheduled task—the City declined to provide basic information regarding the meeting format, participants, or opportunities for public input until the minimum agenda publication deadline, Friday, January 23, 2026.
As a result, community members were afforded little practical time to understand how the meeting would be conducted or how their input would be received. This lack of advance transparency is particularly concerning given that the scoping meeting represents the first twoway, public-facing outreach opportunity since the Project entered the City’s review pipeline in October 2023. Nothing in CEQA limits a lead agency’s ability to share basic procedural information in advance to facilitate informed participation, and CEQA’s scoping requirements are intended to encourage early, meaningful engagement—not last-minute disclosure. Taken together, the City’s delayed release of meeting information, combined with its emphasis on one-directional informational materials in advance of the meeting, undermines the purpose of the scoping process and risks compromising informed public input used to frame the scope of the Draft EIR.
In addition, City staff has not posted or otherwise made available the presentation materials used at the January 26, 2026 scoping meeting, despite repeated, timely requests from community members. These materials were plainly relied upon by staff to frame the Project description, identify issue areas for consideration, and characterize the scope of environmental review contemplated by the City. The failure to disclose and post them during the scoping comment period—particularly where the materials are already digitized and could be readily posted to the Project website—has further constrained the public’s ability to meaningfully evaluate and respond to the City’s proposed scope of analysis.
The omission is not harmless. Without access to the scoping presentation, members of the public who did not attend the meeting, as well as those who did, lack a common and accurate understanding of how the City is defining the Project and the range of environmental issues it considers potentially significant. This deficiency is compounded by the short duration of the scoping comment period and by the City’s stated intent to prepare a focused EIR. CEQA’s scoping process is intended to promote informed participation and robust issue identification at the outset of environmental review, not to require the public to comment without access to the City of Arcata – Community Development Department February 4, 2026 Kelsey Fletterick, Planner II
Re: Comments re NOP for Roger’s Garage Project Focused EIR Page 15 materials used by the lead agency to frame that review. At a minimum, the City should promptly disclose the scoping presentation materials and acknowledge that additional public comment may be warranted once those materials are made available.
H. CDBG Eligibility Determinations, Project Momentum, and CEQA’s Prohibition on Pre-Commitment.
Finally, BBB addresses the City’s consideration of the Roger’s Garage Project within the current CDBG scoping process, and the Council’s proposed direction to staff to “determine eligibility and competitiveness” of potential projects under the 2025 CDBG Notice of Funds Availability.17 Although the Council is not being asked at this meeting to authorize CDBG funding, the framing and scope of the eligibility determination itself raise important CEQA concerns that must be addressed at the outset.
CEQA requires that environmental review be completed before a public agency “propose[s] to approve or carry out” a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.
18 For CEQA purposes, “approval” is defined as the earliest discretionary decision that commits the agency to a definite course of action, including the issuance of a discretionary contract, grant, subsidy, loan, or other form of financial assistance. 19 CEQA further prohibits
agencies, prior to completing environmental review, from taking actions that significantly further a project in a manner that forecloses the consideration of alternatives or mitigation measures that CEQA is intended to ensure.
20 The California Supreme Court’s decision in Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal.4th 116 makes clear that CEQA’s timing rules apply not only to final approvals, but also to earlier project-enabling decisions that, as a practical matter, commit an agency to a project or allow “bureaucratic and financial momentum” to build behind it. In Save Tara, the Court held that the City violated CEQA by providing financial assistance and entering into a conditional development agreement before completing environmental review, even though the agreement nominally reserved discretion for later CEQA compliance. The Court emphasized that CEQA is violated where early actions effectively commit the agency to the project and thereby undermine meaningful consideration of environmental consequences. 21 Those principles apply at the eligibility-determination stage here. As reflected in the staff report, the Council is being asked to direct staff to evaluate whether the Roger’s Garage project is eligible and competitive for CDBG funding, including funding for acquisition and development of the project site. In the context of this Project, eligibility analysis is not a 17 See Staff Report to City Council for January 4, 2026, meeting concerning agenda item 11a. 18 Pub. Resources Code (“PRC”) §§ 21100(a), 21151(a))
19 CEQA Guidelines § 15352(a), (b).
20 Id. at § 15004(b)(2)(B).
21 Save Tara, supra, 45 Cal.4th at pp. 131–135.
City of Arcata – Community Development Department February 4, 2026 Kelsey Fletterick, Planner II
Re: Comments re NOP for Roger’s Garage Project Focused EIR Page 16 neutral, abstract exercise. The administrative record shows that CDBG funding is being contemplated for purposes that would clear title encumbrances and resolve site-control obstacles that currently impede the City’s ability to secure previously approved public loans.
Treating such actions as part of a favorable eligibility determination would materially advance the Project by removing fundamental barriers to development and stabilizing its financing structure.
Courts have repeatedly cautioned that CEQA does not permit agencies to segment project approval into nominally “preliminary” steps that nonetheless constrain later environmental decision-making. As the Supreme Court explained in Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, CEQA is designed to ensure that environmental review occurs before agencies are faced with a fait accompli driven by prior commitments.
