• There are no currently no specifics on Inclusionary Zoning. 
• The Council has agreed on the actual numbers, so adding Inclusionary Zoning should be easy. 
• The Community Development Director wants the specifics of Inclusionary Zoning to be in the Land Use Code. This is okay.
• What would work is a clearly-written Implementation Measure for adding Inclusionary Zoning to the Land Use Code.
• Possible wording for this Implementation Measure is below.
• The intention must be clear.
• The Director may say that an Implementation Measure is not needed. In my view, it is absolutely needed.  Without it, you have nothing. The Implementation Measure should be declared as immediate.

• This has been discussed many times. The current Gateway Code gives no protection to the L Street linear park and woonerf area.
• The “woonerf” section of the L Street corridor linear park needs to be defined, with aims and goals.
  (Note: The way we’ve been using “woonerf” here in Arcata is not strictly speaking what a woonerf is. We can discuss this at another time. I believe many of us are in agreement about what we are looking for Arcata for this.)
•  The article on Arcata1.com that speaks to this is:
  A successful woonerf and linear park in the L Street corridor needs Gateway Code policies
  arcata1.com/a-successful-woonerf-and-linear-park-in-the-l-street-corridor-needs-gateway-code-policies/
  Note: That article calls for commercial storefronts along the woonerf section. That may not be feasible, and I will modify that suggestion.
• A simple change will go a long way. In my view, more is required — but what’s outlined below would be a big improvement.
• A system for partial protection of the linear park already exists in the Gateway Code but is not now applied to the linear park. 
• It is written for “Privately Owned Publicly Accessible Open Space” but could apply to the woonerf section of the L Street corridor.
• Please see:  “Figure 2-61: Privately Owned Publicly Accessible Open Space” in the Gateway Code. See page 60 in the current “May 14, 2024 v2 Resolution No. PC-24-05” version. 
  www.cityofarcata.org/DocumentCenter/View/14200/Gateway-FBC20240514_PC-Adopted or
  arcata1.com/general-plan-gateway-area-plan-gateway-code-latest-versions/#gateway-code
  
  Paragraph 8 starts with “In order to activate and enliven open space areas, the following shall be required on sites with ground-floor non-residential uses.”
• This change would still not project the L Street corridor linear park and woonerf from solar shading caused by adjacent taller buildings. More work will be needed. But it would be a start.
• Consider having creation of the Linear Park and Woonerf area as an Implementation Measure in order to be certain that the needed protections take place.
• Solar shading of the linear park is not a theoretical matter. In my view, this is not a question of a “trade-off” or an accommodation for providing housing. If the L Street linear park is in shadow for all but a few hours of the day — Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter — thenin my view we will have failed to create and preserve a vital, vibrant, wonderful area of Arcata.

• This is a large issue, and can be put off until the June 5 meeting or longer if needed.
• As the change to the Gateway Code states, the Zoning Administrator (David Loya) would be the single person approving 4-story buildings. 
• For almost a year, it was set that 4-story buildings would go to the Planning Commission.
• Despite the Planning Commission Chair stating that this would not be changed, it was changed.
• The change was made by the Community Development Director, without any discussion with the Planning Commission.
• The change was likely made to clear up a poorly-written section of the Gateway Code.
• The change is not shown as a “tracked change” in the Gateway Code document.
• To make such a substantial change without having this be clear to the PC and the Council is a very bad process.
• In my view:  For at least five projects or five years — or longer — all Gateway projects should come before the Planning Commission. There is very little downside to this, and much strength for improvements to the projects. See below for more on this. It is likely the Community Development Director will disagree — but for different reasons than what I am talking about.

• By having this as an Implementation Measure, it is almost guaranteed that this will be accepted as General Plan policy.
• In my viewthis should be the other way around. I suggest removing this from the General Plan as an Implementation Measure. The General Plan can be amended to include this re-zoning later if a future Council so wants.
• As it is, it would be very easy for a Planning Commission two years from now enact this Implementation Measure. To include this as an Implementation Measure would show the Council’s support of it.
• This measure would allow four and possibly five-story (with State density bonus for low-income student housing) buildings in a Neighborhood Conservation area.
• The clause “Rezone in Neighborhood Conservation Areas should recognize key design characteristics of these
  neighborhoods.” has already proven to be easily over-ridden and of very little value.
• Even more important and more likely in my view is the addition of “Local” or “Neighborhood-serving commercial uses” includes convenience stores, hair salons, coffee shops, small retail stores, sandwich shops and restaurants, and so forth.
  These would be approved, likely, by the Zoning Administrator. If an existing single-family rental home were to be converted to a coffee shop/sandwich shop (open 12 or more hours a day) or to office use, the neighbors would not even have to be informed, as the change would be permitted.
• For a fictitious representation of what four-story buildings might look like in the Bayview neighborhood, see:
  Four-Story Buildings do not belong in the Bayview, Sunset, and Upper I & J Street Neighborhoods
  arcata1.com/no-4-story-buildings-in-bayview-sunset-i-j-streets/
  
  
  

• This policy calls for “an appropriate balance between single‐family housing on individual lots and multi‐unit housing types.” 
• This is a carry-over from the General Plan 2020. 
• In my view, this policy is obsolete and invites liability.
• In my view this cannot possibly be accomplished as described.
• In my view this is essentially an invitation to a future lawsuit from the Realtor or builders associations. 
• Please consult with the Community Development Director on any potential downside to just removing it entirely.

