The Humboldt County Civil Grand Jury has released a report warning that the Arcata Fire District is “approaching desperate financial conditions” and may have to reduce services and close one of its stations. The report also delves into the District’s lack of a ladder truck and proper staffing to respond to fires in multi-story buildings.
The Arcata Fire District will need a large increase in funding to provide fire and safety services to Arcata's new tall buildings. It is my expressed opinion -- not based on any conversations or any outside input; just based my own speculation -- that the State of California will come up with the money, both the up-front funds and the annual expenses. I say this for a very simple reason: That something has to be done, and the local taxpayers will be completely unwilling to take on theses costs.
This is a 14 minute section of the one-hour presentation by Ben Noble, from June 29, 2022. This section includes Ben's description of of the Ministerial Review permitting process. A link to the full presentation is included.
This is a 14 minute section of the one-hour presentation by Ben Noble, from June 29, 2022. This section includes Ben's description of of the Ministerial Review permitting process. A link to the full presentation is included.
Key to the success of Arcata’s Gateway Area Plan is the quick and certain approval of all projects that meet the standards of the Gateway Code. The current draft has new Gateway buildings up to 37 feet tall – that’s three-stories, generally – being seen only by the Zoning Administrator. This one person would have complete authority to approve new projects. There would be no public hearings for these approvals.
Ministerial Review in the Gateway Area Plan
Ministerial Review is a key ingredient of the Gateway Area Plan. Ministerial Review can include the review and...
Around 2021, Mark Pahuta put up a video of Super-8 film he shot while in Arcata. The film is dated as being from 1968, but more likely it's from around 1976-1977. FILM and STILL IMAGES of Arcata from that era.
Merritt Perry has been the city manager in Fortuna for more than years. Prior to that he worked as City Engineer and director of Public Works in Fortuna for four years. He became interim City Manager following the resignation (after a second DUI) of former Fortuna city manager and Arcata city councilmember and 3-time mayor Mark Wheetley.
Three videos of the fire from June 19, 2024, in Miami. "I did get a chance to speak to one gentleman who tells me he was actually sleeping at the time. He awoke not because he smelled the smoke, not because he heard the commotion, but because he heard a firefighter knocking at his front door. That's what prompted him to get up, get outside."
The traffic crossings are not safe. IT WILL ONLY TAKE ONE FATALITY to have us wishing that we'd thought about this more and done things differently. WITH PHOTOS of 3D images, models, and flashing beacon lights.
Video and Transcriptions on the Sunset-101 Roundabout discussion. From the City Council meeting, February 21, 2024. "If you can make those changes -- the full separated bike and pedestrian facilities, the additional traffic calming measures, and getting rid of the slip lanes."
The letter that sent to the City Council, to request that the Sunset-101 Interchange funding be removed from the Consent Calendar, so that it can be further discussed. From the letter: "I believe there are unsafe elements to this design -- and that the design can be improved to make it safer for bicyclists and pedestrians. The design is good for vehicle traffic flow -- but not so good for bikes and walkers. My strong concern is that with this design there will be vehicle - bicyclist collisions. *** My concern is that someone will get hurt.***
From the most recent to the oldest. Click on the name to read the full letter.
Summaries of each letter are being added. Please return to this page for updates.
The "Gateway Area Form-Based Code Enhanced Content & Outreach" contract amendment with Planwest was approved eight months ago. The "Plan Area Massing Diagram" would be especially useful at this time, as we are discussing massing and building heights. This is where a 3D image really is needed.
What have we received, after eight months? Nothing.
You learned a lot from that first study session on August 22. What I'd like to see for you to build on what you experienced and schedule more round-table study sessions, just on Gateway. Perhaps two or three more, in addition to the September 26 meeting. ----- Will the joint study sessions be available on Zoom as a hybrid meeting?
The GAP area is a desirable part of town, due its proximity to stores, schools and the main Plaza. Councilmembers with vested interests like Alex and Stacy may
stand to profit hugely, as the Gateway Plan is expected to grow due to their investments. But I don't wish to dwell on them. Is this just a recipe for gentrification?
If the city REALLY wanted to know how the people felt about the Gateway Plan they could have (and still could) send information to EVERY dwelling in the city to get a real pulse on how the community feels about how their town is going to change. That
would have been TRUE transparency.
I looked up some renderings of 7-story buildings and found this proposed construction (with no step-backs) next to two existing 2 & 3 story buildings in Spokane. While the rendered building is taller and newer than its neighbors, what’s more important is what I don’t see. The road beneath isn’t shrouded in darkness. The people in front of it aren’t eclipsed by its height. And the look of the apartments aren’t reminiscent of the Section 8 housing of the 70’s and 80’s.
I'd like to thank you for your decision in favor of creating a full width (car‐free) linear park along L Street, and for eschewing the K‐L couplet plan for good. I'm also very pleased to see that you will focus on improving safety along K Street, and making the L Street linear park a walkable and bikeable route. It will be exciting to see how it develops, hopefully with input from the community. I do think the issue of building heights in the Gateway deserves more discussion and community involvement. The last time you held an open house on this was in January 2022, the issue of building heights was a major concern for most of the people in attendance.
I’m absolutely against the unfairness and elitism of keeping part of it the way it is and delegating the housing solution to our area over here. Mostly, I don’t think it’s going to be successful, and I do wish it success. I see no recognition of the idea that the city should offer choices of living conditions across the spectrum of incomes and desires. The project runs the risks failure if it builds only one type of home and tries to engineer how people live. This has been a failure over and over in the world. Under current conditions, the project were approved tomorrow, no developer would take the chance at market homes or rentals the way it is
currently configured, unless it was subsidized housing.
We need housing in Arcata and the plan needs to be approved as soon as possible. My partner and I struggle to find housing even though we have well‐paying jobs and excellent rental history. With the student population increasing at an alarming rate, approving projects like the Gateway Plan shouldn't be something that is debated. It is selfish to value the "preservation of character" of our town instead of the livelihood and safety of its community members. It is classist and puts aesthetics over human lives.
Please consider form-based code for specific blocks, especially alongside the L St path. Please zone appropriately for this small town. Please respect existing homes’ right to solar access when setting standards for setbacks and step-backs. Please insist that Staff provide us with the 3D modeling that has been paid for. --- Keep in mind - zoning doesn’t get housing built. Favorable economic conditions gets housing built. No matter how easy you think zoning will make development, if developers can’t make money on their development, they won’t build.
The Students for a Democratic Society chapter of Cal Poly Humboldt is in strong support of the Gateway Plan and believes that it is a necessary measure to ensure that there is adequate housing for a growing student body. With HSU making the switch to a Cal Poly there is now a large influx of students with nowhere to live, and the school has told many of us that the city has not allowed them to create enough necessary housing thus far.
If we want to build equity into the Gateway Plan, the percentage for inclusionary zoning (for affordable units) is much too low at 3% to 5%. I can't get behind the GAP Plan at all if it's just going to be mostly market rate housing. That's a plan for gentrification, not equity. I do understand about Density Bonus Law, and the pressure from the State. However, we don't need a gentrification plan (i.e. the GAP) to start building affordable housing that fits in with the character of our town.
The current building heights in the plan – along with streamlined zoning – will allow nonprofit, community‐focused, and mission‐driven developers to invest in building AFFORDABLE housing in the district. Restrictive heights and zoning guidelines increase building costs and reduce affordability. Density is climate‐
friendly, it encourages equitable transportation and prevents sprawl.
I applied to over a dozen rentals before being able to get a place. Demand is high and supply is low. It’s depressing and will only get worse if the Gateway Plan and future plans alike don’t get approved. I hope that you all consider the livelihoods of renters in this community and make decisions tonight that is mindful of our struggles.
Denser housing creates safer pedestrian and biking walkways. Please make sure that K Street and 11th Street are substantially redesigned to make them safe and comfortable for walking, biking and rolling.
As an Arcata citizen and a local architect I support denser development in the Gateway Area and measures that encourage and require housing affordability without increasing construction costs through excessive design guidelines. I support the elimination of minimum parking requirements in the Gateway Area -- which would allow for denser housing development.
I Support the Gateway Plan very much -- But I really love the K/L Street preserved greenbelt and the wonderful walkway! It is used by so many people, and is a place of peace and community. Please, do not destroy this special spot in Arcata!
To David Loya: You highlight a group of "alternative" options, that include a white box with descriptions of the negative aspects for each option.... Except you neglect to include the same description box for the K/L Couplet that would show many of the same problems and issues as most of the other options, including Property acquisition, wetland problem, neighborhood single family homes, etc. Any fair and equitable comparison should have included the negative aspects of the K/L Couplet as well. Also, the lack of transparency with the City's process for evaluation of all these options is poor at best. There has not been any vetting by the Community, Planning Commission, nor City Council. Folks have been asking for a full discussion of this for almost 2 years.
My 10‐year‐old daughter was hit by a Dodge Ram truck in downtown Arcata on her way to school 2 years ago. Luckily she survived with only road rash, bruises, and emotional trauma. I'm writing again to express my opposition to inclusion of the K/L one‐way couplet as part of the Gateway Area Plan. Anytime you prioritize "reducing congestion," you are prioritizing car traffic ‐‐a nd as I hope you all learned from Dan Burden, this reduces the walkability and bikeability of our town. PLEASE preserve L street as a non‐through road to protect the quiet and safety of the linear park.
The Linear Park idea is wonderful in isolation, and I do appreciate the people organizing for better quality of life in the City. But I do not hear proponents talk about their support for the proposed surrounding uses or consider the circulation needs of the Plan. Yes, there are tradeoffs to L St becoming a one‐way thoroughfare such as increased traffic for existing single family homes on L Street (how much actual truck traffic‐ do we know?)
L Street is one of the best walking paths in Arcata and used by many pedestrians. A truck route parallel to it would greatly
diminish its use, decrease attractiveness, and increase danger. The Arcata Transportation Committee voted against this plan not once, but four times. There is also a petition signed by over
1,000 Arcatans opposing this plan.
I am writing to express my support of the Gateway Plan in general, and aspects of the city transportation plans specifically. As a longtime resident of Arcata, I greatly enjoy the various options for using trails to walk, hike, and bike, which I do regularly for both exercise and doing business. I avoid driving in Arcata when I can. I encourage you to continue including improvements and more options for residents to walk and bike more.
Just a quick retro‐reminder that Arcata has always been on the cutƫing edge of important efforts. The Marsh, Sewage Treatment, Wildlife Sanctuary, Trails, Saving Forest Land, Arcata Transit is a short list of projects some/many people vehemently opposed. They were good ideas waaaay back then and stilll are.
You will have the courage to move forward with mixed use and vital land‐use for future generations.
I strongly support the Gateway Plan as a template for climate-friendly development of desperately needed housing in Arcata. I support streamlined zoning requirements and minimal design guidelines that allow for dense housing that remains affordable to build. This is to ensure that nonprofit, community-focused, and mission-driven developers can invest in housing in the district and are not negatively impacted by overly restrictive zoning guidelines that increase building costs and reduce affordability.
Multi-story buildings can free up open space for creeks and public parks that will add to the area’s livability. De-emphasizing parking also frees up space and encourages reliance on public transportation. Other details in the Community Benefits package would deliver greenhouse gas reductions. These reductions are of primary importance to 350 Humboldt. However, affordable housing is also extremely important.
350 Humboldt supports infill projects that accommodate a greater population density than the surrounding areas have so far. Many factors -- expansion of the university, other major developments, climate change -- are all but guaranteeing a big population increase in the near future and for some time to come. Arcata is smart to plan now.
Along with others, we wish to go on record as supporting the L Street Linear Park Pathway. Over the years, we have supported the General Plan Update’s ideas for gradual expansion and for conserving the agricultural and green belt areas of our area, and we do understand the need that the City has expressed regarding expansion. However, the City’s Proposal for further expansion as described in the Gateway Area Plan is too much, too soon -- in our opinion as lifelong residents.
Please do not make K St a one‐way street. It is a main thoroughfare to North Arcata. Creating more one‐way streets is not energy nor time saving. With one‐way streets people will drive around in circles looking for parking etc.
