Note:  What is shown below is a copy of the original letter, made for this website.  It is included here only so that the contents of the original letter can be searchable.  (The PDF received from the City is in the form of an image, and so is not a searchable document.)

What is below is not the letter sent by the letter-writer. It may contain typographical errors and other departures from the original.  The PDF displayed above is accurate.  The text below is not accurate.  It is printed here for indexing purposes, so that each word can be indexed and included in the search.

From: Chris Richards
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 11:22 AM
To: Sarah Schaefer; David Loya
Cc: Karen Diemer; Scott Davies; Nancy Diamond; Kimberley White; Meredith Matthews
Subject: Re: K/L video Comments

Hi David

Thanks for the letter in response to my August 13th, 2023 email with video comments. You are correct with your reference of the language on the slide that does appear as a justification for the Couplet plan.

No it isn’t clear as you point out. Maybe you could point out the justification more clearly in the future with fact rather than conjecture about future growth over the the timeline of the General Plan 2045.

I will add, the language used in the current Gateway Area Plan Draft shows similar plans for growth of 500 units: “GA-3a. New Units. Plan for approximately 500 new residential units in the Gateway Area in the next 20 years, recognizing the full buildout potential in the Area is close to 3,500 units, as shown in Table 5”.

Also your response claims the alternative plans included in your video presentation were vetted in a Community Forum by the Planning Commission. Please point me to the meeting, video, time that his vetting occurred. I have not been able to find it nor remember that actually happened. Also many members of the Community I have asked do not remember such vetting nor remember seeing any of the alternative maps you highlighted in the video. As I remember the “recommendation”, as you call it, for the K/L couplet by the Planning Commission was a “Straw Poll” and the final chart used on the “Other Considerations” table showed a fairly split opinion.

In addition, your email response is lacking on many of the important points I stated and I would hope you will address these as well:

“Further, 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.”

“There are many negative aspects that the K/L Couplet would create and you also have missed those talking points in the Video. I will send a follow-up email for that discussion at a later date.”

“I would also add that there has been a general lack and disregard for all the prospects of improvements for K Street. This should be a separate conversation and should have been on the table for complete discussion long ago.”

Feel free to “talk through” my points when you have time and send them to me via email. I encourage we all take the time to do our best as everyone’s common goal is a successful future for Arcata.

Thanks for your efforts to include my comments for Community Members and City Council. I also requested that the Planning Commissioners receive a copy as well.

Thanks and Regards- Chris

On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 10:32:43 AM PDT, David Loya <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Chris,

I think you are referring to the statement shown on about the thirds slide, which is an excerpt of the plan entitled
“Accommodating Planned Growth”. That excerpt, reads, “the new circulation system must accommodate up to 3,500 new
residential units as well as a substantial number of new commercial businesses…” This is a statement that identifies a
plan to boundary for the road system to ensure compatibility with growth projections. It does not preclude lower densities
and it isn’t the justification for the plan. I’m sorry this wasn’t clear in the language. I’d be happy to follow up on this.

Regardless of interpretations of that statement, the proposed plan and the alternatives were vetted in a community forum
by the Planning Commission. The public provided input into their decision. They made a recommendation for the K/L
couplet. And the City Council will be discussing the PC recommendation tomorrow night.

I see that you included the Council in your original email, and I encourage you to provide your feedback in person at the
study session tomorrow night. I’d be happy to talk through your points to ensure you have the most accurate information.

I will provide your letter to the City Manger’s Office, which handles the packets for the City Council. At this time, they will
be able to distribute the letter to the Council and public, but it cannot be included in the packet, which was published on
Friday.

Regards,

David Loya (him)
Community Development Director
City of Arcata
p. 707-825-2045

From: Chris Richards
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2023 6:07 AM
To: David Loya <[email protected]>; Sarah Schaefer <[email protected]>; Meredith Matthews
<[email protected]>; Kimberley White <[email protected]>
Cc: Karen Diemer <[email protected]>; Scott Davies <[email protected]>; Nancy Diamond
<[email protected]>
Subject: K/L video Comments

Hi David

I watched your recently produced K/L Couplet video and have some comments.

You start the video with a statement that describes a need for the couplet vision. Your statement that we need the couplet because of the possible 3500 new units and “Substantial” amounts of new businesses is complete conjecture and has no basis as fact in reality. 3500 new units would be the equivalent of roughly 70 Sorrel size buildings and would mean a production over 20 years of 3 1/2 new Sorrel size buildings every year! I can quote you from many Public meetings and conversations when y ou have expressed that we will be lucky to see 500 new units over the next 20 years. The premise you are using
for the need for the Couplet is not great, nor compelling.

Further, 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.
There are many negative aspects that the K/L Couplet would create and you also have missed those  talking points in the Video. I will send a follow-up email for that discussion at a later date.

I would also add that there has been a general lack and disregard for all the prospects of improvements for K Street. This should be a separate conversation and should have been on the table for complete discussion long ago.

I request that this letter be included in the Agenda Packet for the upcoming August 22 Joint Study Session as well as distributed to all of the Planning Commissioners and City Council members.

Respectfully with Regards
Chris Richards