Submitted to the Parks and Recreation Committee for their July 13th, 2022 meeting.
Agenda item:  “Consider the Gateway Area Plan and provide a recommendation to Council”

To:    Parks and Recreation Committee
Chairperson Sheldon Heath, Vice-Chair Jayne McGuire, Deborah Coles, John Kerr, Bonnie MacEvoy, Steven Martin
City Staff Liaison Recreation Supervisor Heather Schmidt, Environmental Services Deputy Director Emily Benvie, Administrative Specialist Bella Waters

From:    Fred Weis   Arcata1.com

Re:        July 13, 2002 meeting agenda item:
“Consider the Gateway Area Plan and provide a recommendation to Council”

Thank you for your dedication and service in helping to keep Arcata be a wonderful place to live. I mean this sincerely.  Please consider the following:

1. The Gateway draft plan has no parks or play areas for children. Please consider adding language to correct this oversight. “Play areas” are mentioned in the Linear Park section and also in GA-6c: “Accommodate within open spaces a range of activities for all ages and abilities including sitting, walking, gathering, gardening, play and contemplation.” In the past, the Community Development Director has spoken of play areas as being for bocce, basketball, etc.  This is not the same as a playground.I am seeking strict language for play areas for children.  There’s going to be a lot of people in the Gateway area, mostly in apartments, and there’s likely to be a lot of children.  (I am a former Board member and Board President of Northcoast Children’s Services.)
   Thank you.
2. What you are looking at in this meeting for possible recommendation are policies. What will be especially meaningful is the discussion of how these policies are to be implemented. Conceivably those implementation measures will be in the Form-Based Code, which is still months away or longer. Without seeing the Code, the Committee cannot adequately evaluate the likelihood of these policies actually becoming reality.The Committee is urged to allot at least several meetings for the review of the Form-Based Code – when it arrives — in order to offer recommendations on actual enactment of policies.

   Further, the recommendations that you offer today, should you choose to do so, can be amended and added to in the coming months.  Please do not regard this as “We’re done with this” even though there may be pressure from Staff to move forward.  In my view, the schedules that Staff originally proposed and continue to be proposed are unrealistic.  This Gateway plan will affect the lives of tens of thousands of people and will change Arcata forever.  It is important to get it right.

3. The map of “Existing Parks and Recreational Facilities” from the draft Gateway plan (Figure 5 on page 18 in the agenda packet) is, in my view, misrepresentational. Please consider requesting an updated map from Staff, or making a strong note or amendment from the Committee on this. This map shows what it purports as “5-minute Walk to Gateway Area” and “10-minute Walk to Gateway Area.” First, the map might show what would be a 5- or 10-minute walk from the edge of the Gateway area.  But even that is not true on this map – at best, it’s a “as the crow flies” map, and not an actual walking map.  And, as an “as the crow flies” map – taken from the edges and perimeter of the plan area, it is a very misleading representation.As examples:  From the westernmost tip of the Gateway Area on F Street (where very few people will live), walking to the Arcata Sports Complex is shown as 5 minutes.  But – obviously—a human walker would have to cross Highway 101 on 7th Street… so it’s about 0.5 miles, or a 10-minute walk.  From a spot more central in the Gateway area, such as the Creamery District, it’s a 20-minute walk.

   At the north side, Arcata High School is shown as just a few minutes walk from the Gateway Area.  From the Creamery District, it’s about 12 minutes. Windsong Park is shown as about a 7 minute walk – it’s about 0.9 miles, or 18 minutes.  The Arcata Skateboard park is shown as a 5 minute walk, and it’s over 20 minutes.

   To be clear, I am not saying that a 20-minute walk is bad, or that the Gateway area is not at walkable distances.  I am saying that the depiction of walkability on this map is misleading, or to put it more strongly, false.

   The generally accepted measurement for parks and open space is:  Walking time under X-minutes to a park from Y-percentage of the parcels.

   In the Redwood City Downtown Precise Plan, there are 14 public open spaces where people can meet and sit:  7 small parks, 6 plazas, 1 paseo – a total of 4.12 acres within the 183 acre area.  96% of all parcels in the Redwood City plan are within a 3 minute walk of an open space.  All parcels are within a 5 minute walk.  [See:  Redwood City Downtown Precise Plan, Page 10, Page 10, on the Arcata1.com website.] [This paragraph was edited from the original.  The original letter stated that there were 23 spaces.]

