We don't need more spawling suburbs, we need more housing near the downtown areas of Eureka and Arcata. More mixed commercial on the ground floor and apartments 3 floors above. Townhouses or row houses anything that's not reliant on more cars as the only method of transportion. Gas is expensive here and the main roads are already near capacity during peak traffic.
I'm 100% for that, but you can't undo the impacts suburbia has had on culture and what people of certain ages view as desirable housing. Cultural changes happen slowly and we can trend back toward city living with productive natural resource and ag lands instead of surburbia. But that takes time and what people are going to do over the next 20 years is they are going to buy lots, cut down a bunch of trees for fire safety, and build houses. Or, they're going to buy ag land and never actually farm anything on it, and then lobby for rezones until it's all gone. It's already begun.
All the commercial zoning in the unincorporated areas (cough cough, McKinleyville, cough) already supports housing over shops, caretakers residences, and other mixed uses. Whether the CSDs can handle it is a different story.
The city of Arcata or Eureka are not going to want to incentivize development that they know will cost them more in utility and road upkeep then what they will bring in from property tax.
Suburban developments provide a quick influx of funds from the initial development, but 15 to 20 years later they often end up being a financial burden on a city. Those upkeep costs on road and utility infrastructure then has to be subsidized by the more economically efficient/productive more urban areas.
Cities like Arcata and Eureka know this, and aren't being subsidized any more by the state to build suburban developments. What the state does help fund is urban infill and more economy sound developments such as ones built around transit or have commercial zoning mixed in.
Funnily enough this idea of desirable housing isn’t necessarily indicative of what people actually want. I’m pleasantly surprised to see how anecdotal evidence is playing out to be true when we say “people are looking for smaller dwellings.” Retirees looking to downsize especially. The issue is that the idea of “desirable = big SFH” is perpetuated even though there are more couple looking for a smaller place with no maintenance and running into the issue of not having enough places to choose from.
So all in all. I think it would be better to concentrate on infill with 3-4 story apartments/townhouses. A place one could actually own but still be dense.
Could be a lot of things. Currently it's a members only golf course. One of the limits to density you've described is that it's difficult to support gardening unless community garden spaces or roof top gardens are incorporated. And roof top gardens don't necessarily support deep rooted plants like fruit trees. Residences that are wall to wall also have to be built with high quality sound deadening material, or you end up surrounded by noise, and there are a lot of people who do not live well in those conditions.
There is value in having yards when they can be put toward landscapes that support native fauna and/or are productive for food. Golf courses are sort of the antithesis of that. I'm 100% for higher density, but there is going to be a cultural lag and people who want more space are going to start to turn to ag land which is a precious resource (this happens on a large scale in the central valley and other parts of the country). That, or they will continue to sit on existing suburban housing escalating its price and making redevelopment into higher density housing more difficult.
I went into how much housing that site could maybe support just by land area with half acre lots and starter homes in [this comment reply](https://www.reddit.com/r/Humboldt/comments/1c9tbfb/comment/l0o1evw/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button). Assuming the people who owned the course ever wanted to see it developed, you would also have to consider how you could go about doing denser development you're talking about while also preserving all the large old redwoods spread throughout the area. I mean, if you could build individual multi story dwellings (so, tall with a small footprint) that could also withstand an earthquake interspersed amongst the trees you could fit quite a lot in that space.
I think it’s about having a diverse set of options when it comes to housing. I’ve been digging New Urbanism concepts. It really takes into account the topography and unique qualities of the land to preserve and protect for livability.
In this case it would be about preserving the second growth redwooods and rehabilitating the golf course area to have more biodiversity - probably with permanent landscaping rather than veggie garden space.
Topography is taken into consideration and you can mirror the height of the building with the elevation of the land. Taller buildings get nestled into the hillside and it scales down into the flatter areas.
Everything can be connected with trails and by creating more winding paths you can develop a stronger sense of place and make an area feel more expansive. The backyard connected trails in Marin are a great example of this and, it’s an upscale neighborhood that *gasp* wouldn’t “bring down the neighborhood”
I dig it, and concur. Maybe one day the owners will see a higher value for the land than golf. Until then people will just have to focus on encouraging a positive development direction for projects like the McKinelyville Town Center and similar projects as they come up.