22 Likewise, in Citizens for Responsible Government v. City of Albany (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1199, the court held that agencies may not commit resources in a way that limits the choice of alternatives before completing CEQA review. 23 Accordingly, while the City may conduct a high-level scoping discussion of potential CDBG projects, any eligibility determination for the Roger’s Garage project must be expressly constrained so that it does not assume or endorse the use of CDBG funds for title clearance or other project-enabling purposes prior to completion of CEQA review. To avoid unlawful project momentum, the City must ensure that (i) eligibility analysis does not prejudge the appropriateness of funding uses that would materially advance the Project, (ii) no CDBG application is pursued for such purposes until environmental review is complete, and (iii) any future funding consideration is fully disclosed and analyzed in the CEQA document as part of the Project description and approval framework.
Failing to draw these lines at the eligibility stage would replicate the sequencing defect identified in Save Tara and related authorities by allowing financial and bureaucratic momentum to accrue before the City has satisfied CEQA’s core mandate that environmental review precede—not follow—project commitment.
II. Conclusion
The City’s own notices confirm that it is commencing EIR review with no fixed project design and with a predetermined intent to scope out several core environmental issue areas despite substantial evidence and supporting legal authority clearly mandating full analysis of those topics. Proceeding on that basis would undermine CEQA’s core purposes of informed decision-making, meaningful public participation, and maximized environmental protection. 22 Laurel Heights I, supra, 47 Cal.3d id. at pp. 394–395. 23 Citizens for Responsible Government, supra, 56 Cal.App.4th id. at p. 1221.
City of Arcata – Community Development Department February 4, 2026 Kelsey Fletterick, Planner II
Re: Comments re NOP for Roger’s Garage Project Focused EIR Page 17 BBB therefore respectfully requests that the City revise the scope of the EIR now, before the deficiencies become embedded in the Draft EIR and more difficult to cure. BBB remains available to meet with staff or consultants to discuss these issues in detail and to help ensure adequate environmental review, avoidance of impacts, and full mitigation for the Rogers Garage project.
* * *
Please provide notice of all future proceedings, communications, and public information concerning the Project to the undersigned via email at [email protected] and to BBB representatives at [email protected].
Very Truly Yours,
_________________________
Jason Holder
cc: (via email only)
Client Contacts
Arcata City Council (c/o: Rhea Varley, City Clerk: [email protected]) Merritt Perry, City Manager ([email protected])
Attachments:
Appendix 1: Analysis of Misleading and Inaccurate Statements Made in the Roger’s Garage Promotional Video
Exh. 1: Letter from RWQCB staff to City staff, dated Oct. 1, 2001 Exh. 2: Arcata City Staff Report, dated July 10, 2002
Exh. 3: RWQCB Letter to Danco re required soil sampling, dated April 29, 2025 Exh. 4: RWQCB email exchange with City, dated May 2, 2025 Exh. 5: RWQCB Letter to Danco re Requirement for Additional Sampling, dated Sept. 29, 2025
City of Arcata – Community Development Department February 4, 2026 Kelsey Fletterick, Planner II
Re: Comments re NOP for Roger’s Garage Project Focused EIR Page 18 Appendix 1: Analysis of Misleading and Inaccurate Statements Made in the Roger’s Garage Promotional Video
I. Purpose and Use
This analysis evaluates key statements made by the project applicant and City representatives in the promotional video for the Roger’s Garage project. It identifies statements that materially mischaracterize the project’s legal posture, environmental baseline, or scope of review, and explains why those statements are inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the existing administrative record.
This analysis is intended to assist the City in defining a lawful scope of environmental review and to ensure that subsequent CEQA documents are grounded in evidence rather than applicant-produced inaccurate, misleading, and false narratives.
A. Statements Regarding “By-Right” or Principally Permitted Status Video Statement (paraphrased): The project is “principally permitted,” “allowed by right,” and does not require special planning permits or zoning clearances.
Analysis: These statements materially overstate the extent to which the Project is ministerial or exempt from discretionary review. While zoning may allow residential use in concept, the Project still requires multiple discretionary approvals, including but not limited to design review, density bonus determinations, and approvals related to hazardous materials remediation and wetlands impacts. Each of these actions involves judgment and discretion and therefore triggers CEQA review.
For CEQA purposes, a project is not “by right” where the lead agency retains discretion to shape, condition, or deny the project in response to environmental considerations.
Characterizing the Project as effectively entitled risks obscuring the City’s ongoing obligations under CEQA and improperly suggests that environmental review is a secondary or confirmatory exercise rather than a decision-informing process.
These statements are therefore misleading in the CEQA context and should not be relied upon to narrow the scope of environmental review.
B. Premature Framing of a “Focused” EIR and Pre-Identification of Impacts Video Statement (paraphrased): The City intends to prepare a focused EIR addressing only wetlands and hazardous soils, which are described as the “two most significant environmental concerns.”
