Following months and months of meetings on the proposed Village housing project, the Arcata City Council voted to reject the project altogether during a special meeting Wednesday morning.

“I’m disappointed,” said Mayor Sofia Pereira, noting it was a nine-month process. “This means we don’t have any proposed housing projects to move forward.”

Council discussion

Councilwoman Susan Ornelas emphasized her desire to be transparent about what type of project she would support and she distributed a one-page document detailing tentative requirements for her approval of a project. They included re-aligning the buildings to increase sunshine in the courtyard, prioritizing an age-diverse neighborhood and dedicating a bus route to mitigate traffic.

David Moon, representing AMCAL, the company charged with building the housing development, said he felt like “the good outweighs the bad.”

“I appreciate the input over the last meetings,” he said before the council’s vote.

Moon said some type of food market would be part of the complex, adding he was in contact with local grocery store chain Murphy’s Market.

One issue discussed at length was who could potentially be tenants — families or single student occupants.

The university has maintained there is little demand for family student housing.

“We do not see a demand for housing students with families,” the university stated in a document in the council packet. “Over the past five years, we have received one request annually in our housing office for family housing.”

“It’s hard for us to take a position against the experience of HSU,” Moon said.

Moon stressed the unique importance of a project like the Village in a city like Arcata, saying there are more out-of-area students at Humboldt State University than at any other campus.

Arcata might have “the worst off-campus housing in this system,” he said.

In closing, Moon equated a vote against the Village as a vote against HSU, students, and students of color which drew scattered laughter from the crowd of approximately two dozen present in the council chambers.

Public response

Steve Martin, an environmental science professor at HSU offered another idea during the public comment period.

“A no vote on this isn’t anti-HSU,” said Martin. “It’s pro good planning.”

Kelsey Reedy, an HSU alumni said she was concerned affordability seemed to not be an issue. Reedy, who identified as homeless, said even with a full-time job she was unable to afford housing at HSU dorms and worried the same situation would be replicated by the Village.

Property manager Julie Vaissade said she was surprised at what the council was letting slide.

“If any other developer submitted a project without an environmental impact report … they’d be refused,” Vaissade said, adding the lack of a traffic report and the potential for a lawsuit with local unions were problematic.

Voting

Councilman Paul Pitino motioned to move forward with the Village project, included incorporating amendments made in previous public comments as well as the intent to vacate a portion of St. Louis Road, where the project was slated to be built. The motion was seconded by Pereira.

Both Pitino and Pereira voted in favor of the project. Ornelas abstained calling it “a form of protest.” Councilman Brett Watson also abstained. Councilman Michael Winkler has recused himself from the issue due to previous dealings with the developer.

Failing to garner the three affirmative votes required to pass a resolution, the motion failed.

The university expressed disappointment with the council’s decision.

“Looking ahead, we’ll need to be creative and pursue a variety of other options,” said Frank Whitlatch, the associate vice president of marketing and communications at HSU. “Our priority is our students, and they face a serious challenge finding suitable housing. This is impacting their educational experience and having a negative effect on our overall enrollment.”

Moon also expressed disappointment at the outcome of the vote, stating it was going to hurt students, HSU and the economy.

“This project is significantly different from the original proposal,” said Moon. “We were optimistic the revised project would be approved.” Moon said AMCAL had worked on this project for three years, and could not comment as to whether another proposal would be made in Arcata or elsewhere.

Pitino said while he is open to other projects, but noted “expecting someone else to pick up where AMCAL left off is a stretch.”

Decision questioned

The League of California Cities found a precedent for a similar situation with a different outcome.

“Suppose you have a five-member council and four members attend the meeting with one councilmember absent,” the league stated in a 2016 legal opinion. “If two members abstain for some reason other than conflict of interest, the motion passes.”

Crescent City-based attorney Bob Black, who is contracted as the city attorney in Eureka, Crescent City, said legal matters typically go to the city attorney.

“Normally, the city attorney is the person to make the ruling on this,” Black said.

Arcata’s city attorney was not available for comment Wednesday.

Black also said there is always the possibility for someone with a differing opinion to take the outcome of the vote to court.

Both David Loya and Pereira reaffirmed that the motion failed because it lacked three affirmative votes. Loya said the possibility of two abstentions was discussed in advance.

“We’ve had this discussion before” said Loya.

Loya added there would be further discussion with Diamond.

Philip Santos can be reached at 707-441-0520.