Written to the Planning Commissioners following the August 8, 2023, meeting. In the David Loya video on the Density Bonus laws, he states “And our design standards and Community Benefits programs are unlikely to be implemented due to waivers and concessions.”
Important: The 3rd Draft needs a disclaimer on the front cover, very similar to the disclaimer on the 2nd Draft. To be honest and in compliance, the 3rd Draft needs a disclaimer on the front cover, very similar to the disclaimer on the 2nd Draft. For the 4th draft, that disclaimer can be removed.
Although there is disagreement over the eventual design of the L Street corridor, there has been widespread agreement about the need for redesigns of K and 11th Streets to allow for safer, more comfortable use by people walking, biking and rolling. Dan Burden's recent walk audit of these streets provides further impetus for change.
A letter written to the single City Councilmember Alex Stillman expressing support for her approving the "Gateway Form Based Code." In actuality, Councilmember Stillman has to recuse herself from discussion or voting on the Gateway Area Plan.
"Being a survivor of sexual assault, I am absolutely terrified about strangers being able to look at me so closely (ten feet away) at all times. There is not a single one of you or them that would be okay with this happening to your/their families privacy and safety, I guarantee it. I am literally begging the council to please step in to help find a compromise that will benefit everyone. Prove to us that all community members matter."
The Gateway Plan is still a long way away from being adopted -- and whether or not it will provide an actual pathway toward the creation of housing remains to be seen.
What is bothersome is that with just a small amount of effort, the Brown Act conditions could be followed. But our Director refuses, again and again, to abide by the simple and clear directives of existing laws. The Director said: “We’ve inserted what we expect you’re going to say.” Councilmembers, I sincerely hope you find this cavalier approach to the truth to be disturbing.
Please be aware of the multiple Brown Act Violations committed in connection with material in the July 25, 2023, Planning Commission agenda packet. The Director said: “We’ve inserted what we expect you’re going to say, as a Commission — that you concur with staff on this issue, for example.”
A starting point for a conversation on "What is Affordable Housing?" Originally sent to the Planning Commission on Feb 28, 2023. -- A request to open up the discussion to define what the Commission is referring to as "Affordable Housing."
"I appreciate that the council, particularly Sarah, asked Alex to refrain from commenting on the GAP during the active discussion around GAP, however after the GAP section of the meeting had ended and the Council went on to other business, Alex still voiced her support of high rises (clearly referencing the GAP). Alex needs to understand what recusal actually means and refrain from voicing opinions about the GAP during formal meetings."
The Urban Field Studio report indicates the Gateway Plan will not really produce the results that we want. The report effectively tells us that it's far more likely we'll see two-story or three-story construction, and we are unlikely to see buildings above four stories.
To date, over 950 people have signed the petition to create a car‐free linear park along L Street, yet our voices aren't being heard. We want it to be car‐free linear park with no truck route running alongside it, as that would destroy the tranquility and beauty of this park and arts district beloved by so many. We love this peaceful oasis with the L Street linear path running through it ‐ perfect for walking, biking, skating ‐ and want to preserve it for future generations to enjoy.
Is that figure of 3,500 housing units still a workable number? Or should it be decreased to, say, 2,500? Or, to 1,200? Is this something that the Commission can look at, in the next month or two?
I urge you to reconsider the K and L streets couplet and recommend to city staff and city council: (1) designation of the L street corridor as a full-width linear park, and (2) consideration of the full range of alternatives to increase K street safety as a two-way street.
"I'm writing to express my support of the Gateway Plan, Gateway Zoning Code, and General Plan amendments being considered for recommendation to the City Council."
"I'm not crazy about the fact that the Co‐Director of RCCER, Matt Simmons, issued an email drive for his people to deliver his talking points through public input on an official board meeting he resides on, and will be making an adjudicatory decision on."
"I strongly support the Gateway Plan, Gateway Zoning Code, and General Plan amendments, which will move Arcata toward more walkable, bikeable, transit‐friendly neighborhoods. I, therefore, encourage you to recommend that the City Council approve these documents as soon as possible."
I strongly support the Gateway Plan, the Gateway Zoning Code, and the General Plan Amendments. These all move Arcata toward a more transit friendly community. I encourage the City Council to approve these documents as soon as possible. Although I reside in Trinidad, I am a frequent visitor to Arcata, and full disclosure, a proud member of CRTP.
The people at Urban Field Studio are architects. I am not an architect. It does seem that they did not give much time or thought to this study. Or, possibly, not have much thought to what makes Arcata special, and to what we’re trying to achieve.
"I won't rehash all of our past comments here, but I want to reiterate our strong
support for the Gateway plan & code generally, and for most of the General Plan updates as well."
Jane Woodward - June 13, 2023 - Comments for the June 13 Planning Commission meeting. There were two letters, put into one file, and duplicated.
Did not appear as a Public Comment letter until June 28 -- one month (for the June 27 letter) or six weeks (for the June 13 letter) later.
Jane Woodward - June 27, 2023 - Comments for the June 10 & June 27 Planning Commission meeting. Two letters, put into one file, and duplicated. Did not appear as a Public Comment letter until June 28 -- one month (for the June 27 letter) or six weeks (for the June 13 letter) later.
The 3D Modeling that was developed for the Gateway Plan can be utilized to show the Planning Commissioners, the Councilmembers, and the public what a realistic image of what the draft Form-Based Code will produce for building massing and placement. **** Why is 3D Modeling not being used? We all know that the 3D Modeling tool is the best way to illustrate building massing and placement. What do we want our buildings to look like?
David Loya dismisses the Transportation Safety Committee's input in a major way -- yet again. Arcata's Community Development Director David Loya has inadequately, inaccurately, or in a diminished fashion presented recommendations from the Transportation Safety Committee to the Planning Commission. It is evident from past manipulations of the Transportation Safety Committee's recommendations that Director Loya cannot be trusted to convey information from the Committee.
The draft Gateway Plan lists 66 acres of "Opportunity Sites" -- areas that are more likely or sooner to be built on. But the data shown in the draft plan is incorrect. The likely area is around 43 acres.
*** If we can't be leaders in this space, at least let's not be laggers. *** I do support the plan's requirement for a percentage of affordable units. This should not simply be an optional "community benefit" to be rewarded with additional building height because California's Density Bonus Law already does that. ornia's Needs: The average percentage of affordable units required in city and
county ordinances is 15%, compared with 3% in the current plan.
I continue to be concerned that you aren’t taking the recommendations of the Transportation Safety Committee and the opinion of the public into account regarding the L/K Street Couplet. Are you going to do so, and if so, when? Are you willing to reconsider your initial vote in light of widely expressed public concerns?
Remove public hearing requirement. Requiring a public process
for a ministerial permit seems like a recipe for needless frustration. ** Eliminate parking minimums. ** Increase the minimum heights.
I am in favor of the Gateway Plan WITH a height maximum of four stories. I am absolutely opposed to L street being a couplet for K St. I hike and bike the path on L street ALL THE TIME and do not want to share it with cars. Cities all over the nation are ripping up streets to create what we already have on L Street.
No time dedicated to Bike Rack issues. "Other Considerations" or non-comporting items is incomplete. Coastal Zone issues. L Street should not be a roadway. Consider the linear park.
As a longtime resident of Arcata who mainly walks and bikes through the city, I have two main concerns with the current proposals for the Gateway area. First of all, creating a road on L street where there is currently a bike/hiking path is a terrible idea. ** Secondly, I propose that the city limit the height of any new construction to 4 stories.
This image shows three theoretical building designs, at 5th and K Streets in Arcata. In these designs we can see: ** The large set-backs from the street. ** The large step-backs of upper stories. ** Stepped-down design to the adjacent properties with existing buildings. ** Space between buildings -- not built all the way to the property line.
I’m writing you in response to the action taken by the Planning Commissioners, on June 13, completely dismissing enhanced upper story setbacks. --- If solar shading issues can not be addressed through step backs, then include a community benefit that benefits the entire neighborhood: A greater setback that offers open space to the neighborhood.
For context, EdgeConneX owns property at 1296 11th Street (APN 020-123-002). The City’s recent rezoning efforts include this property, and will rezone the property to G-H. There is, however, a potential inconsistency in how the rezoning will apply to this property.
The best practice for creation of a pedestrian-friendly neighborhood is to build to the edge of the sidewalk or pedestrian zone. Although similarly unclear, maximum allowable setbacks in the code are also far too large. If this is read to allow “pedestrian-friendly” building to be set back up to 25 feet from the sidewalk or pedestrian zone, it will create a distinctly pedestrian-unfriendly environment.
The Gateway Area Plan’s proposed infill development with features designed to support pedestrians and bikes has the support of our organization. There are improvements that can and possibly will be made to the draft Gateway Area form-based zoning code but overall, we urge its adoption by the Planning Commission.
I urge you to go back to the regular meeting format. The "special meetings" format is impeding the public's right to weigh in. It's just that the process is so different from way this was done when the previous General Plan was being debated. It took four years, with a good many opportunities afforded for community input to come up with the previous General Plan. Now everything is being rushed through at once and the public is confused about what's on the agenda
A response from David Loya to the original letter from Fred Weis, and the reply from Fred Weis to him. --- David Loya apparently believes that there is no difference and no problem for him to state the Transportation Safety Committee's recommendation was **FOR** the K/L Street couplet . . . when in fact their recommendation was **AGAINST** the K/L Street couplet.
It is a scientific reality that multistory buildings on Alluvial Soil do not do well in earthquakes. Alluvial soil, when involved in an earthquake, turns to "jello". I would urge you to set the height limit of the Gateway Plan to a maximum of four stories.
I am reaching out to get a better understand of the current status of proposed upzoning of six Arcata neighborhoods, including the Sunset neighborhood where I live. I believe this proposal (?) (implementation measure?) may have been approved in the form quoted below. If so, can someone please provide a link to the adopted language?
Two questions for Community Development Director David Loya. 1. When will we see the draft of the Form-Based Code? A by-when date, please. 2. When is the Planning Commission scheduled to review and discuss this draft? Dates, please. In connection: Will there be a time period of, say, a couple of weeks, between the time we see the draft FBC and the time it is discussed. Will the public be contributing to this discussion?
The May 16, 2023, Creamery Meeting was not what the Commissioners requested. There were 42 people in attendance in addition to the three staff members. Following the 15-minute introduction by David Loya, close to half of the participants left. ** Clearly "to collect information on outstanding concerns and hopes, etc." is not what was done.
CRTP requests that you keep in mind
in your deliberations the impact of design policies on the city's ability to both allow and encourage economically
feasible, dense, mixed‐use, walkable and transit‐oriented development.
Regarding the draft Design Element you'll be reviewing at next Tuesday's meeting, CRTP requests that you keep in mind in your deliberations the impact of design policies on the city's ability to both allow and encourage economically feasible, dense, mixed‐use, walkable and transit‐oriented development. ** Finally, regarding the proposed Land Use map changes which you may also review on Tuesday, we reiterate our support for upzoning low‐density neighborhoods, particularly those near major activity centers such as downtown, Cal Poly Humboldt, and Valley West, in order to allow the development of more walkable, transit‐oriented housing.
The 100-Year-Old Reason U.S. Housing Is So Expensive ** Peter Coy - April 14, 2023 ** It’s Herbert Hoover’s fault. In the early 1920s, as a reform-minded secretary of commerce, Hoover wanted to bring order to America’s chaotic cities and towns. He convened a committee that drafted a model act encouraging state governments to authorize local governments to do something new: zoning.