Analysis: The video reflects a clear predisposition to narrow the scope of environmental review before completion of scoping and before preparation of an Initial Study that lawfully City of Arcata – Community Development Department February 4, 2026 Kelsey Fletterick, Planner II
Re: Comments re NOP for Roger’s Garage Project Focused EIR Page 19 evaluates all potentially significant impacts supported by substantial evidence. While CEQA allows agencies to prepare focused EIRs in appropriate circumstances, it does not permit precommitment to excluding issue areas where a fair argument of potential significance exists.
The record contains substantial evidence implicating additional impact areas, including hydrology and water quality, traffic and circulation, public services (including schools), land use compatibility, and cumulative impacts. Public statements suggesting that only two environmental topics warrant analysis risk prejudging the outcome of scoping and undermining CEQA’s requirement for good-faith, evidence-based evaluation.
These statements are therefore relevant evidence of a predisposition to unlawfully narrow the scope of review, particularly if the Initial Study or Draft EIR later dismisses other impact areas through conclusory findings.
C. Mischaracterization of Cleanup Obligations as Project-Dependent Video Statement (paraphrased): Without the financial motivation of this project, contaminated soils would remain in place indefinitely.
Analysis: This statement advances a misleading “but-for development” narrative suggesting that cleanup will only occur if the Project is approved. That premise is contradicted by the administrative record, which reflects independent cleanup and abatement obligations overseen by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, regardless of whether residential redevelopment proceeds.
For CEQA purposes, existing contamination is part of the environmental baseline and cannot be reframed as a “project benefit” to offset or justify unrelated impacts. Nor may an agency assume that development is the sole or necessary vehicle for remediation. CEQA requires analysis of how project construction, grading, dewatering, and foundation work may mobilize contaminants, alter hydrologic pathways, or exacerbate offsite migration— independent of any asserted long-term cleanup benefit.
Accordingly, this statement is materially misleading and should not inform baseline characterization, impact significance determinations, or mitigation analysis.
D. Minimization of Wetland Features and Hydrologic Conditions Video Statement (paraphrased): The wetland feature is “basically a ditch” conveying spring water, although the Regional Water Quality Control Board is expected to take jurisdiction.
Analysis: This characterization minimizes the ecological and regulatory significance of the feature while simultaneously acknowledging that state agencies are asserting jurisdiction.
Such framing risks obscuring the need for accurate wetland delineation, functional assessment, and analysis of avoidance and minimization alternatives.
City of Arcata – Community Development Department February 4, 2026 Kelsey Fletterick, Planner II
Re: Comments re NOP for Roger’s Garage Project Focused EIR Page 20 CEQA requires an accurate and stable environmental baseline. Describing a potentially jurisdictional wetland as a degraded “ditch” is not a substitute for technical analysis and should not be used to downplay potential impacts or constrain alternatives analysis. If similar minimizing language appears in the EIR, it would raise serious concerns regarding the adequacy and objectivity of the environmental review.
E. Statements Suggesting Predetermined Mitigation Outcomes Video Statements (paraphrased):
• Cleanup will be successful and receive regulatory sign-off. • Identified environmental issues can be “fully mitigated.” Analysis: These statements improperly imply that the outcome of environmental review is known in advance. Under CEQA, mitigation feasibility and effectiveness must be demonstrated through analysis, not assumed or declared before review is completed.
Future regulatory approvals or anticipated agency sign-off do not substitute for CEQA analysis. The EIR must independently evaluate construction-phase and operational impacts, mitigation enforceability, residual impacts, and uncertainty. Statements asserting that impacts will be fully mitigated prior to analysis risk prejudgment and undermine the informational purpose of CEQA.
F. Assertions Regarding Cleanup Depth and Remedial Design Video Statement (paraphrased): Metals-contaminated soils will be addressed through excavation to approximately one and one-half feet.
Analysis: This statement highlights the need for careful scrutiny rather than acceptance.
The administrative record reflects incomplete delineation of contamination, missing monitoring wells, and unresolved groundwater and stormwater pathways. A shallow excavation plan may or may not be adequate; CEQA requires the EIR to analyze whether the proposed remedial approach is supported by substantial evidence and whether deeper contamination or migration pathways remain unaddressed.
The statement should therefore be treated as a proposed assumption requiring analysis, not as an established fact.
G. City’s Dual Role as Regulator and Funder
Video Statement (paraphrased): The City serves as CEQA lead agency while also acting as a lender and conduit for state housing funds.
City of Arcata – Community Development Department February 4, 2026 Kelsey Fletterick, Planner II
Re: Comments re NOP for Roger’s Garage Project Focused EIR Page 21 Analysis: The City’s dual role does not, by itself, establish a legal conflict of interest under CEQA. However, it does create institutional incentives that heighten the importance of procedural rigor, transparency, and strict adherence to CEQA’s requirements. Where a lead agency has a financial stake in project approval, courts scrutinize the administrative record closely for evidence of predetermination or inadequate analysis.