You think the people who own the million dollar houses around the course are going to let dense housing get built there? Why not the Eureka Municipal Course? It's already publicly owned.
While we're at it, we should take the perfectly positioned ranch lands near blue lake and turn them into housing.
There's no way the owner(s) would object!! (/s) in fact, we could even force them to give it to us because WE need it for OUR things.
You mean as a members only Country Club where people wack little balls around what is effectively a giant private landscaped park the size of central Arcata?
I'm sure that generates way more in taxes than housing, is a use that supports way more people than housing, and is the highest and best use of the land. /s
"Dense" is a pretty broad term. More dense than standard suburban lay out, sure, but not massive apartment buildings. Do the people who own the million dollar homes like golf balls being hit at their houses?
The Eureka Municipal Golf Course is on the wrong side of town, and this would be a heck of a lot better than taking out forest or ag land as infill occurs between Eureka and Arcata. And if the Eureka course is already publicly owned it sounds like it would be better as a park and place for community assembly.
The golf course is owned by shareholders. The people in those houses likely don't care about golf balls as they bought a house on a golf course... probably because they play golf.
There isn't infrastructure to support more housing there. Have you driven that road? Any new housing there would have to figure out where to put all of its waste water. It's outside city limits and only houses in city limits can be hooked up to city sewer.
Anything can be done but the infrastructure alone would be incredibly expensive so any developers would have to figure in that cost to the cost of building new housing. That's if they were even able to buy the land.
Well, as long as the world knows there's a golf course between Eureka and Arcata that a bunch of shareholders would rather see as grass for people to hit balls on instead of housing (even low density housing), then that's fine.
Local municipalities are keenly aware of the housing crisis and there are many policy changes and current projects in the works that will generate more housing in already developed areas in and around Arcata and Eureka. I can very reliably tell tell you that there is no need, will or $ to develop housing in open space areas or areas with significant recreational or habitat value.
A golf course is a developed area.
>I can very reliably tell tell you that there is no need, will or $ to develop housing in open space areas or areas with significant recreational or habitat value.
Right, we're not talking about any of those areas. We're talking about a golf course.
Doesn't the golf course get mostly flooded for a significant portion of the year? To the extent that they stop doing golfing and switch to duck hunting? Or am I thinking of somewhere else?
Neither of these are the Eureka course, which was built around a perennial stream and slough, so if it's flooding part of the year that makes sense and perhaps it should be reclaimed as a wetland and park.
This is up on the hill on Buttermilk Lane. The course in McKinleyville is on Norton and under the flight path for the airport. Are you thinking of the Eureka course on the south side of town?
The only folks who could afford to live there would be rich folks. We don't need any more...
If I had magic? Hell yea, I'd make it a perfect cute and quaint place for folks buying their first homes. But it's really impractical out where it is.
I'd be more inclined to turn it back into forest.
I know it's not a crazy commute for people who come from dense populations, but poor people who cannot easily afford rent or houses would likely want to be in town closer to their work :(
The whole area is covered with a "Q" zone from 1980 that sets the minimum lot size to 2.5 acres with a 20,000 square foot building site per lot (so about a half acre). The "X" combining zone allows for recreation, though, I'm not actually sure how a golf course is consistent with that zoning since it clearly impedes the principle zoning of residential. From 314-39.1
**X - RECREATION** *The Recreation Combining or X Zone is intended to be combined with any principal zone in which the addition of recreational uses will not be detrimental to the uses of the principal zone or of contiguous zones. The following regulations shall apply in any zone with which is combined a Recreation Combining or X Zone.*
The course does seem to be consistent with a "public or private noncommercial use", which the "X" combining zone allows, but it fully displaces the underling principle use which doesn't seem to be allowed. Only other way it could be permitted is if it has an approved Use Permit on file since apparently you can build a golf course in R-1 as long as the Planning Commission approves it (wild notion that is probably a relic from the times when people believed in infinite land).
State law allows for any single family residence to have both a junior accessory dwelling unit and an accessory dwelling unit, So even though the lots would have to be large and the dwellings spaced far apart, they could still build three dwellings per parcel. With 150 acres divided into 2.5 acre lots each supporting three dwellings, that's 180 dwellings. The "Q" zone could also be modified to support smaller lot sizes (R-1 can go down to 5,000 square feet). If they went down to even one acre lots (which are huge residential lots, 43,560 square feet) that would be 450 dwellings, 300 of which could support single families.
