Click or press here to go directly to Nick Lucchesi’s letters.

A look at a letter from 2 years ago

“My guess is that, should you have asked, not one person would have come up with the idea of 5-8 story residential buildings, limited car parking, traffic pattern changes, that are represented here.

 

You have not asked us what we want. 

 

What this approach represents is a top down vision for the future of Arcata, with a belated attempt at getting buy-in from the public.”

With the departure of Planning Commissioner Christian Figueroa on May 9, 2023, and Commissioner Dr. Judith Mayer on March 31, 2024, only two members of the seven Planning Commissioners have been involved in the Gateway discussion from the beginning. The initial draft of the Gateway Area Plan came in December 2021. 

There are now five members of the Commission — more than a majority — who have not been here for the complete discussion of the Gateway project.

The newer Commissioners may not be aware of some of the earlier public comments about the Gateway Area Plan. And we can all use a reminder of some of this early public input.

A history of the early letters

In the packet for the April 4, 2022, Planning Commission meeting, the Community Development Staff released an assortment of 42 letters to public view. (152 pages in the packet.) Some of these letters were three, four, or five months old, and had been withheld from public view for all that time.

These 42 letters were not all the letters that had been written regarding the Gateway Plan — just the letters that were perceived by staff as being intended as input to the public, as opposed to a letter only to staff. How this criteria was applied is another unknown mystery. Some of the letters (such as from Nick Lucchesi of Pacific Builders) are addressed to David Loya and were included, while others (Pam Mendolsohn) were addressed to the Community Development Department and were not included. And other letters were simply missing.

To top it all, the notion that this was all of the “Public Comment Received to Date” as these letters were described in the packet is patently false.

On January 21st and 22nd, 2022, the City of Arcata hosted an Open House event at the Community Center in Arcata. The event was specifically designed to educate the public about the Gateway plan (the draft plan document had just come out about 6 weeks earlier) and, even more importantly, to obtain public comment.

None of that — not a single item — was included in the “Public Comment Received to Date.”

The input from those two days of Open House comment was eventually compiled by a local citizen and made available to the public. 

Of those 42 letters, many were outstanding. Many stood out for their clarity and insight. 

I’ve selected a handful of letters (including a letter to the editor) that seem particularly worth reading again.

• Andrea Tuttle — From February 13, 2022. Viewed 693 times as of May 22, 2023.  First shown to the public in the April 12, 2022 packet. Included on Arcata1.com on May 1, 2022. Published as an editorial in the Mad River Union on May 5, 2022.

  • “However, my strong opposition to the Draft GAP stems from the assumptions that underlie the promotional tone of the document. The document starts from an assumption that we want to radically convert the current community character to something entirely different.”
    “It designates a high density, urban “sacrifice area” in the area between Samoa and Alliance, in order to house an arbitrarily defined number of people unrelated to carrying capacity and limiting factors.“

• Nick Lucchesi –- Written January 15, 2022.  Viewed over 900 times as of March 2024.  

  • “Should you have asked, not one person would have come up with the idea of 5-8 story residential buildings, limited car parking, traffic pattern changes, that are represented here. You have not asked us what we want. What this approach represents is a top down vision for the future of Arcata, with a belated attempt at getting buy-in from the public.”

• Steve Railsback – Times Standard opinion. From December 8, 2021. Viewed over 900 times as of March 2024. 
  • “Raising questions about the plan does not mean being against sustainable development or affordable housing.” “Do we want to grow this quickly?
    The first and foremost question is whether we really want Arcata’s population to increase by roughly 25% in the next few years. Growth may be inevitable, but growth of this magnitude and speed is not.”
    
    
• Steve Salzman – March 30, 2022. Viewed over 450 times.

  • “What happened to the public input element of Planwest’s Scope of Work?” “Why are you working on an Area Plan before updating the General Plan and completing the Local Coastal Plan process?” “Sea Level Rise: “Concentrating residential housing in this area along the fringe of the bay seems short-sighted.”