Accordingly, statements emphasizing the City’s financing role underscore the need for an especially robust, evidence-based EIR process free from reliance on applicant narratives or premature conclusions.
II. Conclusion
Taken together, the promotional video statements reflect a consistent pattern:
portraying the Project as largely entitled, environmentally constrained to only two issues, and already on a path toward successful mitigation. That narrative is not supported by the administrative record and is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirements for baseline disclosure, scoping, alternatives analysis, and avoidance of prejudgment.
For purposes of CEQA scoping and environmental review, the City must disregard these promotional characterizations and instead ground the EIR in the full record, including unresolved contamination, hydrologic connectivity, sensitive receptor proximity, and the range of feasible alternatives. Failure to do so would expose the environmental review to substantial legal vulnerability.
Exhibit 1
-,.,
_,~11.rtorhia R'-'gional Water Quality
North Coast Region
Winston H. Hickox William R. Massey, Chairman
Secretary for
Environmentai
Protection
,,.~·r G 3 i 00\y Davis . ----------------------------~.,, •. . I Governor Internet Address: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/-rwqcbl/
5550 Skylane Boulevard, Suite A, Santa Rosa, California 95403 OLDI CO · Phone: I (877) 721-9203 (toll free)• Office: (707) 576-2220 • FAX: (707) 523-0135 HUM~onNMf.N.1 ;-,,.
October 1, 2001
Ms. ElizaBeth Schatz
City of Arcata
Community Development Department
736 F Street
Arcata, CA 95521
OF' EN\'" --
Dear Ms. Schatz: ~~ U::, /
File:
Subject: Comments
Roger's Garage
on KD
(Former),
Investments
1622
Conditional
Old Arcata Road,
Use Permit
Arcata, California,
~ ~ ~?::O -~
Case No. 1NHU804
I reviewed the Initial Study (Study) included with the information submitted from your agency for the former Roger's Garage facility in Arcata. The Study does not address issues related to the contamination investigation being conducted at the site. At the present time there is soil and groundwater contamination at the site associated with a former underground storage tank and identified soil contamination associated with former automotive operations. Statements cannot be made as to the effects of the contamination on the building until the complete vertical and horizontal extent of the soil and groundwater contamination have been identified.
The Study indicates that under Section 8 Hydrology (f) there will be no impact. I do not concur with this statement. Significant impacts that may result in the degradation of water quality can possibly occur during site development with the installation of subsurface utilities and building footings. No construction work should be allowed until the complete vertical and horizontal extent of all soil and groundwater contamination has been defined. After the definitio:µ has occurred, development may proceed in areas outside the contaminant plumes.
Please contact me at (707) 576-2673 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
i~
Kasey
Associate
AMey
Engineering
~
Geologist
KSA:dc\karoger4.doc
California Environmental Protection Agency
#,:,
~J Recycled Paper
"The energy challenge facing California is real. Every Californian needs to take immediate action to reduce energy consumption. For a list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs, see our Web-site at: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/. "
STAFF REPORT
J-7�, �J
City Council Agenda
July 10, 2002 RECEIVED
TO: Dan Hauser, City Manager {)
FROM: Tom Conlon, Community Development Directo��
Franklin R. Klopp, Public Works Director --��
Steve Tyler, Environmental SeNices DirectorC5BP4, ""?T
-..
JUL O 8 2002
HUMBOLDT CO. DIVISION
Of: tNVl�flNMENTAL HEALTH
SUBJECT: Property at 1622 Old Arcata Road, Bayside ( The Quonset hut known as "Roger's Garage") DATE: June 28, 2002
RECOMMENDATIONS: Receive comments from the public, ask any questions of staff and provide direction as the Council may deem necessary.
INTRODUCTION: Public concerns have been raised as a result of historical uses and water quality violations, ongoing clean-up efforts, and current and proposed development activities on this property which is planned and zoned for Commercial General uses.
DISCUSSION: The neighborhood residents, adjoining businesses and the school have expressed concerns about the previous auto wrecking yard, and the potential pollution of ground water from underground storage tanks (now all removed) and/or from materials accumulated during the operation of the auto wrecking yard. In additron the proposed conditional use of mini-storage units, and the permitting and development of the existing structures have raised additional concerns on the part of the neighbors.
On March 13th the Community Development Department met with some of the neighbors along with representatives of Environmental SeNices and Public Works along with County Environmental Health. As a result of that meeting, it was agreed that no City permits involving soil disturbance on the site would be issued without the sign off of both Environmental Health and NCRWQCB. Since that meeting there has been some demolition without permits by the owner (since rectified), the installation of a handicapped accessible bathroom inside the Quonset hut and some exterior changes to the building to finish the bathroom access.
Mark Verhey of the County Health Department and Kasey Ashley of the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, along with the Community Development Director met with the neighbors on June 1 O at the home of Kathleen Stanton. As a result of that meeting, the Director, Ms. Ashley and Mi. Verhey are in regular communication and coordinating all activities through NCRWQCB and County Environmental Health.