For discussion at the May 16, 2023 meeting. Remove references to the L-K Street "couplet" from the General Plan. Contents: Recent actions of the Planning Commission ** Minutes of the February 21, 2023 meeting – small corrections needed ** Quote from Wendy Ring, from the January 17, 2023 TSC meeting. ** Discussion on the inaccurate summaries created by staff of the Transportation Safety Committee’s recommendations on the L Street – K Street couplet ** Discussion of the “L Street – K Street Couplet” sections from the General Plan Circulation Element and the Gateway Mobility Chapter **
Parking Discussion ** From the document: “Other Considerations Gateway Draft 2-1-23 Posted” that purportedly shows the Transportation Safety Committee’s recommendations ** Transcriptions from previous meetings on the L Street - K Street couplet situation ** Appendix A: Draft Circulation Element: Instances of the L Street – K Street Couplet
The proposed development currently titled “The Gateway Project” would be closely adjacent to, and thus materially impactful on an existing arts neighborhood, The Creamery District”, that is inclusive of the offices and performance space of Arcata’s Local Arts Agency (Playhouse Arts) and a number of other longstanding and culturally storied structures and institutions. As such, it is critical that any new development in this area be planned and designed with careful consideration of aesthetic and logistical implications regarding the surrounding space and the community that occupies and
frequents it. Failure to do so could result in the dilution (and potentially dissolution) of some of the place-based traditions and practices that help to make Arcata and Humboldt worthy of investment in the first place.
As noted under “Recommendation,” the meeting tonight will focus on the Historical Preservation Element and topics in the Gateway Area Plan Concerns and Solutions List. Does that include all topics in the Concerns & Solutions list, or only those related to affordable housing, gentrification and homeownership as implied in the Introduction? This lack of clarity is a problem for the public if you want to avoid our wanting to address the other topics such as sea level rise in our comments.
As noted under “Recommendation,” the meeting tonight will focus on the Historical Preservation Element and topics in the Gateway Area Plan Concerns and Solutions List. Does that include all topics in the Concerns & Solutions list, or only those related to affordable housing, gentrification and homeownership as implied in the Introduction? This lack of clarity is a problem for the public if you want to avoid our wanting to address the other topics such as sea level rise in our comments.
"Europe's first solar-covered cycling path has made its debut in the German city of Freiburg." This was included in the "Public comment recvied on the Infill Program" -- yes, with that misspelling -- on the City's SIRP Engagement webpage. There is no name, no date, no indication of who this is to, or who it is from.
If the K/L Street couplet were only an implementation measure, that would have allowed the City to see if proposed improvements in K Street would resolve most of the traffic safety issues, as well as provide time to see how much traffic really arises from Gateway development. The Planning Commission totally ignored the close to 700 signers of the petition to maintain L Street as well as the recommendations from the Transportation Safety and Wetlands and Creeks Committees, without even discussing their reasoning or asking them to discuss this with you. So I’m asking the Planning Commission to 1) remove the K/L Street couplet as a goal and refocus it as an Implementation Measure, and 2) add the goal of continuing discussions of improvements to K Street including multiple traffic calming measures.
Three satellite images. The labels help in the orientation of just where these purpose rezoning areas are located. The Alliance & Spear proposed rezoning area, the Craftman’s Mall proposed rezoning area, the 17th & Q proposed rezoning area, and the Gateway proposed rezoning area are all shown highlighted in neon green.
It seems to me the people who run the city i.e. planning commission and Council do not have the residents' interests in sight. You want to promote your own view of the city. You have lost sight of the quaint beauty of a rural area which is a draw of tourists and visitors. This brings money into our area. Part of the beauty of our neighborhood and the city of Arcata is the open space of farmland and the Arcata bottom area. Cal Poly Humboldt is a driving force in our area but I implore you, do not let it define us.
There are two articles on the rezoning of specific areas: The 17th & Q and Eye Street / Craftsman's Mall. *** There does not seem to be any accessible collection of MSDS information available to the public. What Commissioner Lehman speaks to is not what is "required by law" as Director Loya has mischaracterized. *** The need for a City park to be located in the heart of the Gateway Area. We may have, in 20 years, potentially 1,000 or 2,000 additional people in this area.
We received your public notice of March 2023, inviting community comment on the City's proposed General Plan Update. The business operated at this address since 1982 provides private outdoor hot tubs. The "continued current use of our site" absolutely requires privacy from neighbors peering over the fences of our property. We will not hesitate to take legal action against the City of Arcata if the proposed General Plan Update infringes on our longstanding way of operating this business.
To support walkability, bikeability, and high‐quality transit in the area, and to adhere to the goal of protecting
our forest, agriculture, and natural resource lands, it is imperative that taller buildings are included in this
plan. If measures are taken to mitigate shading concerns, it is important to offset them elsewhere in order to
maintain effective density development.
I want to remind you that staff have not yet laid out a plan for L Street as a linear park so that the Commission and City Council can actually consider it as an alternative to a 1-way L Street. I suggest that it would be useful to incorporate the K/L Street couplet as an Implementation Measure rather than a goal and not to anticipate that it will take 30 years to occur. City staff appear to want to be able to take action now.2. I want to remind you that you have not yet scheduled a meeting to discuss the implications of sea level rise for intensive residential building in the Coastal Zone and the Gateway Area subject to sea level rise, and the legal and financial implications of failing to take sea level rise properly into account.
An e-notification with the title "April 27, 2023 Special Meeting outstanding items" was sent out. The Planning Commission requested the rezoning issue be put on the 4/27 agenda. David Loya did not put this on the agenda.
I propose: that the criteria be much lower for Planning Commission review. Such as: PC review required for anything over 4,000 sq.ft. building area. Or: PC review required for everything (except for the simplest of projects, to be defined). How would this work? The Julian Berg Valley East project took 31 minutes to be approved. If a project is well-designed and adheres to the Form-Based Code, then approval by the Planning Commission would be smooth sailing.
I also want to remind you that staff has not yet laid out a plan for L Street as a linear park so that City Council can actually consider the alternative to a 1-way L Street. Finally, I want to remind you that you have not yet scheduled a meeting to discuss the implications of sea level rise for intensive residential building in the Coastal Zone and the Gateway Area subject to sea level rise.
On Saturday please confirm that projects that comply with objective Gateway Plan requirements will receive by-right, or ministerial, approval. It seems clear that otherwise there will be obstructive attempts to block projects that fit the approved criteria. On Tuesday please confirm the need for taller buildings to allow walkable, transit-supportive residential density in the Gateway Area. This is really a key component of Gateway. On Thursday please adopt new General Plan policies that support public transit improvements and avoid perpetuating the car infrastructure.
The L Street corridor has created a peaceful, accessible, aesthetic alternative to roads with cars. We are extremely lucky that we have it, so far. --- If there were a road there that included vehicle traffic, even with some kind of barrier, its aesthetic value would be gone. ---
If I were a mother, I would not take my children there. If I had a dog, we would go elsewhere. If I wanted to visit with friends, not there. If I were taking a walk, a bike ride, a run: no. Whatever draws me there now will be gone. We will not do art there, make music there, sit in the shade with a sandwich.
Now that you have deprioritized level of service (LOS) and specified that it should be used only as an indicator of efforts to slow traffic and encourage mode shift, there are a number of other places in the Element which should be amended for consistency. Many of these are identified in the Commissioner‐proposed edits which you didn't get to discuss last night. For example, several other places in the Element refer to "unacceptable [vehicular] delay" or "deficient operation" of intersections or streets, which are concepts that doesn't make sense following your decision last night.
After our February meeting, I took an opportunity to briefly review the second draft of the Gateway Plan. There have been questions raised whether this draft accurately or adequately reflects our recommendation regarding L St being designated a linear park. --- Further, upon review of the second draft of the Gateway Plan, I find no mention whatsoever of this recommendation. --- This important topic being relegated to a “conflict” and in an attachment nevertheless, diminishes the work put in by this committee.
Fred Weis has already drafted an excellent justification for eliminating L Street as a one-way street through the Gateway Area. I agree with his comments, and want to add a few of my own. Staff argues that there are no alternative direct north-south routes from Alliance to Samoa, and one is needed a) to ease projected traffic as a result of projected increased residential density and b) avoid pedestrian and bicycle accidents. And if it’s in the Draft Plan, it will remain an option. There are several problems with this argument.
I know that the Planning Commission has big tasks ahead in shaping these two efforts which will shape Arcata's future. I want to pass on my hopes that you will work to prioritize safe streets in Arcata, streets safe enough that people can walk and ride bikes with a realistic expectation that they will get to their destinations safely. That is especially important on K St.
In previous Planco meetings, you've devoted time to discuss the need for parks as a "community benefit." We already have a beautiful park in the L‐Street corridor, which just needs some landscaping. Why destroy a "community benefit" that is already in place with a truck/car corridor? If you put a street with major traffic running through it, it will destroy the peace and beauty of the Creamery District with noise and pollution, destroying a "community benefit" already in place.
Please accept these comments related to updating the General Plan Circulation Element. I offer these comments in consideration of the adopted objectives and policies of HCAOG’s Regional Transportation Plan, Variety in Rural Options of Mobility (VROOM) 2022-2024.
HCAOG staff appreciate and support the draft/suggested changes that serve to most effectively increase safety, most broadly increase accessibility for users–especially the most vulnerable users, increase equity in transportation investments and resources, decrease transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions, and improve health outcomes. As more and more research supports, transportation policies that engender these benefits simultaneously augment the social, economic, and recreational qualities of neighborhoods.
Please find attached a map of the Cannabis Zone that I have modified to show the acreages of the parcels/groups of parcels in the southwestern portion of the zone. I feel that the Commission should consider the question as to whether to rezone these areas to RH to accommodate and plan for Cal Poly's need to provide student-type housing. -- My reason/goals for requesting this change: *Proximity to the school, easy walking distance. *Remove the Coastal Zone portion of the Gateway Plan which is risky business given sea level and water table rise. *Remove the need to rezone agricultural resource land for high density housing. *Remove the need to rezone residential neighborhoods to RH. *Address and plan for the continual need for student housing in Arcata in a location that makes sense due to proximity to school.
I wish to underscore the importance of keeping the July 2023 deadline for the planning commission to complete its initial review of the Gateway Plan. Staying on schedule to move forward is essential, particularly in light of delays already incurred.
Last week I learned that our rented farmland in Exhibit 5 of the Chapter 2 of the Draft LU Element (see below), has been proposed for rezoning from Agricultural‐Residential to Residential‐High Density. These two farm parcels along Arcata's 17th Street are a beloved part of Arcata's walking and bicycling experience. People stop all day long to feed the llamas and pigs, and to take selfies, like an informal petting zoo. And people love the Tule Fog Farm bacon and eggs we sell at the Farmers' Market.
Small farms are part of what makes Arcata great. That is why: 1. Every prior General Plan has mapped these ag parcels as part of Arcata's Green Belt. 2. Every year the City Council has directed Staff to preserve them in the annual Goal Setting meeting by unanimous vote.
Councilmembers,
Item XI.A on your Wednesday agenda involves revisiting the Council's March 1 decision to set a July 2023 deadline for the Planning Commission to complete its review and recommendation on the draft Gateway Plan, the accompanying form‐based code, and the rest of the General Plan update. This item is returning to you because of some concerns about proper procedure. However, nothing substantive has changed.
Please do NOT agree to delay the July deadline for the Planning Commission review and recommendation on the Gateway Draft. The Gateway plan is an important component of addressing housing and climate issues locally. It has been very thoroughly worked with in community forums and there has been ample opportunity for community input. It is time to move ahead with the Gateway. Thank you for all your hard work on this plan.
First, I want to note that I agree with most of the comments included in the additional comments published this morning, presumably drafted by Judith Mayer, the only experienced Land Use Planning expert on the Planning Commission and who takes the time to thoroughly examine the draft provisions and make suggestions for improvement. **** Are you listening to her? **** Finally, I think it Is very short-sighted and negligent to propose high density housing in areas that are going to be inundated by sea level rise within 30-50 years, regardless of their location within Arcata. We don’t need to build in future flood zones. Move such plans to higher elevations and don't invest in short-term solutions.
The new framework for conducting Planning Commission meetings involves Serial Meetings. For the Commissioners to be sending their thoughts to David, and David compiling and sending the thoughts of the many Commissioners back to them, in writing, outside of public view -- that is a violation of the Brown Act open meeting laws regarding serial discussions outside of a meeting. ****** There are solutions to this. Even having material posted on-line in a timely manner might be good enough. ---There are consequences to acting outside of the Brown Act, mainly that it exposes those decisions and recommendations made while in violation of the Brown Act open to suspension, as well as the actions which took place subsequent to the violations.