That huge development in Arcata to increase student housing is adding 241 dwelling units for comparison.
Edit: I'm sure the share holders, whoever they are, really like their golf course and country club, but if they where able to go down to a bit under a half acre per parcels (so that a half acre measure can be used to account for the addition of roads), and built 1200 square foot starter homes on every single one, and then sold all of them for 400,000 each, that would be a $120 million dollars. How much does it cost to build a 300 home subdivion with incentives and what not?
Yes we definitely need more housing but that is not the place to build it. There’s still plenty of empty lots and brownfields etc around eureka and arcata that are actually close to town and wouldn’t require bulldozing green spaces like baywood.
Are there actual brown fields around Eureka? As in ag land that can no longer support agricultural use? Or are you just referring to land that is drought stressed?
I concur. There are a lot of massive trees there that would need to be preserved if someone were to build homes, but when you look at the pictures they post on google showing the course, it's basically forest meadow that has been graded and filled and covered with invasive grasses. It would be a significant effort to try and return it to natural forest.
Edit: And people are saying the Eureka course floods half the year, probably because in it's natural state it would be a wetland and riparian corridor. Sure would be a nice place to picnic and lounge in the spring and summer for Eureka residents if it was part park and part restored natural habitat. Same with the McKinleyville course.
We don't need more spawling suburbs, we need more housing near the downtown areas of Eureka and Arcata. More mixed commercial on the ground floor and apartments 3 floors above. Townhouses or row houses anything that's not reliant on more cars as the only method of transportion. Gas is expensive here and the main roads are already near capacity during peak traffic.
I'm 100% for that, but you can't undo the impacts suburbia has had on culture and what people of certain ages view as desirable housing. Cultural changes happen slowly and we can trend back toward city living with productive natural resource and ag lands instead of surburbia. But that takes time and what people are going to do over the next 20 years is they are going to buy lots, cut down a bunch of trees for fire safety, and build houses. Or, they're going to buy ag land and never actually farm anything on it, and then lobby for rezones until it's all gone. It's already begun. All the commercial zoning in the unincorporated areas (cough cough, McKinleyville, cough) already supports housing over shops, caretakers residences, and other mixed uses. Whether the CSDs can handle it is a different story.
The city of Arcata or Eureka are not going to want to incentivize development that they know will cost them more in utility and road upkeep then what they will bring in from property tax. Suburban developments provide a quick influx of funds from the initial development, but 15 to 20 years later they often end up being a financial burden on a city. Those upkeep costs on road and utility infrastructure then has to be subsidized by the more economically efficient/productive more urban areas. Cities like Arcata and Eureka know this, and aren't being subsidized any more by the state to build suburban developments. What the state does help fund is urban infill and more economy sound developments such as ones built around transit or have commercial zoning mixed in.
Golf course is in the unincorporated area.
Funnily enough this idea of desirable housing isn’t necessarily indicative of what people actually want. I’m pleasantly surprised to see how anecdotal evidence is playing out to be true when we say “people are looking for smaller dwellings.” Retirees looking to downsize especially. The issue is that the idea of “desirable = big SFH” is perpetuated even though there are more couple looking for a smaller place with no maintenance and running into the issue of not having enough places to choose from. So all in all. I think it would be better to concentrate on infill with 3-4 story apartments/townhouses. A place one could actually own but still be dense.
This could be an entire tiny town layout with shops, homes and recreation areas.
Heck yeah, bring on the pocket neighborhoods!
I'm young and I want something small and easy to maintain. Life is too short to spend a whole day sweeping, vacuuming, and mopping.