The City has begun the work necessary to replace a drop inlet and failing culvert under Old Arcata Road adjacent to this site, and the initial excavation at the drop inlet caused numerous calls to the affected agencies. Possible concerns by these agencies resulted in the soil removed being stored in a separate location at the City's disposal site on West End Road. Both the NCRWQCB and the County Environmental Health Department have asked that the City continue to retain this soil, and any additional materials removed from the road adjacent to the project site, at the West End Road location.
BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACTS: None to date
Attachment(s): A. Map of site
Cc: Kathleen Stanton
Property Owner
Mark Verhey, Humboldt County Environmental Health
Kasey Ashley, NCRWQCB
CoRoger's020710.doc
Exhibit 2
REV.: 0
LEGEND:
... --,
I I 1.....:-.J
8-1.
ARCATA
...........
-----
PROJ NO: 0.30 l 02. 1
DATE: OCTOBER 2001
PCP PC2: GENERIC
DRAWN BY: G. STEPPEN
CHECKED BY: M. DAHLEN
MFG MONITORING WELL LOCATION,
OCTOBER 2001
MFG SOIL BORING LOCATION,
OCTOBER 2001
MFG BACKGROUND SOIL SAMPLE
LOCATION, OCTOBER 2001
SOIL BORING LOCATION ADVANCED
BY SHN
SOIL BORING AND GRAB
GROUNDWATER SAMPLE LOCATION
ADVANCED BY SHN
NOTES & ABBREVIATIONS:
AST - ABOVE GROUND STORAGE TANK
UST - UNDERJROUND STOBAGE TANK
. )' ! {;
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
FORMERLY EXCAVATED AREA
/
SITE .,,
BOUNDARY~,,/
,,, .,,
.,, ... s;· FORMER
:'_·_. e CRUSHER
-, WASTE OIL AST
,,.
.,,
• • & OIL BARF!ELS /
SB-k /
) , /
®8-4 /
/
-4
-2
/
.,. .,.
\
\
\ \
\
/ :\ \
/ .,. .,.
/ .,. .,,
/
N
SCALE
60 FEET
FORMER ROGER'S GARAGE
1622 OLD ARCATA ROAD
ARCATA, CALIFORNIA
FIGURE 3
SITE PLAN - SHOWING BORING
AND WELL LOCATIONS
THE INfORlMt10II P!ICM0EO ON 1HIS OR,r,IIIINC WAS PA00UC£D USlNC BOTH m:tNCAI. INFtllllMJ10N /IIHO 1<N011r -· mr AIW'fA1l0I.I 011 ll0QIFICA1)0IN 01" 1HE -TION OR D11A11!1NC SHill.L IIE AT 1HE USER"S ~ Rl$IC ANO llllTli0UT IJABlJtY OR
1.UiAL. EllPOSUIIE 10 THIE EJ«;INUR.
North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
April 29, 2025
Mr. Dan Johnson
The Danco Group
5251 Ericson Way
Arcata, CA 95521
djohnson@danco group.com
Dear Mr. Johnson:
Site: Roger’s Garage (Former), 1622 Old Arcata Road, Arcata, California Case No. 1NHU804 (CR No. 2010044)
Subject: Status of Site Monitoring, Cleanup and Redevelopment Efforts and Requirement to Submit Reports
The North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) oversees the environmental cleanup case for this former auto repair shop and wrecking yard. I last met with your representative McKenzie Dibble at the site in September 2024, along with representatives from the City of Arcata. Ms. Dibble said that an additional assessment had been carried out but was unsure if the report was finalized, and I asked that the report be sent to my office when it was complete. After inquiring with the City of Arcata in late March 2025, I was told that a Phase I and Phase II site assessment had been submitted to the City as part of a plan package. City staff then forwarded me both the completed Phase I and Phase II reports, dated July 1 and June 23, 2024, respectively. These reports are now posted on the State’s public Geotracker website.
As the property owner, Danco is legally a responsible party for the release of hazardous substances at this site and obligated to provide timely updates on the progress of site characterization, remediation efforts, and ongoing monitoring. This responsibility and our authority to request it is pursuant to California Water Code sections 13267 and 13304, which states that responsible parties are required to investigate, monitor, and remediate waste discharges that pose, or may pose, a threat to water quality or human health and the environment, and to furnish technical reports to the Regional Water Board as requested. Because this is a known contaminated site, it is mandatory that we are alerted when work is planned and that we be sent all environmental reports generated in a timely fashion.
Exhibit 3
CALIFORN I A
Water Boards
HECTOR BEDOLLA, CHAIR I VALERIE QUINTO, EXECUTIVE OFFICER 5550 Skylane Blvd., Suite A, Santa Rosa, CA 95403 I www.waterboards.ca.gov/northcoast
GAVIN N EWSOM
GOVERNOR
YANA GARCIA
SEC RETARY FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Former Rogers Garage - 2 - April 29, 2025
Therefore, to ensure the Regional Water Board maintains an accurate understanding of current site conditions, corrective actions, and planned redevelopment activities, we request that you provide bimonthly status updates going forward, in a letter format transmitted to us via email. Each update should, at a minimum, include:
• A summary of any site activities conducted since the last update. • Updated soil, soil vapor, or groundwater data, if applicable. • An outline of planned future investigation or remediation actions. • Identification of any challenges or delays and proposed solutions.
