Councilmembers and Commissioners:

 

You should be aware that 3D Modeling and Visualizations have been removed from the draft Gateway Area Plan. There was a placeholder page titled “Visualizations” (Page 42) and now that page is gone.

 

On Tuesday, you are being asked — once again — to discuss building heights. And you do not have the basic tools that any planner would need in order to accomplish this.

 

You — the Planning Commissioners and the City Councilmembers — have spoken about the need for 3D modeling multiple times. I have spoken and written many times about the absolute requirement for 3D modeling. The Community Development Director has promised versions of 3D modeling on at least ten occasions. 

 

The page (and proposed pages) on which the 3D modeling was to have been displayed has now been removed from the draft Gateway Area Plan.

 

There are two versions of the 7/11/23 draft Gateway Area Plan in circulation. The newer version has “Draft V12a.2” on the cover, as well as a small disclaimer statement in a white box. The document date is 8/7/2023. The first version, with a document date of 8/4/2023, has “Revised Draft” on the cover, and no white box.

 

The page for “Visualizations” has been removed. This page had appeared in all three versions of the draft Gateway Area Plan — in the initial December 2021 draft, in the October 2022 second draft, and in the initial version of the third draft, dated July 11, 2023. It had been on Page 42 of the initial version of the 7/11/23 third draft.

 

Of the $34,596 of the budget for 3D modeling, all but $188 has been spent. And we have seen hardly any results. We know that the capability exists, because we have seen a small quantity of very worthwhile images.  (See below for some examples.)

 

It is not just an untrained person who needs a 3D image to visualize a building or a streetscape. All architects and city planners utilize 3D images to evaluate building scale and massing. The McKinleyville Town Center plan has more 3D imagery than we have. It is a now-common tool — and we do not have it.

 

The Council and Commission are called on to determine building and massing standards and building height figures. What would three or five — or eight — individual five-story buildings look like along K Street? What would be the solar shading? Would the road be like a canyon? Without 3D modeling and images, this cannot be visualized. We’re in the dark here.

 

Director Loya has explained that we cannot have a 3D image showing build-out of the entire Gateway area, because of budget issues. We understand that. He’s explained that the consultant’s early attempts at 3D modeling were inadequate. I don’t buy it. 

 

At a future time I will explain that Planwest either has done very, very little of the contracted work that Arcata has paid them for — or else they have done the work and we just haven’t seen it. It is a huge missing component to the Gateway planning process.

• No planner in their right mind would try to do what you’ve been asked to do — without 3D modeling. I have not seen a single area plan or town plan that did not have some overall 3D modeling.
• Your task is already difficult. Without some images of what a collection of 6-story or 7-story buildings might look like, your job is impossible.
• I would like to be more helpful here. In my view, you do not have the information and tools that are needed to make a good decision. It is as simple as that.

 

Thank you for your work. To reiterate: Your job would be five times easier if you had better resources and information.

 

— Fred Weis

 

 

Further information:
The Look & Feel and Planning in the Gateway Area and for Arcata in general – with 3D images

 

 

 

Below is what had been in the 7/11/2023 draft. Similar to the first and second draft.

And then the page said “PLACEHOLDER” and the page is empty. In all three drafts, the page titled “Visualizations” had been blank. Now the whole page is gone entirely.