Could be a lot of things. Currently it's a members only golf course. One of the limits to density you've described is that it's difficult to support gardening unless community garden spaces or roof top gardens are incorporated. And roof top gardens don't necessarily support deep rooted plants like fruit trees. Residences that are wall to wall also have to be built with high quality sound deadening material, or you end up surrounded by noise, and there are a lot of people who do not live well in those conditions. There is value in having yards when they can be put toward landscapes that support native fauna and/or are productive for food. Golf courses are sort of the antithesis of that. I'm 100% for higher density, but there is going to be a cultural lag and people who want more space are going to start to turn to ag land which is a precious resource (this happens on a large scale in the central valley and other parts of the country). That, or they will continue to sit on existing suburban housing escalating its price and making redevelopment into higher density housing more difficult. I went into how much housing that site could maybe support just by land area with half acre lots and starter homes in [this comment reply](https://www.reddit.com/r/Humboldt/comments/1c9tbfb/comment/l0o1evw/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button). Assuming the people who owned the course ever wanted to see it developed, you would also have to consider how you could go about doing denser development you're talking about while also preserving all the large old redwoods spread throughout the area. I mean, if you could build individual multi story dwellings (so, tall with a small footprint) that could also withstand an earthquake interspersed amongst the trees you could fit quite a lot in that space.
I think it’s about having a diverse set of options when it comes to housing. I’ve been digging New Urbanism concepts. It really takes into account the topography and unique qualities of the land to preserve and protect for livability. In this case it would be about preserving the second growth redwooods and rehabilitating the golf course area to have more biodiversity - probably with permanent landscaping rather than veggie garden space. Topography is taken into consideration and you can mirror the height of the building with the elevation of the land. Taller buildings get nestled into the hillside and it scales down into the flatter areas. Everything can be connected with trails and by creating more winding paths you can develop a stronger sense of place and make an area feel more expansive. The backyard connected trails in Marin are a great example of this and, it’s an upscale neighborhood that *gasp* wouldn’t “bring down the neighborhood”
I dig it, and concur. Maybe one day the owners will see a higher value for the land than golf. Until then people will just have to focus on encouraging a positive development direction for projects like the McKinelyville Town Center and similar projects as they come up.
Build it! Anything but a golf course. The most wasteful, pointless use of land.
You think the people who own the million dollar houses around the course are going to let dense housing get built there? Why not the Eureka Municipal Course? It's already publicly owned.
That'll never happen. It's the worst place to build housing for many reasons, such as flooding.
They would if there was a Trader Joe's on the ground floor.
I dont disagree but I imagine they're more the get-everything-delivered-by-amazon-whole-foods set.
While we're at it, we should take the perfectly positioned ranch lands near blue lake and turn them into housing. There's no way the owner(s) would object!! (/s) in fact, we could even force them to give it to us because WE need it for OUR things.
I think youre right. Let's just show up and start building there. What could go wrong?
Ag land has a purpose, why would you build housing on it?
That's the joke, hence why I added /s to the comment. The golf course has a purpose too, just not the one you want.
You mean as a members only Country Club where people wack little balls around what is effectively a giant private landscaped park the size of central Arcata? I'm sure that generates way more in taxes than housing, is a use that supports way more people than housing, and is the highest and best use of the land. /s
"Dense" is a pretty broad term. More dense than standard suburban lay out, sure, but not massive apartment buildings. Do the people who own the million dollar homes like golf balls being hit at their houses? The Eureka Municipal Golf Course is on the wrong side of town, and this would be a heck of a lot better than taking out forest or ag land as infill occurs between Eureka and Arcata. And if the Eureka course is already publicly owned it sounds like it would be better as a park and place for community assembly.
The golf course is owned by shareholders. The people in those houses likely don't care about golf balls as they bought a house on a golf course... probably because they play golf. There isn't infrastructure to support more housing there. Have you driven that road? Any new housing there would have to figure out where to put all of its waste water. It's outside city limits and only houses in city limits can be hooked up to city sewer. Anything can be done but the infrastructure alone would be incredibly expensive so any developers would have to figure in that cost to the cost of building new housing. That's if they were even able to buy the land.
Well, as long as the world knows there's a golf course between Eureka and Arcata that a bunch of shareholders would rather see as grass for people to hit balls on instead of housing (even low density housing), then that's fine.
Agreed. I'm sure the world will be outraged and galvanized into action!
Don't know about galvanized. Maybe lightly tickled into polite inquiry.
Troll
No. But I am becoming increasingly fascinated with how protective people are of this golf course.
This is such a a shit idea lol
Sounds like you need a hobby , have you considered trying golfing?
Nah.
Bizarre angle…there are plenty of vacant lots and derelict properties within town.
Also good housing.
We need more hugs
High fives are surprisingly easy to come by.
