Fred Weis — August 21, 2023 — Planwest 3D Massing Diagrams are missing

    By
    fredredwoods
    -
    0
    212
     

     

    Note:  What is shown below is a copy of the original letter, made for this website.  It is included here only so that the contents of the original letter can be searchable.  (The PDF received from the City is in the form of an image, and so is not a searchable document.)

    What is below is not the letter sent by the letter-writer. It may contain typographical errors and other departures from the original.  The PDF displayed above is accurate.  The text below is not accurate.  It is printed here for indexing purposes, so that each word can be indexed and included in the search.

     

    To: Honorable Mayor Schaefer, Vice-Mayor Matthews, Councilmembers Atkins-Salazar,
    Stillman, and White
    Planning Commissioners. Community Development Staff Loya, Dart, Freitas
    From: Fred Weis
    Subject: Planwest 3D Massing Diagrams are non-existent. No 3D diagrams to evaluate the
    Gateway heights and massing.
    This was part of the $118,000 allocation of funds approved in December, 2022.
    This image is an example of what we would need to properly evaluate the Gateway Area Plan.
    The orange buildings are on infill parcels.
    2
    The “Gateway Area Form-Based Code Enhanced Content & Outreach” contract amendment with
    Planwest was approved at the December 21, 2022 Council meeting — eight months ago. The
    amendment included:
     Enhanced Code Graphics
     Testing Opportunity Sites
     Plan Area Massing Diagram
    The “Plan Area Massing Diagram” would be especially useful at this time, as we are
    discussing massing and building heights.
    This is where a 3D image really is needed.
    Below is an example, from the contract, of what was promised as a deliverable in the contract.
    What have we received, after eight months? Nothing.
    The stated cost was $8,560 (plus contingency and management). Relative to the $118,000 total
    amendment cost, not very much.
    And it would be immensely useful — right now.
    We may hear the opinion that it does not make sense to develop better graphics until we know
    for sure what our standards are — building height, massing, etc.
    But this is kind of a cart-before-the-horse argument. Without better graphics — specifically on
    the area massing diagram — it is impossible to determine what level of building height, massing,
    and open space might be appropriate. Without a diagram of this sort, we’re just guessing at
    what might work.
    Summary:
    Without a building area massing 3D diagram, it is not really possible to
    evaluate building height.
    In this sample diagram:
    White are existing buildings. Yellow are new buildings. Orange is anticipated infill. Green is open
    space and parks.
    It is very easy to see and understand.
    Note how the building heights of new buildings (orange and yellow) match or
    approximate the heights of the existing buildings (white). The taller yellow buildings at
    the rear of the image fit in with other taller buildings. The more squat orange buildings are 2-
    story, 3-story, and sometimes 4-story buildings that fit in with the buildings on the block where
    they are placed.
    The orange buildings are infill — and they fit in.
    3
    Below is an example as shown of Street Section graphics. Two-story and three-story buildings.
    Clear and informative. Note what looks to be a full-size city bus in the left traffic lane — taking
    up the width of the lane.
    There are no bike lanes in this image, only sharrows… so this wouldn’t be suitable for Arcata.
    But the impact of the 3D image immediately transmits the design concepts — wide sidewalks,
    street trees, outside furniture, removing parking at pedestrian crosswalks, and the rest.
    4
    Below, here is what we received for street section graphics. Nothing custom about this at all.
    How tall are the buildings, and how does the street fit into the overall massing of the
    buildings? No clue whatsoever.
    This is from a standard planning software package. The little white cars, as I’ve noted, are the
    size of some of the smallest cars on the road. The size of a Honda Fit — smaller than a Toyota
    Corolla or a Honda Civic, much smaller than a Subaru wagon, and very much smaller than a fullsize pickup truck.
    To see this contract amendment in the Agenda Packet for that meeting:
    https://arcataca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=3244&Inline=True
    5
    Pages 278 to 319.
    As an aside, the 12/21/2022 Staff Report says “This contract amendment and budget
    adjustment were recommended by the Planning Commission.”
    For those Commissioners who were not present at that meeting, and as a reminder
    for those who were there (including current Councilmember Kimberley White — she
    was a Commissioner at that time of the PC meeting) — there was no discussion of
    the specifics of this contract amendment at the Commission meeting, and
    this contract amendment was most certainly not recommended.
    =================================================