My thought is maybe we could have an ad hoc Senate Bill 9 committee in Arcata, to see if citizens can find ways to incorporate the states idea to open up housing and help young people have an opportunity for home ownership. -- We know when people own a home in a town, they are more likely to volunteer for City boards, school boards, PTA's, as sports coaches for their kids, etc. Home ownership helps to create the kind of town we all want to live in! -- May I request this letter and email be included in the next agenda packet under public comments?
Serial Meeting Brown Act violations ---- excerpts from the California League of Cities article on this, and Best Best & Krieger, Attorney at Law, discussion on Serial Meeting Brown Act violations.
Land Use Element notes for the March 27 Planning Commission Meeting -------
HOW IT IS NOW: “The early settlement of the town, initially called Uniontown, grew around a central plaza.” CHANGE THIS TO: The early non-indigenous settlement that formed a town, initially called Uniontown, grew around a central plaza. OR:: The early European-American settlement that formed a town, initially called Uniontown, grew around a central plaza. ---The very next paragraph in the Land Use Element is an acknowledgement to the Wiyott tribe. ---- 14 pages of notes to the Planning Commission of suggestions for the update of the Land Use Element.
I am very opposed to this recommended change as it violates our own policies designed to protect agricultural resources, both within and to the west of our city limits. These parcels combined with surrounding resource lands form an important “Gateway” or transition to the rural setting of the Arcata Bottom and our Greenbelt. They are flanked on all sides excepting the north by resource lands including a park and a conservation easement. **** The importance of small agricultural parcels hosting suitable soils for small scale agricultural pursuits are an unusual commodity and extremely valuable to retain in our community. Please retain the agricultural zoning (AR) for these parcels in keeping with our General Plan policies and intent.
The California State Attorney General requires local governments such as the City of Arcata to comply with SB1000 in Local Land Use Planning -- Environmental Justice in Local Land Use Planning. "Environmental justice" is defined in California law as the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.
The Transportation Safety Commission Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, March 21, 2023, was cancelled with NO NOTIFICATION to the public. What happened? Why be so rude as to offer no notice? ---- The Sea Level Rise Joint Study Session will take place Tuesday, March 28. Will there be an audio or video recording of this meeting? ---- Over the past year, there have been many dozens of BROWN ACT VIOLATIONS. Perhaps the City of Arcata can alter its practices so this does not continuously re-occur.
Your goal of "spurring investment and redevelopment within Arcata's existing city boundary" concerns me. I know the planned growth in Cal‐Poly Humboldt is part of what is driving you, but CPH should not be making our planning policies. The city should have tried to stop them from going in the direction they have now gone in the first place, instead of trying to build up our city to accommodate all their new students. We can still say no. I do not believe the administration of CPH, nor frankly many of its students, care much about Arcata. I do not want more urban infrastructure and growth. Your plan terms what you want as "development" but it only seems like growth. There is an old saying: We need smart development, not dumb growth.
"It seems backward, to me to create any definitive list of items that developers could offer in return for a streamlined approval process (potentially a ministerial one) BEFORE the Planning Commission has had any substantive discussion or deliberation on the streamlining process options that could result in such ministerial project approval."
"I wanted to give a bit of lead time on the materials for next Monday’s meeting. These will be included in the packets that will come out on Friday. But I wanted you to have time to digest them. To that end, please provide me any Land Use Element policies or Vision Statement components you wish to change/discuss by Sunday Morning at 10 a.m. I will work on compiling them and get them back out to you Sunday by 5. We’ll post them on Monday to our webpage. Lastly, the Circulation Element is included, but you will not get to that material on Monday. The intent is for you to have the element with plenty of time to review it. We will be taking up the Circulation Element and the Mobility chapter of the Gateway, including the K/L couplet, on April 11."
The best attended public engagement event regarding the Draft Gateway Area Plan was the open house held in January, 2022. Community members gave a great amount of feedback on a number of topical posters that were placed around the room. The City did not document the feedback given at this event in sufficient detail. A very limited summary is included in the Draft Engagement Report. Community members took it upon themselves to review photos of the engagement posters and prepared reports for each poster, documenting all feedback that was visible in those photos.
"I wanted to give a bit of lead time on the materials for next Monday’s meeting. These will be included in the packets that will come out on Friday. But I wanted you to have time to digest them. To that end, please provide me any Land Use Element policies or Vision Statement components you wish to change/discuss by Sunday Morning at 10 a.m. I will work on compiling them and get them back out to you Sunday by 5. We’ll post them on Monday to our webpage. Lastly, the Circulation Element is included, but you will not get to that material on Monday. The intent is for you to have the element with plenty of time to review it. We will be taking up the Circulation Element and the Mobility chapter of the Gateway, including the K/L couplet, on April 11."
I wanted to express my support for the process proposed by Vice Chair Davies and Director Loya and encourage you to adopt this approach as a Commission. I believe this approach will be key to meeting the City Council's deadline of June for finalizing a draft of the Gateway Plan, Gateway form‐based code, and General Plan updates. It will also help encourage public trust and participation. Over the summer, I attended numerous Planning Commission meetings to express my enthusiastic support for the Gateway Area Plan. But each meeting I attended resulted in analysis paralysis. The Commission was not able to move decisions forward. Confused and frustrated by the process, I stopped attending meetings. I am hopeful that the June 2023 deadline and the proposed meeting protocols will help provide more clarity, transparency, and momentum for the process.
We received your public notice of March 2023, inviting community comment on the City's proposed General Plan Update. The business operated at this address since 1982 provides private outdoor hot tubs. The "continued current use of our site" absolutely requires privacy from neighbors peering over the fences of our property. We will not hesitate to take legal action against the City of Arcata if the proposed General Plan Update infringes on our longstanding way of operating this business.
The two large parcels total 5.15 acres and are currently zoned Agriculture Residential which is an Agricultural and Resource Zoning District as per our General Plan and Land Use code. At your last hearing, these parcels were included with several other parcels to the north for consideration by the Commission for a zone change to RM, Residential Medium. I am very opposed to this recommended change as it violates our own policies designed to protect agricultural resources, both within and to the west of our city limits.
Our neighborhood, which includes Eye St.,, Grant Ave., and Todd Court, is currently zoned Residential Low Density, and is apparently set up to be changed to Residential High Density. There are approximately 60‐70 housing units in this area, and the change that has been proposed will allow Steve Strombeck to develop his 1.7 acres by the tennis courts into a 70 unit apartment complex, doubling the neighborhood population. Other than that, the zoning change will have minimal effect on the ability of other landowners to add second units or subdivide under SB‐9.
BROWN ACT VIOLATION --- This memo was submitted to the Planning Commission at the March 14 meeting of the PC. Printed copies were offered to people who were present, but nothing was available to persons who were watching on-line either at that time nor later. --At that meeting, a new Chair and Vice-Chair were elected. The wording of the 1st line "I support Scott Davies as Chair and Dan Tangney as Vice-Chair of the Commission." seems to imply that Commissioner Lehman had advance knowledge that Davies and Tangney would be nominated.
I wish to express my full support of the Gateway Plan once again. I urge you to complete the review process in due course, and avoid any unnecessary delays. Time is of the essence. Many thanks for all your work on this. I wish you forward movement!
In addition to the ongoing discussion on building heights, setbacks, and other dimensional characteristics, I would also like to see the City adopt standards on color as part of the Gateway Area Plan. In recent new housing and commercial developments I have seen in Humboldt County and other locations I have recently visited, it seems to be the current fashion to use outdoor building finishes in dismal colors like gray, charcoal, putty, and black. Think of the finishes you see on recent model Subaru Outbacks. Bleah. These are not colors to inspire a sense of joy and wonder in the people who inhabit such buildings. Arcata has plenty of good examples of bright, vibrant color schemes in its buildings that do transmit joy. I hope that the City will adopt guidelines that steer clear of the current, hopefully short-lived fad of painting buildings in drab, goth-fan color schemes.
The City Council has wisely chosen to set a deadline of June for finalizing a draft of the Gateway Plan, Gateway form‐based code, and other General Plan updates. This is a very reasonable deadline. Following this timeline, final adoption is still a year away (and more than 2 years from when the first draft of the Gateway Plan was publicly released). But meeting this deadline will require the Planning Commission to complete the remainder of its review in a more efficient and disciplined manner.
This company is located in Windsor CA and is receiving recognition for “scalable, beyond-zero-carbon framing system that is custom prefabricated to millimeter accuracy and code-compliant up to five stories. “ Can the form based code include incentives for low carbon building systems in addition to requiring compliance with Title‐24 energy code?
BamCore incorporates carbon sequestration, sustainability, energy efficiency, social responsibility, and reduced waste in construction ‐ so many positives.
SB-1000: The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and,
where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas such as those designated in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting.
The first drawing is the great drawing that Julian Berg did for an imaginary building at the carwash site. And this is on the City website. And then on the second page, I took the building and put it on a Google Earth view. So you can actually see how it looks in Arcata. The third page is what is not going to happen in the Gateway Plan -- where we have five-story buildings scattered all over the place. But I think people may think that this is what it [the Gateway Plan] is, and that needs to be cleared up. The second page I like very much, because it gives people an idea of how things [i.e. a building] fit in. I also brought a model that I'd made during the design stage of a house that a friend had built in Arcata, about 25 years ago.
Arcata needs to better understand how quick growth in the near future will forever change the community and culture of our city. Arcata has never been, nor should it ever be, a large city, which is often defined by their high-density populations. The beauty and allure of our community is in the small town setting which allows a feeling of community with all that live here: whether they are friends, neighbors, transplants or tourists. Four story and smaller buildings are the average height of the apartments and buildings that have been built here in the last couple of decades. We should hold to this precedent. No buildings taller than four stories should be allowed to be zoned, permitted or built in the city of Arcata.
The report that is attached here is a starting point for a conversation on "What is Affordable Housing?" At the Planning Commission study session on February 11, 2023, David Loya said “We're going to have an agenda item on affordable housing.” Vice‐Chair Scott Davies said “I think I think that is the piece where the rubber meets the road for the things we want as a Planning Commission and the things that everyone in the audience thinks they want. Because I think there's a disconnect between our collective stated goals about building affordable housing.” One concern at this time, with the discussions about Community Benefits – both options and requirements ‐‐ is to what extent these may add to the cost of the project, and have the effect of increasing the rents.
I'm writing simply to say that I continue to support developing the Gateway Area as a densely developed area that will provide rental and (I hope) some resident‐owned housing in Arcata, and do so in a way that encourages people to get around by bike, on foot, or by bus. I'm content with the engagement efforts the City has made, in fact I'm very impressed by them. If anything, I think the City should be moving more rapidly on this project.
Please take this opportunity to establish deadlines ‐ or at least clear targets ‐ for adoption of the Gateway Area Plan and its implementing form‐based code. The plan is a key element of the city's strategy to address the housing shortage and to meet climate, economic and public safety goals. Its adoption is urgently needed ‐ both to enable more walkable, climate‐friendly housing production, and so that staff can move on to other important tasks, including infill planning for other parts of the city.
The best attended public engagement event regarding the Draft Gateway Area Plan was the open house held in January, 2022. Community members gave a great amount of feedback on a number of topical posters that were placed around the room. The City did not document the feedback given at this event in sufficient detail. A very limited summary is included in the Draft Engagement Report. Community members took it upon themselves to review photos of the engagement posters and prepared reports for each poster, documenting all feedback that was visible in those photos.
The minutes of the Planning Commission meetings no longer have a synopsis of what each member of the public spoke about. The minutes now read "Public comment was heard from community members." -------- The suggestion is to post the names of the speakers and the time on the City-provided video when each person spoke, and include this record in the minutes of that meeting. That way an interested party could easily locate the spot on the video where that member of the public spoke.
First, we want to reiterate that we are strong supporters of the draft Gateway Area Plan, and we urge the city to finalize
and adopt the plan and its form-based code quickly. This is a key strategy to address the housing crisis, the climate crisis, and the street safety crisis, and progress is urgently needed. There should be no minimum parking mandates in the code.