• Pam Mendolsohn — February 2, 2022.
  • “I am very opposed to eight story buildings which would change the whole nature of our City. In Emeryville, there is a four-story building directly across from mine. It’s  terrific. It even includes a rooftop where people can congregate, garden, barbecue, etc. Between the building where I live and the 4-story one, there is a terrific park  created with city funds. Everyone uses the park!”

.

Nick Lucchesi

This letter was written January 15, 2022. It is an excellent summation of some major issues of the December 2021 Draft Gateway Area Plan.

 It was submitted to the Planning Commissioners as part of the packet for the April 12, 2022 meeting — three months after it was written and received by the City of Arcata. 

Nick Lucchesi with his brother Tony are the founders and owners of Pacific Builders, one of the preeminent large contractors here on the Northcoast.

Excerpts:

“My guess is that, should you have asked, not one person would have come up with the idea of 5-8 story residential buildings, limited car parking, traffic pattern changes, that are represented here. You have not asked us what we want. What this approach represents is a top down vision for the future of Arcata, with a belated attempt at getting buy-in from the public.”

“Is any feedback obtained at the open house going to be carried back for integration into the plan?”

“Although there may be a version of the plan that may make sense, we are not there yet.”

“Why is it a given that Arcata needs to grow this much at all?”

“I am in favor of encouraging people to use cars less, but “encouraging” in this sense means providing not enough parking, so that people are essentially blocked from owning a car. Again, top down social engineering. You may encourage away, but you need to stop using that word when you mean denying people a choice.”

“My wife and I … are considering buying a home in town at some point…. But is there going to be a home in the plan for me? At least an 1,800 square foot condominium, and even better, a place with a yard I could call my own. And at least one parking space. I say this because I have never been unique in my life; I bet I am not unique in this matter either. Housing needs to work across the economic spectrum.”

“Where did this plan come from? Did it come from the planning department only, or
have property owners or developers driven this in some way? I would like to know
about significant communications with the public regarding the plan prior to its
publication.”

“Grandfathered uses. I understand that people’s fears about not being able to sell their buildings when they retire may be unfounded, but only somewhat so. …. And what about an addition or remodeling? What if Tony and I needed to add office space? Would we be allowed to, as an existing nonconforming user?”

“You may be able to get the votes of the council, as they represent a pretty narrow range of the political spectrum. But ultimately you will need the buy in of a larger group of community members for the development plan to work the way you envision it. They will “vote with their feet” or their pocketbooks, and just live elsewhere.”

“This is not a conclusion I come to with any satisfaction; this is my town. It’s time to turn this around and find out what the people in this neighborhood and the rest of the town think about its future. Explain the problem you are trying to solve, and invite suggestions as to how to solve it in an equitable manner.“

.

The full text of the January 2022 letter:

From:      Nick Lucchesi
To:          David Loya
Cc:          Anthony Lucchesi
Subject:  Gateway
Date:      Saturday, January 15, 2022 10:25:15 AM

David,

I may have some disagreeable things to say here, about the Gateway Project and its inception, so I wanted to start out by saying that I personally think that you are the best planning department person that I have had the chance to work with, someone that I feel like I can ring up if I have a question or a problem with anything I am doing in the City. I think that the vision that is represented by the Gateway planning documents are a sincere view of where you and your department think the City needs to go to move into the future we see coming.

My apologies if my limited exposure to the details of the project cause me to make errors in my arguments. I plan to go to the open house next weekend, and I hope to have a better understanding.

I did watch the interview on KEET last night with Leto [ed: Delo] Freitas.

I found for the weeks since I became aware of the plan that I have a level of discomfort with it that I could not precisely identify, at least until I watched the interview. At least from my perspective, this has been a top down experience for me. No one asked me, or anyone else in this neighborhood, or perhaps any neighborhood, what their vision for the future of Arcata was. Instead of trying to find out what the public’s wishes were for the future of the town, you are trying to sell them what’s already on the shelf in your store.

