Estimated reading time: 5 minutes
To print or download the Decision-Making Style matrix, click here.
The Gateway Area Plan is not just about just creating housing. The Plan needs to be about Community.
The Gateway Plan is about PEOPLE-ORIENTED NEEDS. The promises of the Gateway Plan are unlikely to occur unless we actually take some action.
More explicitly: Any plan can create housing. But it takes a good (or excellent), well-fashioned plan that can create livable buildings with homes that people can afford, and where individuals, couples, families, groups, and every citizen can find stability and happiness. That is the goal of planning.
If we want to create a community, it can be done by looking at the solutions from a perspective of building community.
The following is a letter sent to Arcata Mayor Sarah Schaefer, Vice-Mayor Meredith Matthews, and Councilmember Kimberley White. (Stacy Atkins-Salazar and Alex Stillman are not able to discuss or vote on Gateway matters, as they are required to recuse themselves.)
The Community Development Director’s decision-making style
While not specified in the letter, it is clear that Community Development Director David Loya’s decision-making style tends to be on the Directive corner of the matrix. Here are some descriptions, in the wording from this matrix:
-
- Driven by results
- Relies primarily on rules and processes
- Aggressive nature
- Typically reacts quickly and doesn’t like to dwell on decisions
- Informs people once a decision is made
[Even if it wasn’t his decision to make]
He is more task-oriented, more technical. And, from this matrix, it could be said that his motivation is a desire to be right, and a desire to get results.
Our Councilmembers Kimberley White and Meredith Matthews, are more on the other side of the matrix. Their motivations are more along the lines of to create harmony and in raising the social aspects of the decisions. They are more people-oriented, more social.
They think bigger, holistically, and see how the decisions affect everyone.
-
- Humanitarian / Conscious of how decisions will affect others
- Enjoys coming up with new ideas
- Empathetic nature
- Gets buy-in from others before making a decision
When one style of decision-making dominates the others
The Gateway Area Plan process has been pretty much dominated by a let’s-get-this-done approach. And much of the “big picture” concepts have been discarded.
It’s time to look at what the plan is intended to accomplish. We’re not here to just check off the boxes and say that we did what was needed.
If we want to create a community, it can be done by looking at the solutions from a perspective of building community.
I wrote this this the day prior to the first Gateway-specific City Council / Planning Commission joint study session, taking place on Tuesday, August 22, 2023. I have great hopes that the three-person City Council will add some understanding, humanity, creative-outlook, and community overview to what has been an engineering-oriented, bureaucratic experience.
We all want a wonderful Arcata, and “checking off the boxes” just isn’t going to get us there.
Saturday, August 21, 2023
Dear Meredith, Sarah, and Kimberley —
Hello. Below and attached is a graphic showing different styles of decision-making. I thought you might enjoy this.
Among the many reasons that I (and many people) have been looking forward to your involvement with the Gateway process is that it will bring a fresh perspective to how major factors in the Plan are viewed.
In this matrix, there are four styles of decision making: Analytical, Directive, Conceptual, and Behavioral. It’s not that one style is “better” than another — each style has its benefits and is appropriate at different times.
But the Gateway Process has been dominated to this time by technical, task-oriented decisions. There’s a real need (in my view) for more conceptual, people-oriented engagement. And that’s where I see the three of you as creating major contributions here.
[To print or download the Decision-Making Style matrix,
click here.]
During this process of reviewing the draft Gateway Area Plan, the Planning Commission has concerned itself largely with details and specifications. At times, particularly when Julie Vaissaide-Elcock was Chair, they actively pursued noble and far-thinking concepts — Home ownership, worker-affordable housing, community and social needs, and more. And over time, in the interests of efficiency, discussions of those honorable convictions slipped away. A great deal has been lost in the process.
The three of you are more conceptual, more people-oriented, more able to view an overall picture of how the Gateway Plan fits in with the overall vision of Arcata. As good and needed as Sorrel Place is, I don’t see Arcata as prospering with 10 or 20 [or even one or two!] of similar block-long, monolithic buildings. We can do better than that.
The Plan is not just about just creating housing. From who each of you is, you know this already: The Plan needs to be about Community. As it is structured, there are no parks or gathering places other than those that might be supplied by privately-owned development — which, because of the State density bonus laws versus Arcata community benefits program conflict, may not ever happen. There are no playgrounds or public meeting places. As the plan now sits, we could see rows of apartments. To repeat: We can do better.
And you can do this. You can create this community.
Thank you.
— Fred Weis
P.S. — My pitch for the full-width linear park, abandonment of the K-L couplet concept, and creation of a socially engaging, economically prospering “woonerf” on four blocks of L Street:
It will accomplish parks, meeting space, children’s play spots, and community — all at once.
This is what I said to the City Council on February 1, 2023, of this year.
Good evening. I ask you to see the editorial in last week’s Mad River Union. It’s also in the editorial section of Arcata1.com. About building heights in the Gateway Plan. There are three different local experts for three different reasons who believe that anything over four stories is not likely to happen, not economically viable. If you haven’t viewed Danco president Chris Dart’s OLLI presentation, please do. There’s a full transcript of the presentation on Arcata1.com.
In terms of the Gateway plan, what are our goals? I see it as:
- Housing that regular working people can afford.
- Home-ownership.
- Currently, there’s no schools, playgrounds or parks other than the park that’s slated for where Wing Inflatables is — and whenever they move away — which is also one more reason for the L Street Linear Park.
All these are PEOPLE-ORIENTED NEEDS that are part of the promises of the Gateway Plan, but not likely to occur unless we actually take some action.
But what bothers me most is much of what we’re seeing is ordinary. It lacks humanity. It lacks innovation.
Seven months ago, I spoke to the Planning Commission about the prospect of actually requiring home-ownership opportunities in the Gateway Plan. There’s no law that would require it. What I said was: Let’s do something bold. Let’s not do something normal, or we’re just going to have more of the same. Even if it means creating new law. I think the state of California is ready. I’ll give you a handout later that has more of the quote.
Also on Arcata1.com: There’s a really innovative building in Berkeley. It’s the size of Sorrel Place but has twice as many units, twice as many people. The entire roof is a farm — not just a garden, but an actual farm. It won an AIA award. That’s what we want for Arcata. We want the L Street Linear Park as an example of innovative design. I say let’s make some decisions and move forward.
Thank you.
