Tap / click here for more than two dozen articles about the Gateway Code. 

The April 23, 2024, meeting of the Arcata Planning Commission had a “final” review of the Gateway Area Code — the document that defines the “look and feel” of all construction, parks, pathways, bike parking, greenways, and more that are part of the Gateway Area Plan.

I have submitted over 70 pages of comments and suggestions for improving the Gateway Area Code. They can be viewed here on Arcata1.com, and a guide to this lengthy document can be viewed here.

In the three minutes that are allowed for public comment — on a document that is going to change the look of Arcata forever — I spoke on how the Gateway Area Code document needs considerable work before it can be considered complete.

During the meeting, the Planning Commission did discuss and correct some of these issues. And that is very good. But many more were left undiscussed and untouched.

That major and minor issues, typographical errors, incorrect images, and much form-based code sloppiness should exist in this Code at this point — in the 3rd version — reflects very poorly on the level of quality. The Gateway Code is, in my view, an incomplete and carelessly constructed form-based code.

When I said “Typos are the smallest issue” it was in reference to the initial staff report from the Community Development Director, David Loya, who said:

“There are some clear cleanup items that we need to do in the Code, you know, little typos and that sort of thing. And one commenter in particular spent a good bit of time and paid real close attention to those and so we have a long list of those in their comment letter to us. But I did want to just address a few changes that I think are and these are just minor minor minor changes that I think are probably going to be a good change for you know, prior to adoption.”

Both Director Loya and, after the public comment period, Commission Chair Scott Davies made comments that, in essence, trivialized the repair work that is needed on this Gateway Code. The typos are the most minor part of what is wrong. The over 70 issues listed in my Comments and Suggestions are the significant omissions and corrections that are needed.

Video – Fred Weis speaks on the Gateway Code review

3 minutes 13 seconds

Transcription

Starting at 1:04:28 in the City video

Good evening, I am Fred Weis with Arcata1.com. You have received my written comments. I stand behind them. I encourage you to look at them on my website rather than the PDF because it’d be more updated there. There’s over 70 pages of comments. The typos are the smallest issue.

When I looked at the Gateway Code, I had no intention of writing 70 or 80 pages of comments. But the more I looked, the more I saw, the worse it got. I concentrated on things that hadn’t been discussed that I thought were worthy of being discussed.

Last night I realized that there are things that you *have* discussed that are not in the Code. Today, I wrote an article that I encourage you to read about the street-facing garages, which I think you probably remember. You talked about this. In my article, I have the videos, and I have the transcript of what you actually said. This has not changed from the first draft, or the second draft or the third draft, it says the same thing.

How many instances are there like this? I think dozens. And that’ll be my next task.

You can do what you want. Obviously, I’m not here to tell you what to do. But I assure you that if you recommend this current Code, you’re not recommending what the Commission wants.

You know that there’s no mention of the L Street corridor linear park, there’s no protection from tall buildings for the linear park. I don’t think that’s what the Commission wants. That’s up to you.

I also think that if it is recommended in its current form, the three-person City Council is not going to be able to approve it. And that’s a concern for me, because I want to see this thing done. I can answer any questions. I’ve become much more knowledgeable about the Gateway Code in the last two weeks I ever thought I’d be.

The only difference between the second draft and the third draft is the addition of those 3D images and two lines of text that refers to the images. There happens to be in those two lines a typo. The whole document seems sloppy.

One of the purposes of Form-Based Code is to use the illustrations to show what the intent of the of the Code is. Many of the illustrations are wrong. They show distances that are wrong. They’re holdovers from the first draft or things have changed.

I respectfully disagree with the Community Development Director on many of the things he said. It should just be a better Code. There’s going to be problems. The typos are not the issue. There are larger issues. As you know, I made a guide, because the original [menu] was too big. I hope you’ve seen it. There are about 15 items that I think are the major issues. We can go from there. Thank you.

Tap / click here for more than two dozen articles about the Gateway Code.