Please submit your first status update by May 30, 2025, which will be uploaded to Geotracker. Failure to comply with this request may subject you to enforcement actions, including the issuance of formal orders or administrative civil liabilities under the authority of the California Water Code.
If you have any questions regarding this request or need clarification regarding reporting requirements, please contact me at [email protected] or at (707) 543-7128.
Sincerely,
Tom Magney
Engineering Geologist
cc: McKenzie Dibble, [email protected]
Norm Crawford, Humboldt County Environmental Health,
[email protected]
Kelsey Fletterick, City of Arcata, [email protected] Doug Culbert, [email protected]
David Loya, [email protected]
Netra Khatri, [email protected]
Emily Sinkhorn, [email protected]
From: Bauer, Heidi M.@Waterboards
To: David Loya
Cc: Magney, Tom@Waterboards; KelseyFletterick
Subject: RE: 1622 Arcata Road - Rogers Garage
Date: Friday, May 2, 2025 4:55:58 PM
Attachments: image001.png
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 link
This message contains an unusual link, which may lead to a malicious site. Confirm the message is safe before clicking any links.
Great, thank you so much.
Best,
Heidi
From: David Loya <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 2, 2025 4:17 PM
To: Bauer, Heidi M.@Waterboards <[email protected]> Cc: Magney, Tom@Waterboards <[email protected]>; Kelsey Fletterick <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 1622 Arcata Road - Rogers Garage
We absolutely can add that as a condition. I would hope that the sign-off would happen before they put the foundation in. So definitely before occupancy.
David Loya (him)
Community Development Director
City of Arcata
p. 707-825-2045
c. 707-834-5013
I acknowledge my residence in Goudi'ni (Arcata), part of the ancestral territory of the Wiyot peoples.
I offer my reconciliation and respect to their elders past and present. https://www.wiyot.us/162/Wiyot-Placename-Video
From: Bauer, Heidi M.@Waterboards <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, May 2, 2025 2:49 PM
Exhibit 4
To: David Loya <[email protected]>
Cc: Magney, Tom@Waterboards <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 1622 Arcata Road - Rogers Garage
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.
Got it, thank you David. Please do keep us in the loop. We had a scare recently in Ukiah where a Danco housing development was built and permitted for occupancy without the proper mitigations that we had asked for being completed. To prevent this fr Warning: Unusual link
This message contains an unusual link, which may lead to a malicious site. Confirm the message is safe before clicking any links.
Got it, thank you David. Please do keep us in the loop. We had a scare recently in Ukiah where a Danco housing development was built and permitted for occupancy without the proper mitigations that we had asked for being completed. To prevent this from happening for this project I would like to talk about having a condition of approval in place which states that the Water Board must sign off on occupancy prior to it being permitted, even temporarily. Is that possible?
Thank you, David. I look forward to working with you on this project. Have a good weekend.
Best,
Heidi
From: David Loya <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 2, 2025 2:24 PM
To: Bauer, Heidi M.@Waterboards <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 1622 Arcata Road - Rogers Garage
Ah. Yes. It is commercial mixed use, which allows residential.
We are absolutely going to require it to meet residential standard or not approve its development. And we will be following your team’s lead on the thresholds and requirements for site conditions.
I do apologize for not reaching out sooner. Our standard procedure is to engage the resource agencies when we have all of the information to share. I was not aware the neighbors would be short circuiting our planning process and advocating the resource agencies directly.
1----
I
David Loya (him)
Community Development Director
City of Arcata
p. 707-825-2045
c. 707-834-5013
I acknowledge my residence in Goudi'ni (Arcata), part of the ancestral territory of the Wiyot peoples.
I offer my reconciliation and respect to their elders past and present. https://www.wiyot.us/162/Wiyot-Placename-Video
From: Bauer, Heidi M.@Waterboards <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, May 2, 2025 1:55 PM
To: David Loya <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 1622 Arcata Road - Rogers Garage
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.
Thank you David, maybe I am confused. The zoning appears to be commercial and I have heard that this site is being considered for residential. What am I missing? Thank you. Best, Heidi From: David Loya <[email protected]> Sent: Frid Warning: Unusual link
This message contains an unusual link, which may lead to a malicious site. Confirm the message is safe before clicking any links.
Thank you David, maybe I am confused. The zoning appears to be commercial and I have heard that this site is being considered for residential. What am I missing? Thank you.
Best,
Heidi
From: David Loya <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 2, 2025 1:38 PM
To: Bauer, Heidi M.@Waterboards <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 1622 Arcata Road - Rogers Garage
Hi Heidi,
I’ve been out of the office for a few days and am just catching up to the conversation.
I think Kelsey is working on getting a meeting set up so we can talk through any 1-----
I
concerns.