   Surely we can do better.

4. From Page 20: “The City’s goal is to provide a park, high-quality trail, or open space within 200 yards of every residential unit in the Plan Area.”Trails and natural open space is excellent, but I’m looking for park space where people can meet, congregate, hang out, and establish community.
   “Within 200 yards” is a great aspiration, so may I suggest this:
   • You can separate out the open space that is wildlife or riparian habitat. I’m very much in favor of natural open space and the great benefits, but a person can’t sit there.
   • You can separate out the trails. Similarly, they are great for what they are. But I’m looking for places for community involvement and people meeting.
   • See what amount of space is there – the actual parks — and then expand on that.
5. GA-6C. Public Plaza in Southwest Industrial Area. We’re assuming that the landowner is going to give up a city-block-size piece of land.  It may happen in 5 years, or it may not happened for 20 or 30  or 40 years.  And it may not ever happen.  If it does not happen in a reasonable time, what are the options for Plaza-like activities?  Are there alternatives?  Is there a “Plan B” ?
6. GA-6e. “Allow for the development of existing vacant and underutilized properties with low natural resource value as a strategy to permanently protect high resource value open space and provide high-quality open space amenities for residents.”
   This item should be removed. The existing vacant and underutilized properties will be developed with no need for help from the City.  The City does not have to regard that development as an amenity for protection exchange. The protection should exist independently.
7. GA-6h. “Incentivize Privately-Owned Open Spaces as a Community Amenity”
   I don’t mean to seem pessimistic, but I do not believe that the Privately-Owned Open Space concept is going to work out as envisioned. I do not think that the City will be able to offer enough incentives to a developer to create parks, etc., in the quantity and sizes as are needed for a substantial new population.

   I believe that the Parks & Recreation Committee can take the lead on ensuring that there truly are enough community park space proportionate to the intended population increase in the Gateway Area.

8. The Quimby Act looks for 3 acres per 1,000 persons. Normally this is taken on a city-wide basis, and so would include the vast acreage of the Community Forest. In the interests of making the Gateway area a walkable neighborhood as is stressed throughout the policies, I propose that the Community Forest and the Marsh be left out of the equation.  As great as they are (and I thoroughly enjoy both), I say:  Let’s see about getting parks closer to where people live.  Perhaps the City could see about purchasing land off of 8th Street – adjacent or behind where Open Door Health Center is now (formerly Tomas, behind the Creamery) for a real park.  Or open space to the south and west of where Bug Press is, off of M Street.  If you as the Parks & Recreation Committee do not speak up on this, it is less likely to happen.

9. On a procedural note: Attachment B –pages 24 and 25 of the packet – is part of a 3-page document that was in the City Council packet on June 22 (page 276) and in the Planning Commission packet on June 28 (page 29).  Here it is missing the third page. The third page is crucial, and the Review Process cannot really be discussed without it. If you do choose to discuss this, I wish to point out the following:
   • The title of the agenda item is: “Receive Update on Parks and Recreation Element of General Plan” from Community Development Staff.” That does not match the contents of this attachment, which “describes the process for review and comment on the General Plan updates.”  A discussion of the process for review is good – but that’s not is on this agenda.  This is a potential violation of the Brown Act, as you are aware.  Matters for discussion have to be on the agenda.
   • If you do choose to discuss this, and if you are provided with the missing third page, please note the phrase “Time Certain” which appears two times. This is a legal phrase.  This review process outline is of course not a legal document, but it may have legal consequences.  I request the Committee ask Staff or the City Attorney about the meaning of this phrase, and at the same time ask Staff why that phrase is used here and what its meaning is in this context.

Again, my thanks to you for your contributions to our community.

I can direct you to the website  Arcata1.comfor more information and viewpoints about the Gateway plan.  If you would like to write a column or article, long or short for the website, I encourage you to do so.

Thank you.

Fred Weis

The reader will note that “Private Open Space” should really say “Area of opportunities for Privately-Owned Publicly-Used Open Space”

The red line isn’t where the Private Open Space is.  The red line is where the City would like there to be some open space.