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.

Planning Commissioners,
You’ve got a busy schedule over the next week! I am writing on behalf of CRTP to provide comments on agenda items
for each of your three upcoming meetings. As always, please feel free to reach out to me if you would like to discuss any
of these items in greater detail.
Saturday, 4/22
 It is crucial that projects which meet objective standards (which will be contained in the Gateway form‐based
code) be subject to ministerial (not discretionary) approval. The objective standards will ensure that project
conform to community priorities, while the ministerial approval will ensure that projects can actually be built
and not subjected to unproductive, years‐long reviews such as those we’ve sometimes seen in the past.
 We understand the desire for public meetings on a large project, even when that project will be subject to
ministerial approval. However, we fear such a procedure would lead to even more frustration and anger from
both the Planning Commission and the public, since the inevitably subjective opinions on the project will have to
be disregarded in favor of applying the adopted objective standards.
 Regarding the community benefits program, a program like this must balance a number of considerations,
including the importance of each benefit to the community, the cost of each benefit to the developer, and the
overall impact of the program on the feasibility of potential projects. We imagine that staff and consultants
considered these variables when developing the point system, and we do not object to the general scheme. But
we have some concern that the system as proposed could lead to transportation‐related benefits being left out
of many or most projects.
 We have the following specific comments on proposed benefits:
o We encourage you to provide points for nonprofit, land trust, and/or co‐op housing, along with tribal
housing (the last one is already proposed).
o The benefit related to dedicating setbacks to expand the right‐of‐way says that points will be awarded
for dedicated ROW used for pedestrian uses or off‐street parking. Dedicating land for pedestrian use is
great, but not for off‐street parking. As the Commission has previously discussed, we should not be
incentivizing off‐street parking in the Gateway area. In fact, exactly the opposite should be encouraged.
o For commercial or mixed‐use projects, points should be awarded for providing free bus passes to
employees, not just residents.
o The latest draft of the Plan calls for encouraging “unbundling” of parking and residential rents. This
should be a benefit with available points in the program.
o There should be more specificity provided on what it means to “exceed requirements” for bus stop
facilities.
Tuesday, 4/25
2
 Regarding building height and shading, we reiterate our position that taller buildings are necessary to provide
levels of density required for walkability, bikeability, and to support high‐quality transit. If measures are taken to
mitigate shading concerns, you should be careful not to excessively reduce effective density.
 Regarding the Public Safety Element, we request that you add a policy (or amend policy PS‐5b) to commit to
working with AFPD to jointly investigate purchasing smaller fire trucks, in order to reduce the perceived need for
bigger and thus more unsafe streets designed solely to facilitate fire access. Such trucks are in use in many cities
around the world, especially where buildings and street designs predate the automotive era.
 Also in the Public Safety Element, under Crime Prevention and Response, we request that you add a policy
stating that the city does not support the use of armed police officers for traffic enforcement. In recent years,
racial disparities in traffic stops has been widely exposed and reported in national and state media, and the
frequently lethal results of putting armed officers in charge of enforcing traffic laws have also been well
documented. A bill in the state legislature could soon present more opportunities for unarmed civilian staff to
enforce traffic laws rather than police, and Arcata should be ready to take advantage.
Thursday, 4/27
 Regarding the “bike rack” items for Gateway Mobility and the Circulation Element, please refer to my emails to
you on 4/7 and 4/12. In summary, we encourage you to adopt new or amended policies committing to public
transit improvements and Class IV protected bikeways on busy streets, and abandoning the unhelpful
“functional classification” system for roads (instead prioritizing safety and low speeds on all city streets).
 It is also critical that you follow up your important decision from April 11 to de‐prioritize level of service (LOS)
and use it only to lower speeds and encourage mode shift with corresponding changes to the rest of the
Circulation Element, including removal of references to “LOS deficiencies” and removal of projects motivated
solely by such “deficiencies” from the Circulation Element (and the Capital Improvement Plan).
 It appears that some items on which you already voted (such as LOS and downtown parking management) still
appear in the “bike rack.” We ask that you correct this error.
‐‐
Colin Fiske (he/him)
Executive Director
Coalition for Responsible Transportation Priorities