I also wanted to make sure you knew that there is no proposal to rezone the property.
This is a site that has the same zoning and land use allowances since 2008.
David Loya (him)
Community Development Director
City of Arcata
p. 707-825-2045
c. 707-834-5013
I acknowledge my residence in Goudi'ni (Arcata), part of the ancestral territory of the Wiyot peoples.
I offer my reconciliation and respect to their elders past and present. https://www.wiyot.us/162/Wiyot-Placename-Video
From: Bauer, Heidi M.@Waterboards <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2025 12:02 PM
To: Kelsey Fletterick <[email protected]>; Magney, Tom@Waterboards <[email protected]>
Cc: David Loya <[email protected]>; Emily Sinkhorn <[email protected]>; Netra Khatri <[email protected]>; Doug Culbert <[email protected]>; Joe Mateer <[email protected]>; Jennifer Dart <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 1622 Arcata Road - Rogers Garage
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.
Thank you for the update Kelsey. My concern is that Tom also heard about this development through a community member and not through the city nor the developer. We should not have been caught by surprise by a member of the public as it is a bit conc Warning: Unusual sender <[email protected]> You don't usually receive emails from this address. Make sure you trust this sender before taking any actions.
Thank you for the update Kelsey. My concern is that Tom also heard about this development through a community member and not through the city nor the developer.
We should not have been caught by surprise by a member of the public as it is a bit concerning to us and to the public that contaminated parcels are being considered for rezoning and residential development without our involvement. Going forward please include me and the Regional Board case manager (if you know it) on applications that are on or adjacent to our regulatory sites (open or closed). Thank you.
Best,
1----
I
Caution: External Email. Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. When in doubt, contact DIT or use the Phish Alert Button.
Heidi
From: Kelsey Fletterick <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2025 11:49 AM
To: Bauer, Heidi M.@Waterboards <[email protected]>; Magney, Tom@Waterboards <[email protected]>
Cc: David Loya <[email protected]>; Emily Sinkhorn <[email protected]>; Netra Khatri <[email protected]>; Doug Culbert <[email protected]>; Joe Mateer <[email protected]>; Jennifer Dart <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 1622 Arcata Road - Rogers Garage
Good morning, Heidi.
Thank you for contacting the City of Arcata for your concerns about the affordable Housing Community at 1622 Old Arcata Road. My name is Kelsey Fletterick and I am the Planner assigned to this project. Our department has been communicating with Tom Magney regarding this project, but I would be happy to summarize this information to you as well.
On January 7th, 2025 KD investments, LLC applied for a Design Review Planning Permit with the Planning Commission for the construction of an Affordable Housing Community at 1622 Old Arcata Road. In addition to their proposed site plans, the applicant provided several environmental review documents including an Aquatic Resource Delineation, Phase 1 Environmental Assessment and Phase 2 LSI. These documents were shared with Tom Magney on March 28th, 2025. Based on the application materials and my review of the RWQB reports, I informed the applicant on March 19th, 2025 that their application was incomplete and that we would not be able to review their project until they provided additional materials (See attached Project Review Comments and EG1A).
The City has not received any additional information from the applicant on the requested materials, therefore no additional review has taken place.
Going forward, is there anyone else from the water board that we should be communicating with besides yourself and Tom? We would be happy to keep you informed as we receive additional information.
I
Please feel free to reach out if you have any further questions or need additional clarification.
Kelsey Fletterick (She/Her)
Community Development- Planner I
City of Arcata- www.cityofarcata.org
736 F Street, Arcata Ca, CA 95521
(707)825-2135| [email protected]
The City of Arcata acknowledges that the lands we are located on are the unceded ancestral lands of the Wiyot tribe. The land that Arcata rests on is known in the Wiyot language as Goudi’ni, meaning “over in the woods” or “among the redwoods.” Past actions by local, State and Federal governments removed the Wiyot and other Indigenous peoples from the land and threatened to destroy their cultural practices. The City of Arcata acknowledges the Wiyot community, their elders both past and present, as well as future generations. This Acknowledgment seeks to aid in dismantling the legacy narratives of settler colonialism.
From: Doug Culbert <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2025 9:31 AM
To: Heidi M.@Waterboards Bauer <[email protected]> Cc: David Loya <[email protected]>; Emily Sinkhorn <[email protected]>; Netra Khatri <[email protected]>; Tom@Waterboards Magney <[email protected]>; Kelsey Fletterick <[email protected]> Subject: Re: 1622 Arcata Road - Rogers Garage
We’re actually in a permit review meeting now and our staff, Kelsey, has been in contact with Tom on this address. I’ve included her in this reply.
Doug Culbert
Deputy Director Environmental Services, Streets & Utilities Office: 707-825-2166
Cell: 707-810-5687
(Sent from my iPhone)
On Apr 29, 2025, at 9:20 AM, Bauer, Heidi M.@Waterboards <[email protected]> wrote:
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.