It strikes me that the height should be predominantly 3 story with a possible setback 4th floor that had easy access from the 3rd floor and a space up there for gardens and community use (ie: barbecues, gatherings). There is a lot of talk about this plan creating housing but without incentives for folks to adopt section 8 options for the development or other ways to provide housing to the low income residents, this housing boon will be a boon to the developers pocketbooks and not to the housing market for the less wealthy. I live near 2575 Alliance, a large low income apartment complex, that houses MANY people and while it is not perfect, it is pretty darn great!
I support the Gateway proposed project and do so because I strongly support having high density development in Arcata that allows for alternate transportation (by bike, transit, and foot) and enables individuals and families to live affordably in this city. I think this is more important than having extensive total areas devoted to parking, and vastly greater than developing extensive swaths of nearby land for single family homes few will ever be able to afford.
The City made no attempt to record the Council's meeting with the Committee Chairs on Feb 21, or the Feb 11 Form-Based Code study session. Recordings of both are on Arcata1.com. A request for $550 for the video recording of three Planning Commission workshops that the Community Development Department is not making accessible.
The Planning Commission study session of February 11 is on Arcata1.com. There is no City recording of this important study session. This was the first in-person meeting with our Form-Based Code consultant, Ben Noble.
I'm reaching out to voice support for the Gateway Area Plan, and urge the city to finalize and adopt the plan and its form‐based code quickly. This plan addresses issues related to critical housing and transportation needs as well as the climate crisis.
The TSC recommendations to the Gateway Plan were weakened and changed, against their wishes. --- The General Plan contains wording counter to the TSC's stated views and should be updated --- Quotes from the TSC on their strong support and recommendation of the L Street Linear Park.
The report that is attached here is a starting point for a conversation on "What is Affordable Housing?" At the Planning Commission study session on February 11, 2023, David Loya said “We're going to have an agenda item on affordable housing.” Vice‐Chair Scott Davies said “I think I think that is the piece where the rubber meets the road for the things we want as a Planning Commission and the things that everyone in the audience thinks they want. Because I think there's a disconnect between our collective stated goals about building affordable housing.” One concern at this time, with the discussions about Community Benefits – both options and requirements ‐‐ is to what extent these may add to the cost of the project, and have the effect of increasing the rents.
The California State law governing new construction allows “no personal or subjective judgment by a public official.” The problem is, of course, to define that objective standard. --- Select five buildings in town generally liked that could represent what Arcata is looking for in design. Many Arcatans do not want to become a “modern” city. Let us continue in this tradition and not lose our identity as we move to meet the needs of the future.
Ben Noble's orientation seems to be urban and modern. Frankly, I don’t think he’s the right man for the job here. ------ Here’s a proposal. Pick one site. Have a discussion among yourselves about what kind of Form-Based Code it would take to satisfy what you want to see happen on that one site. I propose the AmeriGas site – between 6th & 7th, between K and L. Here’s why.
General Plan - Growth Management Element issues that were brought up by Commissioner Judith Mayer, and emphasized by Fred Weis. To be discussed at the Planning Commission meeting of 2/28/2023.
A reply from Community Director David Loya to the letter written by Lee Torrence, dated February 12, 2023. Mr. Loya wrote: "I understand it can feel sometimes like the decision makers are not listening because they do not respond to each and every comment or because the direction they seem to be heading does not align well with some community member’s ideas about the future of Arcata."
People want housing, but once the problems are explained to them they normally say, “Oh, I didn’t know that,” and start to question the plan. So I take my hat off to and am extremely grateful to those who attend your meetings regularly and speak out on our behalf. ----------- I watch the city council meetings and it actually seems a waste of time for anybody to comment. It looks like your minds have been made up since the beginning.
---------
Fred Weis’s opinion piece in the Mad River Union states the obvious reasons very efficiently why you need to reign in the scope of the Gateway Plan. He has, along with many, many members of the community stated these concerns since the plan was “unveiled.”
The Gateway zoning allows for tall buildings, 4 to 8 stories high. I think that tall buildings should only be built where there is sufficient open space around them. A negative example
would be the Sorrel Place building, which does not have enough open space around it, and so it seems cramped. Whenever tall buildings are concerned, I think adequate attention should be placed to their context, and how they fit in to their surroundings.
City of Arcata Community Open House - January 21 and 22, 2022 -
Feedback results - Collated by Responsible Growth Arcata volunteers, based on photos taken at the end of the event. The overwhelming number of attendees want buildings with no more than four stories.
JANUARY 2022 OPEN HOUSE: A compilation of what people wrote ---"The best attended public engagement event regarding the Draft Gateway Area Plan was the open house held in January, 2022. Community members gave a great amount of feedback on a number of topical posters that were placed around the room. --- The City did not document the feedback given at this event in sufficient detail. Open House feedback was not included for consideration at the August, 2022 Planning Commission and City Council study session and it is not mentioned in the packet for tomorrow’s FBC workshop. Why not?" **** "Please note that the overwhelming number of attendees want buildings with no more than four stories. A distant second is three stories." ****
I pointed out to Director Loya that a number of survey responses, that were received before January 31, were left out of your agenda packet for Saturday’s meeting. I would appreciate if you would take them into consideration before Saturday’s workshop. *** Please note that they are listed as being received after January 31, that statement is not correct. The surveys were overlooked, not late. ***
"Affordable housing" is defined by the federal government. Is this also how "affordable housing" is defined in the Gateway Area Plan? If not, please send to me the definition of "affordable housing" as used and referred to in the Gateway Area Plan.
CRTP has the following comments regarding building placement, massing and design in the Gateway area form‐based code. ... setback requirements ‐ if any ‐ should be minimized. We support a prohibition on parking structures. We encourage you to keep stepback and related requirements modest so as not to place unnecessary
restrictions on density and housing production.
I look forward to delving into it more as it is a relevant and important topic, surrounded byurban myths which likely contain some truths. Comment on the message from David Loya that "The Gateway Plan already incorporates policy to offset the potential > stresses that could lead to displacement. The plan includes relocation > assistance for displaced individuals. It also incorporates inclusionary zoning, which will set a base percentage of affordable housing within new market rate buildings. There are incentives for going above the inclusionary zoning base for affordable housing."
"All the amenities we chose should be considered non-negotiable requirements: sunlight, parks, walkways, setbacks, playgrounds, meeting places, community gardens, native plants, accessibility, bike paths, safe roads, art. All of it. We all want all of that. David told me that he wanted a Lamborghini but he couldn’t always have whatever he wanted.
We don’t want Lamborghinis. We want human dignity, quality of life, potential for community interaction, safety for our children, and, yes, beauty. That’s why we live here."
On September 1, 2022, Alex Stillman forwarded the Mad River Union article "The five biggest myths of the Gateway Area Plan, and finding solutions" to the Community Development Department, the City Manager, and the Mayor.
"Policy T‐6 and its sub‐policies refer frequently to the need for "adequate parking" and reflect the widespread misconception that parking demand is a fixed variable. In fact, research demonstrates that the availability of (free or underpriced) parking encourages driving, so there is no such thing as "adequate parking" independent of cost or availability. --- Proposed Policy T‐4c.2 specifies that traffic calming should not "compromise emergency access." However, it must be recognized that there are times when slowing traffic will inevitably slow emergency vehicles as well. At such times, the overall risk to life and safety from all sources -- including speeding traffic and emergency access -- should be considered. Emergency access cannot be a blanket excuse not to implement life‐saving traffic calming interventions."
"The 'pros' of the Gateway are clear. It addresses the desperate need for housing for varied incomes with an infill approach which helps mitigate climate catastrophe. We are rapidly running out of time on climate and need to do all we can locally. We live in a unique and wonderful small town. I understand the resistance to change and development. But we have an ethical obligation to share this place with others who do not yet have education and/or housing. We have an ethical obligation to fight the climate emergency."
"I’ve owned my home down 11th Street for 36yrs and I am completely against this plan. It’s unimaginable to me that our town needs to build such a huge project, with multiple stories, invading and destroying our quiet family homes, as well as changing our streets to accommodate this nightmare. Build around the university and Samoa Blvd if need be but PLEASE keep it away from the Creamery and our single family homes that we cherish. ----- I’m very concerned at how this plan will drastically affect and change our quiet, beautiful community in a very negative way. Especially towards the Arcata Bottoms. Many of us chose to live here to enjoy our wonderful town away from the university crowds and traffic. Sorrel Place as well as the building across from Co‐op are perfect examples of how atrocious these large multi storied buildings take over the aesthetic and charm of our town."
"I believe you need to seriously work with Cal Poly to address the capacity of Arcata Fire to address buildings higher than 4 stories.... The Planning Commission and staff are spending a great deal of time discussing and selecting amenities before it is even clear that building greater than 4 stories is either desired by the Arcata Community (no valid representative survey has been conducted) or feasible economically for contractors to build, particularly if we are trying to construct affordable housing, due to the enormous cost of the required foundations and other building materials."
"Policy LU‐1c calls for reducing or eliminating parking mandates in walkable areas near transit. We appreciate this direction, but we call on you to go further and eliminate all parking mandates citywide." --- "If AFD can't serve buildings which are 4 or more stories tall, that is an urgent problem. In other words, AFD's presentation seems to imply that it could not currently respond effectively to a fire at the Jacoby Storehouse, or Sorrel Place, or the university's BSS building. If that's true, we've got to solve this problem now, not in the future. Which means it won't be a limitation by the time any new development could take place in the Gateway Area. In fact, Gateway development would help pay for the increased service needed to protect Arcata's existing mid‐rise buildings."
"Have Weott leadership been invited to participate in the Gateway Plan ideas? If not, I could enquire with the tribe to see who might be interested in participating."
The "Gulliver's Travels" map from 1726 of the fictional country called Brobdingnag also shows Cape Mendocino, the Klamath River, and Arcata Bay. ******** "I would like to request that meetings involving the Gateway Plan be scheduled after 5 pm on weekdays. Many of us who will be heavily impacted by this brobdingnagian development idea are working regular 9-5 jobs."
"It seems backward, to me, to create any definitive list of items that developers could offer in return for a streamlined approval process (potentially a ministerial one) BEFORE the Planning Commission has had any substantive discussion or deliberation on the streamlining process options that could result in such ministerial project approval. Understanding (deciding) who would have authority to determine whether, and the extent to which, a project proposal fulfills standards for providing "benefits" is essential to determining WHICH benefit offers should be on the "menu" and how they should be weighed in terms of qualifying for very high densities, building heights or mass, and streamlined or ministerial project approval."
One common theme that has been heard from the public is how the Gateway Plan views certain features as "Community Benefits" when, in the opinion of many people, these features should be requirements. ------
In this letter, Commissioner Judith Mayer outlines some of the so-called benefits that really should be characterized as basic requirements, and asks for clarification for others. This was sent in advance of the November 15th Planning Commission meeting, in which a discussion on the Community Benefits Program was on the agenda.
"We support incentivizing residential density and affordability as community benefits. Denser, more affordable housing near jobs, services and other destinations is key to enabling healthy, low‐carbon transportation for all. We also support provisions to encourage mission‐driven developers who are dedicated to long‐term affordability and long‐term maintenance of facilities and programs."
"I wanted to send a quick message expressing my support for the Arcata Gateway Plan. I recognize that there is a major shortage of housing in the area and the Arcata Gateway Plan is a step in the right direction. As you know we cannot currently keep up with demand and things will get worse without action. Please keep up the good work and I look
forward to seeing this happen. ---- Travis Gall -- Realtor"
Includes October 2022 article from Lori Dengler "What sea level rise, tectonics mean for North Coast" -------- "The last few months I have been very vocal at the Planning Commission and City Council meeting regarding conflict that
the Gateway Area Plan building heights has with the Coastal Act, Sea Level Rise in California: Planning for the Future and
transportation circulations issues SB1000. ------- The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance.
Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas.
