June 10, 2022
To the Planning Commissioners and the City Council members:
Let’s move forward.
While it’s all good to be looking at the different pieces of the draft Gateway plan as you’ve been doing, there are larger unanswered questions present.
It is my view that if you can get matters settled, then there’ll be more efficient motion toward accomplishing what we all want: A good plan for the Gateway area.
My concern, as I will state in another article in more depth, is that the Planning Commission is going to do months of work — like six months, or more — and then be presented with the “ultimate report” from Staff, as David Loya has proposed as the process. And that the report will not be comprehensive — that it will not include important items that the Planning Commission discussed. And then the Planning Commission will not be able to recommend this report and that draft.
And then what? More months of work?
And as Planning Commission Vice-Chair Judith Mayer has pointed out numerous times: without seeing the details of the Form-Based Code, what is the Planning Commission really evaluating?
David Loya refers again and again to being at the direction of the City Council — that what he is doing is based on what the City Council and the Planning Commission.
The City Council is not as well-versed in Land Use decisions. The Planning Commission can be. It’s not a secret that we have, unfortunately, a weakened City Council with a lot on their plate outside of Gateway decisions.
Perhaps the City Council could take more direction from the Planning Commission on this.
There is a joint study session of the City Council and Planning Commission set for July 12th, a month from now. That could be the time to discuss — and nail down — some of these important issues. So that we can move forward.
It is my opinion:
1) The Form-Based Code has to be presented to the Planning Commission. At least a draft. You can’t talk about Streetscape, or Design, or Affordable Housing, etc without it. The “conceptual” discussion is great, but you need the details. The PC wouldn’t discuss a new building without a complete set of plans — this is no different.
I’d also like to see the documents of Form-Based Code that Planwest has developed in the past for other locations. If Arcata is the initial Form-Based Code experience for them, we need to know. At the same time, we should see the pages that they have developed to this point for us. Clearly a complete Form-Based Code still awaits more direction from the public and the Planning Commission. But lots and lots and lots of elements of a FBC should already have been set — and we should see them. So that we have an idea of what to expect.
2) The question of Ministerial Review versus Discretionary (Planning Commission) Review needs to be settled. My guess is that there will be a balance. But, again — and strongly — it’s based on the strength and clarity of the Form-Based Code. Redwood City’s blend of ministerial and discretionary review works because their Code is clear. Without a clear Code for Arcata, the Planning Commission cannot give up their role in the review process — in my opinion. Even with a good code, Planning Commission review is a good thing. In Redwood City, projects proceed quickly through the review process because developers know what the city wants.
3) It is not at all clear what Planwest tasks are still on the table to be performed. Their original schedule was overly optimistic when it was made and is currently very much out of date. It needs to be revised. See the article Planwest’s schedule: We’re completely off-course for more on that.
4) The sooner there can be a decision on maximum number of stories, or, as I strongly prefer, building height in feet (including rooftop mechanicals) — the sooner we can figure out what we’re doing. It is my opinion — and I know that I am one voice — that if 7-stories in the Gateway Hub and 8-stories in the current industrial zone along Samoa is what is adhered to, that this draft plan does not have a chance of being approved. From what I hear, that’s just too tall for us.
The goal here is to make a good plan that can be approved. Preferably an excellent plan.
5) The very large questions of how affordable housing and opportunities for home ownership are addressed — via amenities, or perhaps other methods — needs to spelled out and evaluated. Perhaps interviewing local and non-local developers as to the viability of the proposals. In my view, building apartments that are less than 30% affordable and less than 40% or 50% available for purchase and designated owner-occupancy will only ADD to our housing problem.
Suppose 1,000 units were built. That’s a lot — equivalent to TWENTY-THREE four-story “Sorrel-Place” size buildings ( or five-story, with commercial on the ground floor). And that they have 15% or 20% units in the affordable range. That is 150 or 200 units available to the lucky lottery winners. For everyone else, it’s market-rate pricing, based largely on market forces and the costs of construction. See the article Rental vs. Owner-Occupied housing in Arcata: “Do the math”
6) There needs to be a “Plan B” in place and available to the public if the proposed K Street and L Street couplet were not to take place. As we know, the City does not have the rights-of-way necessary to complete the couplet arrangement. What would be done in the meantime ? Does this mean that there would be no bike lanes on K Street, that bicyclists would be encouraged to travel on J or L Streets? Many things are possible, but we need to know.
At the same time, I encourage the City Council require Staff to be honest to the Creamery District people, and all of Arcata, as to what would happen to the pleasant L Street pathway — that runs alongside the Creamery Building — in the event that the couplet is indeed able to be built. Essentially the L Street pathway would be ruined. There are upsides and downsides to establishing the couplet. Personally, I feel the downsides outweigh the upsides.
Synopsis:
Make some decisions and move forward.