Good morning, I hope this message finds you well. I was recently informed by a community member about a planned residential development at the above address. This address currently is a Regional Water Board open case with existing contamination, an Warning: Unusual sender <[email protected]> You don't usually receive emails from this address. Make sure you trust this sender before taking any actions.
Good morning,
I hope this message finds you well. I was recently informed by a community member about a planned residential development at the above address. This address currently is a Regional Water Board open case with existing contamination, and it may not be suitable for residential development in its current state.
I am not sure how far along this project is in the planning process, but it seems crucial that we work on involving our team when it comes to building on potentially contaminated parcels. We met about this very topic last year, and I thought we were all in agreement that you would loop us in when considering an application for developing on open or closed properties. I do not think there is any municipality that wants to inadvertently permit a residential development on a contaminated lot without the proper mitigations to ensure that the occupants are not safe.
Could someone please provide me with an update on what has happened so far and at what stage in the development process this site currently is? Your assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated, as it is important to ensure that all necessary precautions and steps are taken to address the contamination before proceeding with any residential development.
Thank you for your time and cooperation.
Best regards,
Heidi Bauer
I
Heidi M. Bauer, P.G.
Senior Engineering Geologist
Site Cleanups Unit Supervisor
North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
5550 Skylane Blvd. Suite A
Santa Rosa, CA. 95403
[email protected]
Office: (707) 570-3769
Water Boards P,lrilE ,,_, II r,o..,"Cll ca1n OL ""'"D
1110\I J l tt••r::• 0 ~1.•T1 co1.1,•DL 101. ■ Dl
North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
September 29, 2025
Mr. Dan Johnson
The Danco Group
5251 Ericson Way
Arcata, CA 95521
djohnson@danco group.com
Dear Mr. Johnson:
Site: Roger’s Garage (Former), 1622 Old Arcata Road, Arcata, California Case No. 1NHU804 (CR No. 2010044)
Subject: Requirement for Additional Sampling
North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) staff reviewed AEI Consultants’ August 14, 2025 “Report on Groundwater Sampling” (Report), compared the results from this event to the April 2024 grab groundwater sampling, and reviewed drainage information available on the City of Arcata’s Public Parcel Finder.
Petroleum Hydrocarbon Impacts: The Report presents sampling results from the remaining monitoring wells MW-5, MW-7, and MW-8. Well MW-6 could not be located, and wells MW-1 through MW-4 were destroyed when the UST case was closed.
Samples from MW-5, MW-7, and MW-8 contained no detectable petroleum hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds, tetraethyl lead, or lead scavengers.
By contrast, an April 2024 grab groundwater sample (SB-1-W) collected near the location of the “lost” MW-6 contained 4,700 micrograms per liter (µg/L) total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPHg), 1,500 µg/L total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel (TPHd), and 2.2 µg/L benzene. Grab samples SB-2-W (near MW-7) and SB-5-W (near the former car crusher) contained TPHd at 2,200 and 1,200 µg/L, respectively. Although these concentrations may meet the State’s Low-Threat Underground Storage Tank Case Closure Policy (LTCP) for a fueling-station land use, planned residential development requires additional confirmation sampling in these areas. These confirmatory activities can be performed concurrent with site demolition. A vapor survey will also be required to determine whether vapor mitigation is necessary beneath any planned residential structures.
Exhibit 5
CALIFORNIA
Water Boards
HECTOR BEDOLLA, CHAIR I VALERIE QUINTO, EXECUTIVE OFFICER 5550 Skylane Blvd., Suite A, Santa Rosa, CA 95403 I www.waterboards.ca.gov/northcoast
GAVIN NEWSOM
GOVERNOR
YANA GARCIA
SECRETARY FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Former Roger’s Garage - 2 - September 29, 2025
Metals Contamination: The 2005 “Metals Excavation Workplan” remains the controlling document for surface-soil metals contamination and removal. However, because no stormwater sampling has been performed since 2010, there is concern that metals- and hydrocarbon-impacted materials could have been, or could continue to be, transported offsite. The City of Arcata’s Public Parcel Finder indicates the drop inlet on 1632 Old Arcata Road (part of the Site) drains to a 30-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) that appears to discharge on the Jacoby Creek School property. The screen shot from the site is attached to this letter.
Therefore, by November 15, 2025, please collect water samples at a) the drop inlet at or on 1632 Old Arcata Road, and b) the RCP discharge point onto the Jacoby Creek School property. Samples should be analyzed for TPHg, TPHd, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, tetraethyl lead, and cadmium, chromium, total lead, nickel and zinc.
Please submit a report of these findings no later than 60 days after completion of field activities.
Please note that this case has been transferred to Vanessa Davis of our office. Ms.
Davis will be handling further inquiries and case management from this point on.
Ms. Davis can be reached at [email protected] or (707) 576-2802.
Sincerely,
Tom Magney
Engineering Geologist
Enclosure: Utility Screen shot
cc: McKenzie Dibble, [email protected]
David Loya, Community Development, [email protected] Kelsey Fletterick, Community Development, [email protected] Former Roger’s Garage - 3 - September 29, 2025
Q
-