"I am writing a second letter (my first was July 31) in support of the Gateway Area Plan. I am a proponent of the Plan and infill generally. I live in Eureka and work in Arcata (at Cal Poly Humboldt). I ride my bike to work approximately 3x per week, which means I'm riding in Arcata about 3 mornings and 3 afternoons every week. Arcata has always changed and will continue to change. How we prepare for change is absolutely vital."
*** NOT IN THE PACKET *** The Westwood Garden Apartments project was approved by the Planning Commission on October 27, 2022. False and misleading information contained in the Staff Report apparently influenced the Commissioners in their decision. Ten days later, a group of citizens -- residents of the current apartment buildings on the site -- appealed this to the City Council.
This letter presents the nature of that false information, and requests the City Council to waive the $1,867 that the residents collected for the Appeal Fee.
------------------------------------------
Note: This letter was not included in the City Council packet for the December 7 meeting (original appeal meeting date) and it was not included in the City Council packet for the January 4th meeting (when the appeal was heard). The reason for the omission of this detailed, pertinent letter is unknown.
"The Planning Commission gave up on what could have been a win, win, win, project. The people of Arcata, specifically residents of apartments, rely on our elected and appointed officials to speak and look out for us." "In a win, win, win, scenario, the City has more and better quality housing, not because of luxury fixtures but because of exacting oversight that necessitated humane housing. This is where people's lives happen."
A 2nd copy of the original July 13, 2022, letter to Parks and Recreation Committee on the need for dedicated parks within the Gateway area -- in particular, playgrounds for children. Request for differentiation between adult recreation (bocce, basketball) and children's playgrounds. Request for differentiation between open space in the form of trails versus open space in the form of parks where people can congregate, sit, and play. Points out falseness of draft plan's “Existing Parks and Recreational Facilities” map.
I'm very much in support of the Gateway Plan, and my input is to be sure that the sound between apartments is not passing through into, below, or above the adjacent apartments. If you want residents to be happy with where they live, they need to not hear their neighbors coughing, snoring, or other noises.
*** OMITTED FROM PUBLIC VIEW *** Letter from Gregory Daggett regarding the conflicts the Gateway Area Draft Plan has with the California Coastal Act, Sea Level Rise, and SB1000.
Note: As of October 24, 2022, this letter has not been included on the City's "Submitted Comments" webpage.
Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3) is pleased to submit this short scope of work to conduct a community survey to help inform a large-scale planning effort in the City of Arcata. We are proposing a methodology similar to the one we used in 2019 for our survey to inform the passage of the City's Measure A in 2020.
Petition for the L Street Pathway to Become a Permanent Linear Park
We support the existing L Street bicycle-pedestrian pathway be officially designated as a Linear Park, from Alliance Road to Samoa Boulevard, and that this Linear Park be preserved and enhanced as a green space for recreation, play and community.
We also support the spoken recommendation from the Chair of the Arcata
Transportation Safety Committee at its August 2, 2022, meeting: "Revise the circulation plan that eliminates L Street as being considered for new streets and car traffic. This area is recommended to become a car-free Linear Park that prioritizes people." For the website and to sign this petition: www.arcatalinearpark.org
Please pay attention to sea level rise!! (re: Wastewater Treatment Plant, Gateway Plan) Former Arcata Mayor and Councilmember Michael Machi said it best: "Stop the bureaucratic sleepwalking ‐ sea level rise will doom our plans; Ma Nature has clearly warned us to relocate the Wastewater Treatment Plant" (Mad River Union, Sept. 29, 2022). I strongly urge you to read his piece and give serious thought to his warning.
Some thoughts regarding the current Arcata concerns, that include Cal Poly Humboldt and Gateway, specifically. Perhaps there may be something within this offered tome, of merit upon review.
*** OMITTED FROM PUBLIC VIEW *** Another letter to the Planning Commissioners that was never shown to the public -- not in the packets, and not on the City's website. Lisa Brown has been the co-owner of "Solutions" on the Plaza for 30 years and was a long-time member of the City's Open Space and Agriculture Committee. She proposes to lower the scope of the Gateway Plan, reduce the proposed 3,500 housing units, and be realistic about Sea Level Rise. As a solution, she says to look at the future housing needs for the next 20 years, and to only build on land that is at least 20 feet above sea level.
An interview on KHSU "Here and Now" with the architect Vishaan Chakarabartic. He concludes that the sweet-spot for homes in an apartment building is three stories.
A decision on "building height" does not exist as a stand-alone figure. Among the critical factors that accompany this decision: --
Setback from the street --
Upper-story stepbacks --
Proximity to other taller buildings --
Relationship with neighboring single-family residences --
Solar Shadowing --
The "canyon" effect for pedestrians and bicyclists, particularly in Winter months --
Massing and design.
Questions about non-conforming business uses in the Gateway Area. The public's confusion over non-conforming business use seems to continue, regardless of they City's outreach on this issue. I can point people to the SIRP FAQ page, but it seems that some people are distrustful of what is there.
Letter to the Transportation Safety Committee regarding the L Street - K Street Couplet and the formation of an L Street Corridor linear park. Dave Ryan said: "I think it’d be a missed opportunity to turn this into a people-gathering place for bikes, walkers. ... This is an opportunity to really put our money where our mouth is in terms of
making it a little less of a car-centric area.
A re-print of the article in the Mad River Union on September 14 regarding the L-K Streets Couplet and the formation of an L Street Corridor linear park.
I support the maximum building heights already contained in the draft Plan for each district to ensure enough density to support real walkability.
I do not support the creation of a new task force or committee nor the commissioning of a new poll or survey. Such surveys tend to have built‐in biases and do not provide conclusive, "scientific" findings on complex topics like land use planning.
Request for letters regarding the formation of a Gateway Advisory Committee be included in the Planning Commission packet for their September 13th meeting. Includes copies of the letters, from August.
"I am an Arcata resident and business license holder, and served on the Energy Task Force that preceded the permanent Energy Committee. I support the proposal for a Gateway Plan advisory committee (or task force) that Scott McBain and Responsible Growth Arcata made at last night's (17 August) Council meeting. I am not part of that group and not deeply involved in the Gateway Plan controversy, but my experience with the Energy Task Force makes me believe that a formal body for citizen input would be a very good thing." -- "First, Arcata is blessed with a wealth of professional expertise in many fields relevant to the Gateway Plan, and its citizens are unusually willing to volunteer their time and expertise. --- Second, a clear route for serious citizen input is essential for the Gateway Plan to gain credibility and acceptance in the community. My strong perception is that many residents applaud the Plan's goals but many also see it as being pushed
by insiders intent on removing obstacles to profitable development."
I concur with Planning Commissioner Kimberley White who mentioned that the Gateway Plan feels more like it’s staff driven than led by community input. So my main request to you tonight is to bring us - the community - along with you! -- What’s missing in the Gateway Plan is the evidence that the Plan is fiscally responsible or feasible (i.e. wastewater, roads, traffic, schools, police, etc, etc) -- Sea Level Rise, Arcata Fire District - Susan Ornela's letter - I am concerned that our letters are not getting into the agenda packets.
"Why aren’t you listening to your own experts? -- Assistant Chief Sean Campbell cites a host of grievances from a shortage of staff and equipment to lack of funding and adequate training with absolutely zero capacity to respond to fires in high-rise or mid-rise buildings (6 to 8 stories). The district doesn’t even have a ladder truck!"
Housing in Humboldt. It’s on everyone’s mind, and Arcata may be a focal point. The City of Arcata has been studying the ‘Gateway’ project -the redevelopment of
important properties in the City, properties close to downtown, reasonably close to
the university. I support some element s of this development idea, I see that we could use our property better, for greater uses – and like the idea of retail on the first floor, and apartments above. Gaudi did it beautifully in Barcelona, Spain. Can we be as creative? Eight stories on a mudflat? Probably not. Maybe we can think wider. I’m thinking about all of Arcata, and beyond.
Alex Stillman forwarded the Mad River Union article "The five biggest myths of the Gateway Area Plan, and finding solutions" from August 31, 2022 to the Community Development Department, the City Manager, and the Mayor.
Alex Stillman forwarded the North Coast Journal article "Cal Poly Paid Triple Appraised Value in Land Purchase --
University dubs property 'vital' but won't say what it will be used for after outbidding nonproft"
"A controversial 8 story apartment building in Oceanside. This report about a controversial 8-story apartment in Oceanside might be educational for CC and Planco with respect to how the state law is being implemented. Question is: how do we avoid this happening to us? Is this what we really want for Arcata? Does our proposed form-based code protect us from the above situation? If we leave our districts as designated for 5-8 stories, does that make us more vulnerable? If we left them at 4 stories, does that protect us? Lots of
questions remain to be answered. so what's the best strategy for Arcata, at least in the short run, to avoid being overwhelmed by the recent state law's provisions?"
I have enclosed an analysis review of the January 2022 2-day open house created by the Responsible Growth Arcata (RGA) group. As you have probably seen, Arcata City Staff has created a Draft Summary of the 2-day event but have yet to finalize the report with statistics, numbers and a proper evaluation final report. RGA has taken the time to go through all the Poster Boards, sticky notes, comments and such from the Community event and our report shows an reasonably accurate depiction of the attending Community members responses, opinions as well as future vision ideology.
Does the city have a plan, and by that I mean a very specific plan (with maps), for where to relocate the sewage treatment plant and businesses south of Samoa and West of Old Arcata Rd.? Also, is the city prepared for a worst case scenario like the mega floods predicted to hit California in approx 30 years? Or the type of floods that occurred here in 1964, which according to climate scientists, are becoming more frequent? --------- At the last PlanCo meeting, Kimberley White said that this feels more staff driven than community driven. That's why we're calling for an advisory board made up of professionals and better community engagement. I think that's a reasonable request, but the council is turning a deaf ear. What that means in the long run is that you won't get buy-in from the public and could even end up with a lawsuit, further delaying the project.
Contains 62 pages of information, collected from people's comments and viewpoints, that the City has not included in their engagement report about the Gateway Plan. Includes the comments on the Post-Its from the two-day January 2022 Open House meeting -- information that the City has been unwilling to assemble and published.
"I would like to express our strong support for the conversion of K and L Streets from two way to one way in order to better accommodate bicycle and pedestrian traffic in the corridor as part of the Gateway Plan. We would like to be involved in the specific design of facilities when the design stage is undertaken to assure that the best possible design is undertaken to provide for safe and efficient bicycle travel. Thank you for proposing this in the draft plan."
NO MORE THAN 2-4 STORIES -- "I know I am not alone in my appreciation of Arcata’s unique size and character as a small town with lots of community activities, safe walkable neighborhoods and easy access to natural areas. With these values in mind, I want to express my support for a measured approach to future growth and one that includes ample feedback and involvement from residents of Arcata who love this town like I do. I support a gateway plan that includes a variety of new construction including mid‐size apartments no more than 2‐4 stories and more on the side of 2‐3 stories as well as condos, duplexes, single dwellings and tiny houses."
"I’ve owned my home down 11th Street for 36yrs and I am completely against this plan. It’s unimaginable to me that our town needs to build such a huge project, with multiple stories, invading and destroying our quiet family homes, as well as changing our streets to accommodate this nightmare. Build around the university and Samoa Blvd if need be but PLEASE keep it away from the Creamery and our single family homes that we cherish. ----- I’m very concerned at how this plan will drastically affect and change our quiet, beautiful community in a very negative way. Especially towards the Arcata Bottoms. Many of us chose to live here to enjoy our wonderful town away from the university crowds and traffic. Sorrel Place as well as the building across from Co‐op are perfect examples of how atrocious these large multi storied buildings take over the aesthetic and charm of our town."
"As has been stated many times throughout this process, planning for development that allows people to live, work and play without relying on personal vehicles not only makes for more livable communities, but it will also help us to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, which is absolutely vital given the fact that we are in a climate crisis. We also mustn’t forget that Arcata is a coastal city in a region that is expected to experience higher rates of sea level rise than other regions on the West Coast and make sure that this factors into planning efforts."
"I certainly hope that everything is adopted by next summer. But since we're almost a year in and the PC hasn't even gotten through an initial review of the plan (let alone the code, which will be much more complicated), I'm feeling that there may be a need for a real deadline to motivate a more efficient process. "
David Loya: I anticipate this work to be completed by the summer of ’23 at the latest.