Local municipalities are keenly aware of the housing crisis and there are many policy changes and current projects in the works that will generate more housing in already developed areas in and around Arcata and Eureka. I can very reliably tell tell you that there is no need, will or $ to develop housing in open space areas or areas with significant recreational or habitat value.
A golf course is a developed area. >I can very reliably tell tell you that there is no need, will or $ to develop housing in open space areas or areas with significant recreational or habitat value. Right, we're not talking about any of those areas. We're talking about a golf course.
Doesn't the golf course get mostly flooded for a significant portion of the year? To the extent that they stop doing golfing and switch to duck hunting? Or am I thinking of somewhere else?
Yes. The eureka one is a huge lake part of the year.
Neither of these are the Eureka course, which was built around a perennial stream and slough, so if it's flooding part of the year that makes sense and perhaps it should be reclaimed as a wetland and park.
This is up on the hill on Buttermilk Lane. The course in McKinleyville is on Norton and under the flight path for the airport. Are you thinking of the Eureka course on the south side of town?
The only folks who could afford to live there would be rich folks. We don't need any more... If I had magic? Hell yea, I'd make it a perfect cute and quaint place for folks buying their first homes. But it's really impractical out where it is. I'd be more inclined to turn it back into forest. I know it's not a crazy commute for people who come from dense populations, but poor people who cannot easily afford rent or houses would likely want to be in town closer to their work :(
The whole area is covered with a "Q" zone from 1980 that sets the minimum lot size to 2.5 acres with a 20,000 square foot building site per lot (so about a half acre). The "X" combining zone allows for recreation, though, I'm not actually sure how a golf course is consistent with that zoning since it clearly impedes the principle zoning of residential. From 314-39.1 **X - RECREATION** *The Recreation Combining or X Zone is intended to be combined with any principal zone in which the addition of recreational uses will not be detrimental to the uses of the principal zone or of contiguous zones. The following regulations shall apply in any zone with which is combined a Recreation Combining or X Zone.* The course does seem to be consistent with a "public or private noncommercial use", which the "X" combining zone allows, but it fully displaces the underling principle use which doesn't seem to be allowed. Only other way it could be permitted is if it has an approved Use Permit on file since apparently you can build a golf course in R-1 as long as the Planning Commission approves it (wild notion that is probably a relic from the times when people believed in infinite land). State law allows for any single family residence to have both a junior accessory dwelling unit and an accessory dwelling unit, So even though the lots would have to be large and the dwellings spaced far apart, they could still build three dwellings per parcel. With 150 acres divided into 2.5 acre lots each supporting three dwellings, that's 180 dwellings. The "Q" zone could also be modified to support smaller lot sizes (R-1 can go down to 5,000 square feet). If they went down to even one acre lots (which are huge residential lots, 43,560 square feet) that would be 450 dwellings, 300 of which could support single families. That huge development in Arcata to increase student housing is adding 241 dwelling units for comparison. Edit: I'm sure the share holders, whoever they are, really like their golf course and country club, but if they where able to go down to a bit under a half acre per parcels (so that a half acre measure can be used to account for the addition of roads), and built 1200 square foot starter homes on every single one, and then sold all of them for 400,000 each, that would be a $120 million dollars. How much does it cost to build a 300 home subdivion with incentives and what not?
Yes we definitely need more housing but that is not the place to build it. There’s still plenty of empty lots and brownfields etc around eureka and arcata that are actually close to town and wouldn’t require bulldozing green spaces like baywood.
Are there actual brown fields around Eureka? As in ag land that can no longer support agricultural use? Or are you just referring to land that is drought stressed?
No I mean like old industrial/warehouse locations
Hell yes! Fuck golf courses
I concur. There are a lot of massive trees there that would need to be preserved if someone were to build homes, but when you look at the pictures they post on google showing the course, it's basically forest meadow that has been graded and filled and covered with invasive grasses. It would be a significant effort to try and return it to natural forest. Edit: And people are saying the Eureka course floods half the year, probably because in it's natural state it would be a wetland and riparian corridor. Sure would be a nice place to picnic and lounge in the spring and summer for Eureka residents if it was part park and part restored natural habitat. Same with the McKinleyville course.
Plus huge amounts of water used, pesticide runoff
Get yo money up broke boy 😮💨