• This is a very minor issue — and quick and simple to fix. 
• This changewill greatly help public perception.
• The current policy looks as though it protects the L Street trail. But as it is worded, it does not.
• The “no net loss of trails” part of the policy is very good. The Council has already voiced your support of that. But when wording on the L Street trail was inserted into the policy, it was not written so as to absolutely prevent that trail from being moved.
• In my view, it is very unlikely that the L Street path will be moved. So why not put this into writing?
• In the interest of reducing the anxiety of people who are currently upset, Policy CM-5e can be easily modified. Adding or changing ten words or so will take the Council three minutes to accomplish. If you choose to do this before oral communications, it will save time, I would think — and change complaints into gratitude.
• Suggested alternatives for changes to the wording of this policy are below.
  

3. No requirement for Indoor bike storage / secured bike parking — quick and easy to correct    
Increase the requirement for short-term bike parking (currently inadequate)   (GAP)

• The Gateway Code does not require indoor bicycle storage for tenants or employees.
  
• The Community Development Director told the Planning Commission that indoor storage was required, multiple times. This was not true.
• In the current Code, all that’s required is that there be a security camera. It is not even required that there be a fence.
• How this got past the bicycle-advocate community here in Arcata is a mystery to me.
• To see pictures of what indeed is possible according to the Gateway Code, see What does the Gateway Code say about Tenant and Employee bicycle parking?  arcata1.com/gateway-code-tenant-employee-bicycle-parking/
• Short-term bike parking (restaurants, stores, friends visiting, office visits, etc) is inadequate. 
• A 2,000 sq.ft. restaurant that could hold 80-100 diners would be required to have only 4 bike parking spaces. For the staff of that restaurant, it would require only 1 space.  In my view this sends the wrong message about what we are promoting in Arcata on bicycle use.
  

• Very simple to correct.
• The LU-2b policy had said:
       “Tenement housing shall be allowed in zoning districts where applicable.”
  The City Council wanted this line removed. Instead, this was incorrectly changed to:
       “Co-housing shall be allowed in zoning districts where applicable.”
  
• We all agree that “tenement” is a terrible choice of words. There is a definition of “tenement housing” that fits what the policy refers to, but it’s a non-typical use.
• “Co-housing” is not what this is. That is an error.
• What this policy is referring to is:  Housing that has a shared bathroom and, optionally, shared kitchen arrangements. Some SRO housing is in this category, but not (I think) all SRO housing.
• In my viewthe concept for this style of housing is sound. As a personal aside, I lived in a “no kitchen at all, bathroom down the hall” long-term hotel housing as a community college student in my 20s for 1-1/2 years, and it worked great for me. I’m very fond of this style of housing as an economical alternative.
• It can be put in the General Plan as just what it is:
  “Housing that has a shared bathroom and, optionally, shared kitchen arrangementsshall be allowed in zoning districts where applicable.”
• The Community Development Director may say that this is already allowed, and does not have to be concretely stated.  In my viewthere is a definite advantage to stating this explicitly.

• There were (I think) 86 or 87 policies that were developed for the Gateway Area Plan that were transferred to the General Plan.
• Some require further re-wording, as they still are worded as specific to the Gateway area.
• Examples include D-8n and D-9o (General Plan page 5-17, PDF page 212)
• As the Council knows and has discussed, there are four Opportunity Zones, of which the Gateway area is one. In time, each will have their own individual form-based code and (likely) community benefits program.  Policy LU-1y states this clearly.
• Therefore, any reference to “the form-based code” or “the community benefit program” as a singular (not plural) code or program needs to be corrected. Examples are:  LU-3f, LU-1t, 5.2 Policies. Gray areas (could be improved) include LU-1aa, D-8, D-8a, and the Contents. Correct usage is LU-1y.
  This is non-negotiable. In my view it is a matter of simple English. The Community Development Director has disagreed.  
  
• IMPORTANT:  As long as there are Gateway-specific policies that were transfered to the General Plan and not re-worded with general City-wide wording, the City is vulnerable to a negation of the approval vote, on the basis of disregarding the FPPC recusal rulings. The word “Gateway” and Gateway-appropriate policies can be in the General Plan, of course. But a policy cannot, in my view, be worded as it had been — as though it were in the Gateway Area Plan. Such as General Plan policy D-8n: “Through the Gateway Area community benefit program, allow increased development intensity and simplified development processes for projects that provide….” In my viewthat is worded as a policy for the Gateway area only.

“This policy specifically does not allow sections of Class I trail in the L Street Corridor to be relocated or removed from that L Street Corridor, unless it is to be replaced with separated bicycle and pedestrian pathways within that same corridor.”

Or simpler:

“The L Street corridor trail will not be relocated or removed out of the L Street corridor.”

Or even simpler:

“The L Street corridor trail will not be relocated.”

But there is some ambiguity here, in that “relocated” could mean just moving it a foot or two. So the 2nd wording is probably better.

Since the City (and David Loya) seem to be absolutely positive that the L Street Linear Park pathway will not be removed or relocated, it would make sense to add one sentence to the Policy so that any future reader knows exactly what is allowed and what is not allowed. It could be argued that the section of the Great Redwood Trail system that will be running through the L Street corridor will not be removed or relocated.