[The August 23, 2022, joint City Council - Planning Commission meeting was not held on Zoom. The stated reason was that with participants sitting around a table, there could not be video coverage. The audio of this meeting is available on Arcata1.com] ----------- "I am writing to let you know that I am deeply disappointed that tonight’s meeting will not be available for attending or viewing via Zoom or YouTube. After so much dialogue about desiring community involvement you are closing off many community members by holding this meeting as ‘In Person Only’. Please change tonight’s meeting format to include this wider audience or, at the very least, see that meetings regarding The Gateway Plan include the Zoom and YouTube options going forward. I’ve been anticipating this meeting for several days only to find out there is a barrier to my involvement."
As we consider approval of the Arcata Gateway plan, whatever the scope, please include the increase of public transit. Busses should be small and operate with no or low emission and should move throughout Arcata and surrounding areas plentifully and often. Please plan for the large number of people who will come to Arcata for school, work, recreation etc. by providing a usable and reliable transit system, complete with a clean and well-functioning transit center.
"Regarding high‐rise housing in Arcata, I think problems presented by going up to five, six, seven, or eight stories deserve to be addressed with creative solutions AND can be addressed in ways that recognize the values of aesthetics, practicality, comfort, safety, sunlight on public sidewalks, and whatever other issues may present as we consider radical
changes in our cityscape. That the changes are radical, or that they look unfamiliar on Planet Arcata, are not reasons to be automatically rejected.
Indeed, our planet requires us to devise and implement far‐reaching and consequential changes to significantly curb our energy consumption and our dependence on private vehicles."
I own 1158-1188 10th St, which you refer to as the “Lord House.” I have owned this property since 1977, forty five years. In 2013, I spent $600,000 restoring the property to its present state. It is now the gem the neighborhood. If you allow any buildings around this property to cast a shadow for even a minute a day, it will no longer be a gem, it will be a complex that continually battles mildew. You must include rules in your plan prohibiting shadows on neighboring buildings for any length of time.
"Perhaps you can direct staff to hold a series of longer form public workshops to collaborate with citizens on the L and K Street circulation element as there seemed to be traction on developing alternatives, and apparently there are volunteers standing by with unbiased expertise to offer who are willing to dedicate many hours of their time working on details of street layouts." --- " The max building heights currently proposed in each district would allow for the most flexible development options to actually see housing built. As Director Loya pointed out, the market will drive development and there are certain price points that make development feasible. Just like how very few buildings have maxed out the building height allowed under current zoning, the max heights allowed in the proposed plan should be interpreted as leading to a few buildings, if any, using the max height (and those would be a nice fit thanks to the form‐based code and community benefits)."
L Street would be one lane/one-way car traffic and K Street would be one-way (K-L Street couplet). By calming K Street traffic and eventually gaining projects that will bring more foot-traffic, K Street could feel more like L Street, and L Street could feel more like the new K Street, both being more walk- and bike-friendly.
"Open Door’s number one barrier to recruiting and retaining physicians is lack of affordable housing. If the most well-compensated members of our care teams cannot enter the housing market other critical members of our care teams have no chance. Without nurses, medical assistants, and support staff, healthcare simply cannot happen. ------- Putting this plan into action will help support the health and sustainability of our community."
EXCELLENT - A MUST READ LETTER --
"I am an Arcata resident and business license holder, and served on the Energy Task Force that preceded the permanent Energy Committee. The controversy over recusal at last night's meeting perfectly illustrates the kinds of trust issues the Plan now has. An advisory committee could make it clear to the community that key decisions are not being made behind closed doors by people with vested interests, and could turn skeptics into enthusiastic participants. Without such a committee, it's hard to see how the Plan could be anything but divisive."
"The letters to the Planning Commissioners are not getting into the agenda packets, or otherwise made available to the public. Typically, the letters are 2 to 4 months delayed. Some letters don't get in at all. -- What I am saying here is not just about a lack of letters. It is about a lack of respect of the public process. On the last page I have included a quote: Sentences from the first paragraph of the Brown Act, from 1953. In my view, the letters are not the only thing that is being withheld from the public. The letters are only a part of how this Gateway process is being made obscure and filled with misrepresentations."
"Please record my support for the gateway plan, in particular for the proposed densities and other aspects of the project that will be important to fight climate change! "
"I support a well-designed plan to build up the Gateway area, but can’t we do this with a clear-eyed approach to how it will affect our beautiful town? This should not be about piling in as many bodies as we can hold. My suggestion is to do it one piece at a time, and every bit of it state of the art, thus creating a town that people love to live in. I live at [1800 block of] 27th Street. The east end of it (by Alliance) is a perfect example of the kind of infill outcomes that your “creative approach” creates. " ---- "The point is, your infill plan on my street has made it look like an urban ghetto. I can only imagine what this town will look like should all your infill dreams come true. I am not even referring to all the traffic problems that will certainly be a product of all this infill. The point is, Mr. Loya, we cannot pretend that people will ride their bikes as much as you or I do. People in America want their own cars. And, by god, no matter what your “creative approach” might hope for, people will have their own cars and park them wherever the hell they can."
"Given the need and requirements for low-income housing and ultra-low-income shelter in Arcata, what is the flexibility in the Form-Based Code for provision of low-income housing and ultra-low income shelter. (Note: IF the FBC is ultimately a means to preclude low-income housing and ultra-low-income shelter, then I will be a vocal opponent of both the GAP and the FBC basis.)"
"It is important there is a citizen group involved to improve transparency, trust and community buy-in." "The city staff cannot begin to know or identify all the potential impacts of such a significant face-changing development, and the Gateway Plan Advisory Committee provides the citizens of Arcata a meaningful process by way to understand and participate."
The PowerPoint and supporting document presentation about the Gateway Plan Advisory Committee. Includes a list of 15 Priority Issues. -- The Planning Commission decided to not incorporate a Citizens' Advisory Committee (also known as a Task Force). This type of community involvement, participation, and support has been used many times in the past, very successfully. An outstanding example of how Task Forces were utilized was in the development of Arcata's previous General Plan, from 2019-2020, in which 60 or more participants all contributed and produced a well-regarded plan.
Reality is that which, when you stop believing it, doesn’t go away. -- Philip K. Dick -------- "The Gateway plan is potentially the biggest change that has ever happened in Arcata. Diligence now will pay off forever. ------ Subjects: 1. The 3D Modeling is here. 2. City Council / Planning Commission Joint Study Session next week. 3. K Street / L Street Couplet Decision. 4. Gateway Plan Advisory Committee. 5. Building Height is not a popularity contest. 6. Soils Testing in the industrial area is a must."
"Please reconsider this project. We do not have the infrastructure to support such a dramatic increase in population so quickly. Yes we need more housing but this is not a logical course of action."
"I am writing to express my support for the Gateway Plan. I deeply appreciate the work that has gone into planning for the inevitable growth of our city. I am in full support of the idea of infill rather than sprawling new development. Above all else, I am concerned about climate change. We have a clear responsibility to minimize carbon emissions, maximize carbon sequestration, and mitigate the adverse effects of climate change. As such I am advocating for ... Preservation and creation of green spaces including lots of tree planting. Trees are beautiful, sequester carbon, cool surrounding areas, and make outdoor spaces enjoyable. "
"I am writing in support of the City of Arcata’s Gateway Project. While this plan is not perfect, no plan is perfect. Much of the opposition appears more satisfied with maintaining zero growth which benefits only those who currently own, rather than smart growth, with a focus on equity, multi‐family units on infill space, and reasonable vertical growth as this plan outlines. It is time that the privileged few acknowledge their privileges and stop hoarding these privileges. We need to look beyond our stated intentions and pay attention to the larger outcomes."
"I have many concerns regarding the safety, size, scale, appropriateness and wisdom of the project as it is being proposed. I have participated in several surveys, toured the area and written letters but I do not feel like the city (ie: David Loya) is addressing the legitimate concerns being expressed. The City Council is elected to represent the citizens of Arcata and I hope you will. I have not spoken with anyone in favor of this plan as it is being put forth. There are numerous issues that have not (and perhaps currently cannot) be addressed. I am specifically wondering how Cal Poly buying up so much of the available building land in Arcata will impact housing demand, public safety, traffic, parking, water and sewer usage, police and fire staffing and equipment, local infrastructure (our roads are already in desperate need of maintenance)...and who will be paying the tab?"
"I have revised my opinion on the Gateway Plan after reading Michael Machi's article regarding sea level rise and impact to our wastewater treatment plant in the MRU recently. I now think that the Gateway project should be shelved until we solve the issue of where to relocate the wastewater treatment plant, critical facilities and businesses from South of Samoa and West of Old Arcata Road. Please see my most recent letter (from today) on this topic, and would appreciate if you would include it. Thank you."
"I respectfully request that you take the time to read this article by Michael Machi which appeared in the MRU in March, regarding sea level rise and our wastewater treatment plant. I just discovered this piece recently while doing a bit of research, and I think it's imperative to understand that sea level rise could happen a lot faster than any of us think or are prepared for- and could be disastrous for the health and safety of every resident in Arcata."
"A special advisory committee / task force would likely improve the public process and enhance the ultimate quality of the final plan.
For example, in the past, the city benefited from council-appointed task forces such as the Arcata Task Force, the Plaza Improvement Task Force, the Solid Waste and Recycling Task Force, Aero Waste Task Force, General Plan 2020 Environmental Policy Task Force, Design & Historical Preservation Task Force, etc."
"As a resident of Arcata for the past 43 years, I value the slow(er) paced lifestyle of our community, and the thoughtful planning that has resulted in moderate development that "fits in" over the past four decades." "I would encourage you to adapt the same sort of strategy for the Gateway Development Plan, using a citizen based advisory committee working with City staff to a
plan that identifies and then addresses the range of opinions and concerns the community has concerning this issue."
Greetings Sir Loya, Thank you kindly for the email, and all that you do for our fair city. I look forward to following your progress. Please let me know if there’s anything at all I can do to be of assistance. Keep up the good work. See you soon.
"I and my household (3 adults) are in full support of the Gateway Plan and increasing housing through density, infill, and lifting height restrictions as outlined very reasonably in the proposed plan. I am aware that a very organized minority of long-term residents have consistently blocked plans for smart growth and couldn't disagree with them more vehemently. The very lack of racial diversity of the anti-housing group speaks to their being mired in the past. As a Black member of this community who has relationships with the full racial diversity of our city, I know that the overwhelming majority of us support the Gateway Plan and other efforts to increase housing accessibility. We desperately want to make this place our home. And we each know far too many people of color who leave because they can't find housing. We're just not as organized or vocal as those who don't seem to want to make space for us using such language as "protecting/maintaining the 'culture' of the city" or its "safety". These and other phrases are all synonyms for maintaining the status quo of a devastating housing shortage. We need more housing as soon as possible for low- and moderate-income residents, students, working class people; and so our children can afford to live here in the future."
"As an alternative to developing L Street as a one-way thoroughfare, and upsetting some people who don’t want that, here is another option. Use I Street as the one-way route through town for northbound traffic from Samoa to 11th Street. Most of that street is already commercial and the blocks between 11th and 8th could be developed much the same as H Street has been developed within those same blocks. K Street could become a one-way for southbound traffic with a bike lane, etc. At 11th & I Street, the northbound traffic could turn left onto 11th Street (perhaps with a roundabout) and turn right at 11th and K for continuing on towards Alliance as it is now."
"Many flaws have been described in the draft plan, with Dr. Andrea Tuttle's the most comprehensive I am aware of."
A letter of recommendation for the formation of an Advisory Committee to assist with the creation of the Gateway Plan.
"HCAOG’s regional transportation objectives strongly support policies that help build and enhance walkable neighborhoods, which are built to a more natural human scale and can better serve a human pace. HCAOG’s policy objectives strongly support land uses that minimize, avoid, or reverse car-oriented development, which requires more land and tends to induce undesirable driving speeds on local roads. "
"Dear Arcata Planning Commission, Please consider adding at least a 10% requirement of owner-occupied units to the Arcata Gateway Plan. It is no secret that our County and State are experiencing a housing crisis. Coupled with rising home and rental prices members of our community are being priced out of house and home at a much higher rate."
