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.

Hello Commissioners and et al

I have a few comments, suggestions and related notes for you consideration.

Process items:

– Looking at the 6/13/23 Agenda on packet page 146 it shows the agreed schedule for 6/13/23 and 6/27/23 is to be used for “Bike Rack” or as I call it, unfinished discussions/business. It appears that this “Special” branded meeting format that was advertised/sold as a mechanism to expediate GAP draft and General Plan 2045 process is now including a focused look at the newly released Form Base Code draft as well as a normal business item for the Approval of Design of the proposed 40 E 7th Street remodel. It also appears that you will not have time dedicated for “Bike Rack” items and may even drop the list of unfinished business onto the City Council in your Proposed July finish timeline. Further it appears that the PC’s schedule does not have a specific time/schedule

allotted for complete review and processing of the proposed Form Base Code draft. Finishing “Bike

Rack”/unfinished discussions/business should not be let to fall through the cracks. Also the process for

evaluating, modifying, and gaining public support through engagement of the important Form Base Codes

should have appropriate, considerable and adequate time scheduled. Please consider asking the City Council

for adequate additional time for completing these important tasks.

– Additionally, the 6/13/2023 Agenda packet’s “Attachment E” includes “Other Considerations” and appears to

be outdated and incomplete. It shows a date of 2/1/2023. It is also stated as a “draft” so I hope you can ask staff

(David Loya etc.) to update this draft with all the missing items that should be included. Attachment E appears as a mere small Pamphlet or Leaflet. It is laughable and equivalent to “throwing a pie in the community’s concerned face”, If Attachment E is to be used to show all the “Competing and Comporting” values set forth since Dec. 2021 from City Committees, the Community, as well as the City Council, I would strongly ask you consider broadening, expanding, and including much more. Also, discussion of the Competing and Comporting issues should be set as an agenda item and officially, transparently, and fully explored. This would go a long way in helping to gain Community Support and understanding, as well as help to iron out some of the major issues that folks are so concerned about.

Codes, Land Use Values, and Reality:

– The Gateway Area Plan draft, General Plan 2045, and the newly released GAP’s Form Base Codes draft all

have the inherent problems associated with the Coastal Zone/Element. I recommend the Commission work

with staff and glean out the obvious issues inherent to the unfinished and problematic Coastal Element. Passing

forth Codes, Zoning and Land Use policy without a solid, complete and finished Coastal Element is an issue

and will necessitate additional future review and major policy changes. Three of the Four proposed new Land

Use areas inside the Gateway Area Plan overlap or “straddle” the CA Coastal Zone. Completing policy with this problematic “Straddling” should be avoided, or as said, “Is Not good Planning”. I would advise that separate Land Use Zones and related Codes be created for the proposed GAP District’s areas that fall North of the Coastal Zone. I can suggest as a processual tip to use the existing work you have accomplished so far for the Coastal “free-zone” Northern proposed GAP Land areas and create a Specific or Precise Plan later for the Coastal Zone land areas. My understanding is the Coastal Commission will most likely kick back on this plan as well as the associated language in our incomplete and problematic Coastal Element anyway, so why not get a jump on this now. Also now is an opportune time as the writing and process for the EIR could still evolve and be adapted. An additional EIR should be used for the Coastal Zone Land Use and Zoning anyway, in my opinion. I understand there are plenty of moving parts to all of this process but hope you can consider and acknowledge the associated problems with the GAP zones straddling the Coastal Zone.

L/K Couplet issues:

– Please re-consider your Straw Poll vote that led to a more concrete (literally) vision of the new Arterial Truck Route on L Street. The City does not own the property that is necessary for this Couplet Plan, nor will they be likely to ever gain the property without the use of legal process and battle. Also, there is a tremendous number of Community members as well as City Commission and Committee members that are fully against the Couplet vision. Options for safety changes on K Street could and should be fully explored. The Planning Commission’s current negating stance of retaining L Street as a People Friendly Corridor without Arterial Truck Traffic should be further reviewed. Language and advice that leaves more varied opportunities, options and alternatives on the table are always a good idea, especially in this case when there is overwhelming community support against the Commission’s current Straw Vote values.

Thanks to/for Commissioner Judith Mayer for including all your suggestions in the 6/13/2023 Agenda Packet. One inclusion is for the L Street Linear Park vision and is as follows:

“Recommendations: B. Gateway Hub

These comments relate to Table 2-23 and 2-24, and Figure 2-29, and the accompanying text:

• The Gateway Hub proposed standards still have not taken into account strong public recommendations to consider L Street as part of a linear park, or to retain L Street as a pedestrian and cycle oriented corridor, rather than as part of an L/K Street one-way vehicular couplet. The Planning Commission and City Council SHOULD incorporate design standards appropriate to an L-Street linear park and pedestrian / bicycle corridor alternative.

The Arcata Transportation Safety Committee recommended, again, at their May 16, 2023, meeting as follows: Chair Dave Ryan and other members of the Committee took mere seconds to reinforce what they have clearly stated as their firm position on the couplet concept for L Street: They are against it and feel it has no place in the modern design of Arcata’s streets and traffic patterns. “Make the priority to improve L Street as a people corridor.” And as written over the existing language in the 2045 General Plan draft, “Removal of couplet in favor of a linear park through the L St corridor.”

Thanks again for all your donated time and effort with all the current planning efforts. I hope you are able to glean some positive ideas and values from my correspondence. Feel free to reach out if you have any comments or would like any further discussion

Regards

Chris Richards

Arcata Business Owner and Resident