My guess is that, should you have asked, not one person would have come up with the idea of 5-8 story residential buildings, limited car parking, traffic pattern changes, that are represented here.

You have not asked us what we want. What this approach represents is a top down vision for the future of Arcata, with a belated attempt at getting buy-in from the public. Is any feedback obtained at the open house going to be carried back for integration into the plan?

Although there may be a version of the plan that may make sense, we are not there yet. Let me ask you a few questions:

1. 1.  Why is it a given that Arcata needs to grow this much at all? It seems to me that that is a citizen and a political decision. HSU’s expansion is an interesting and possibly
      beneficial aspect of all this, but their expansion is their problem. I assume they took the existing community into account when they made their decision.
   2. Why is this issue being loaded onto the west side of town? I would maintain that
      1/12 block and larger parcels with single homes on them represent as valuable a  target for demolition and reconstruction into a more dense incarnation as the west side. I think I can answer that for you: no city council could face the blowback from the middle and upper-middle class citizens, and maybe their attorneys, standing in line to share their thoughts, shall we say, at a council meeting. I couldn’t help but think of, several years ago, George Williamson being chewed up and spit out by the citizens of east Arcata when he tried to change the old church on Union St into offices for his own use and apartments. Existing residential Arcata is to remain as a museum piece, for the better off and the lucky, who have no intention of living in a 1,500 sq. Ft condo ever. Or not having a car. Or a yard.
   3. Cars. I am in favor of encouraging people to use cars less, but “encouraging” in this sense means providing not enough parking, so that people are essentially blocked from owning a car. Again, top down social engineering. You may encourage away, but you need to stop using that word when you mean denying people a choice.
   4. Housing choice. My wife and I live on a large piece of property in the country, ten
      minutes from the plaza, outside the city limits. We know that our time here on this
      property is limited; it takes a lot of care, and we are considering buying a home in town at some point, after the Himalaya vines start creeping over the eaves and I can’t hack them back anymore. But is there going to be a home in the plan for me? At least an 1,800 square foot condominium, and even better, a place with a yard I could call my own. And at least one parking space. I say this because I have never been unique in my life; I bet I am not unique in this matter either. Housing needs to work across the economic spectrum.
   5. Leto [edited: Delo] mentioned that Arcata has a constricted development situation due to available land. Ok; that has as much to do with policy as acreage. Valley West is an underutilized wasteland; farmland that hasn’t made a dime in decades is sanctified.
   6. Where did this plan come from? Did it come from the planning department only, or have property owners or developers driven this in some way? I would like to know about significant communications with the public regarding the plan prior to its publication.
   7. Grandfathered uses. I understand that people’s fears about not being able to sell their buildings when they retire may be unfounded, but only somewhat so. If the guys at the auto repair shop down the street retire and sell, they would have to sell only to individuals that intend to maintain it as a garage, right? You couldn’t buy it and divide it up into other uses, etc.? Am I wrong about this? If I am not, the spectrum of buyers has been dramatically reduced, which is going to affect the price, and therefore represents a taking of sorts. And what about an addition or remodeling? What if Tony and I needed to add office space? Would we be allowed to, as an existing nonconforming user?
      
      

You may be able to get the votes of the council, as they represent a pretty  narrow range of the political spectrum. But ultimately you will need the buy in of a larger group of community members for the development plan to work the way you envision it. They will “vote with their feet” or their pocketbooks, and just live elsewhere. This is not a
conclusion I come to with any satisfaction; this is my town. It’s time to turn this around
and find out what the people in this neighborhood and the rest of the town think about
its future. Explain the problem you are trying to solve, and invite suggestions as to how
to solve it in an equitable manner. It’s possible that what you hear may be similar to the plan you have; I am not against denser housing, it’s certainly a place we are headed, but this implementation needs work.

Sincerely,

 Nick

.

Nick Lucchesi
August 22, 2023
(Highlighting has been added)