"I fully support: -Infill and increased density in the Gateway Area
-Strong, safe, segregated bike and pedestrian lanes and increased public transit -The K/L couplet with preservation of L street trail next to one way vehicular traffic on L -Mixed income housing -Strong requirements for electrification of buildings, charging stations, heat pumps and all
climate adaptations possible. I am concerned about: -Sea level rise and the Barrel district. My current understanding is that it is OK from the standpoint of actual sea rise but buildings might not be insurable. I assume that the EIR and
the Coastal Commission will resolve those questions. If higher buildings cannot be built there, maybe that can be a recreational area."
"I am hoping that you will support the creation of a Gateway Plan Advisory Committee, at tonight's meeting. It seems to me that an advisory committee could sort and consolidate all of the diverse opinions of residents about the Gateway Plan, and provide the Planning Commission with
recommendations for a good path forward."
"As a former Commissioner I don’t want to take up much of your valuable time before tonight’s meeting. I would like to ask that you support the formation of a Gateway Plan Advisory Committee.
Sincerely, and thank-you for the hard work that you do!"
"I support, and have signed onto, the proposal by Responsible Growth Arcata to create a Gateway Advisory Committee. The city's outreach to the community on the planning and pursuit of the Gateway plan has been inadequate, and I believe we need to regroup as an actual community so that the voices of people who live here in Arcata can be adequately heard and well incorporated into the planning process."
"I agree with you, a task-force/committee is essential as we move forward with the Gateway Area Plan. It will actually speed up the process in the long run preventing both log jams and public mistrust. Transparency and community “buy in” is key. More than community “buy in”, it should be community driven with recommendations given to staff, City Council and the Planning Commission."
"Enclosed is info on the Wynwood Infill project and the effects and lessons to be learned from them. With gentrification driving artists and galleries out of the Wynwood neighborhood, many are buying property in the predominantly working‐class area."
"I served on such an advisory committee in the 1980s when the City was
planning on upgrading the waste treatment facility."
"While it might seem like a detour to slow the process down while the
advisory committee works, I believe that ultimately the resulting plan
will be better supported by the community and implementation of the new development will be smoother and quicker."
Request for the Arcata City Council to establish a Gateway Plan Advisory Committee, 1 page document. Accompanied with 82 signers including former Planning Commissioners and Committee members, members of the General Plan 2020 team, Cal Poly Humboldt professors, professional engineers, business owners, and more.
"I'm sorry, but you're a total fool if you want to bring population density and tall buildings to Arcata before improving the medical system here. The hospital needs a few extra stories and some grant money, but you've got your sights on population density!? You're either stupid or negligent, I hope you get fired for what you're trying to do to my home town. --------- I don’t think any doctors or serious professionals want to live somewhere with mostly rental opportunities and a limited ownership market. I’m not sure why you think more rentals will attract serious professionals, or even legitimate adults to the area."
*** 4 stories maximum *** "I urge you to consider the establishment of a GPAC[Gateway Plan Advisory Committee]. I've decided to write again to voice support that new structures not exceed a maximum of four stories. I have many other thoughts in regards to the Plan but trust those would be addressed by the GPAC."
"While there are many challenges associated with the Gateway Area Plan, overall the concept is pretty amazing. To create spaces for a diverse population of people (culturally, racially, and income-wise) in an area readily accessible (5-10 minute walks) to “downtown” Arcata would be a significant accomplishment. I just watched the hour long presentation provided on the city’s website and was impressed by the degree to which natural features such as green areas, parks, trees, and even wetlands are included in the vision."
"I just reached my two‐year anniversary of living in Humboldt County. Thankfully, during my time here, I have mostly received a warm welcome from both new and old residents. Originally, my partner and I moved here to be closer to his family (who happen to be long‐time residents) and help provide childcare for them during the pandemic. Now, we hope to buy a home and start our own family here." -- "Also, as you consider the creation of a Citizen's Oversight Commission or similar body, I urge you to ensure that a diversity of voices are present in that space – including renters, students, working parents, and residents who are facing housing insecurity. These voices make up a large proportion of our city, yet rarely get heard in the Planning Commission public comment periods."
"In my opinion, the maximum height of any new structure within the proposed Gateway area should be limited to four stories only. Also, an advisory committee such as the one described below in the pdf, should be implemented in order to guarantee that the Arcata community truly has a voice in the planning of this project."
"The L Street pathway could be a community jewel in the heart of the Gateway area. --- Request for a “Plan B” if the K Street & L Street couplet cannot be constructed -- The City wants to destroy a quiet strolling pathway so that car and truck traffic will be split between L Street and K Street. Meanwhile, cities all over the world are attempting to get rid of car traffic in favor of walkable public spaces. A "Plan B" has been promised since January [2022]. So far, nothing. ---- The K & L Street one-way couplet cannot feasibly be built. The City does not have the rights-of-way, and seems unlikely to be able to obtain them -- The not-yet-negotiated old railroad rights-of-way, individual property owners’ rights of way."
To the Transportation Safety Committee -- "One of the changes that has gotten the most attention from members of the community is the proposed L/K street couplet with some members of the community concerned that this would add traffic to L Street. ------- Second, the proposal will turn the L street trail into a continuous buffered path. ****This will actually make the L street trail and those who use it much safer than they currently are**** as the trail currently shares space with the road in many places (e.g., between 10th and 11th St and north of 12th St)."
This appears to be the marked-up text of different policy chapters of the December 1, 2022 draft Gateway plan. There is no date or source on it -- no title whatsoever. It does not seem to be a letter, yet it is included in the City's letters on the SIRP website.
"I feel the establishment of a GPAC [Gateway Plan Advisory Committee] would go a long way in addressing the concerns and hopes of the entire community. I urge you to consider the establishment of a GPAC."
July 13, 2022, letter to Parks and Recreation Committee on the need for dedicated parks within the Gateway area -- in particular, playgrounds for children. Request for differentiation between adult recreation (bocce, basketball) and children's playgrounds. Request for differentiation between open space in the form of trails versus open space in the form of parks where people can congregate, sit, and play. Points out falseness of draft plan's “Existing Parks and Recreational Facilities” map.
A letter to David Loya introducing Arcata1.com. His response at that time: "Hi Fred, sounds like a cool project. I appreciate your critical thinking and clearly identifying the difference between facts and opinions. That is a rare quality in today’s environment globally!" -- Points and opinions: This plan will not pass in 2022. -- There's a bind in that the Form-Based code is key to all of this. The PC and public may want to go over the Form-Based code for months. -- I think full ministerial review [i.e zoning admin review] will never be accepted. -- I've been confused by the 3,500 figure. Yes, as you have said, it is mathematically possible. But, to me, it looks like developing the Opportunity Zones for that quantity might be a 50-year build-out, or even longer. Why not present what a 15- or 20-year build-out scenario might look like?
Andrea Tuttle did an excellent job of outlining key problems with this plan.
When I discuss this with other citizens of Arcata, they are most surprised by the idea of 6 and 8 story buildings.
Wastewater treatment capacity is indeed a primary factor that should be carefully scrutinized.
Includes summaries of 152 pages of public comments delivered with the April 12, 2022 Planning Commission packet.
-- "I found the letter from Nick Lucchesi, of Pacific Builders, to be outstanding in its clarity of stating what many people in Arcata, I believe, also feel. --
The public comments that were received during the Open House at the Community Center on January 21st and 22nd are not included."
The proposed development currently titled “The Gateway Project” would be closely adjacent to, and thus materially impactful on an existing arts neighborhood, The Creamery District”, that is inclusive of the offices and performance space of Arcata’s Local Arts Agency (Playhouse Arts) and a number of other longstanding and culturally storied structures and institutions. As such, it is critical that any new development in this area be planned and designed with careful consideration of aesthetic and logistical implications regarding the surrounding space and the community that occupies and
frequents it. Failure to do so could result in the dilution (and potentially dissolution) of some of the place-based traditions and practices that help to make Arcata and Humboldt worthy of investment in the first place.
Arcata resident, retired professional engineer, and former Greenway Partners partner Steve Salzman asked some basic questions in March, 2022. What happened to the public input element of Planwest's Scope of Work? Why are we working on an Area Plan before updating the General Plan?
How much additional wastewater treatment capacity will be required, how much will it cost and how will it be paid for? Sea Level Rise: Update the Local Coastal Plan based on the most recent and relevant scientific studies and planning efforts.
“Building height and scale: With apologies to the drafters, the very idea of 8-story housing blocks in Arcata is an insult. It is disingenuous to propose a plan that is dependent on unrealistic building types.” -- “Visualization Mock-Ups: The Draft offers no 3-D visualization examples of what different building heights would look like at full-buildout of 3500 units. Mockups should visually place structures in actual neighborhoods to show the impacts of mass and shadows on existing structures and pedestrians.” -- "Wastewater Treatment Capacity: “No re-location area is designated for the waste treatment plant.” -- “Even with planned upgrades, the treatment capacity of the current plant will be greatly exceeded by 3500 units, in combination with the approx. 1000 new beds anticipated from CalPoly, anticipated ADUs, and other development under consideration.” -- “Do not assume that a 20-year planning horizon means that growth will be metered out over time and that impacts will be gradual. In fact, especially under ministerial permitting, savvy investors and developers will immediately cherry-pick development sites before city-provided amenities (e.g. transit, trails) can be built.” -- “3500 units is a mathematically-derived number. It is NOT a “factual” number that reflects the carrying capacity of the city to support such growth. It has no relationship to the ability – or desire – of the town and infrastructure to accommodate that many people.”
While we are on the topic of 7 stories, I am also concerned about the whole look and feel of Arcata as a small town. We walked by the Jacoby Store House, we walked by the new construction going in. Again, I know we need housing, and I did hear you about some design ideas to help some of these building feel less looming, but I guess I’m just not fully convinced this is the look and feel of Arcata. Do not throw out the baby with the bath water.
At least from my perspective, this has been a top down experience for me. No one asked me, or anyone else in this neighborhood, or perhaps any neighborhood, what their vision for the future of Arcata was. Instead of trying to find out what the public’s wishes were for the future of the town, you are trying to sell them what’s already on the shelf in your store. My guess is that, should you have asked, not one person would have come up with the idea of 5-8story residential buildings, limited car parking, traffic pattern changes, that are represented here. You have not asked us what we want. What this approach represents is a top down vision for the future of Arcata, with a belated attempt at getting buy-in from the public. Is any feedback obtained at the open house going to be carried back for integration into the plan? Although there may be a version of the plan that may make sense, we are not there yet.
My interests are in an accessible and safe gateway project for all. Here are the topics on which I’d like further information. Number of proposed wheelchair accessible units.
Proposed sidewalk width. Ramp orientation directly into crosswalks, not oriented diagonally(and unsafely) into intersections as so many Arcata ramps are. Obstructions such as fire hydrants, street furniture, trees, etc. out of the path of travel. How will public transit be increased. Number of new high visibility crosswalks. Number of new bulb-outs for better visibility and decreased distance when crossing streets. Adequate street lighting for safe walking at night.
"One presentation to the Planning Commission (I think Ben Noble's) proposed three different possibilities for varying types of planning commission or staff determinations of whether a project would qualify for additional density bonuses, streamlined/ministerial approval, etc. --- I believe it's very important for the Commission have those discussions before taking any definitive vote on recommendations for a "community benefits" program that would qualify a GAP project for relaxed standards, or for ministerial / streamlined approval."
This plan is the most environmentally friendly land use plan ever proposed in Humboldt County.
Encourage the City to add more specific details -- ensure...
Synopsis:
Homeowners were not engaged - Lack of forethought in the draft plan.
Homeowners were not even noticed.
The plan is out of touch with the community.
Synopsis:
Gateway draft plan lacks detail.
Questions on infrastructure needs of Cal Poly plus Gateway.
When would there be a 2nd draft as a response to public...
