Note: What is shown below is a copy of the original letter.
Dear Councilmembers and Commissioners, and All:
On July 11 the Planning Commission heard a presentation from Ryan Call, architect and planner from the Gateway Plan consultant, Urban Field Studio. There was much of value in this report, and at the same time much was missing or deficient. Overall, I found the presentation to be both sobering and disappointing.
Sobering in the sense that, as I heard things, the indications from Urban Field Studio is that the Gateway Plan will not really produce the results that we want. (See summary, below.) Disappointing in that the report has an urban-oriented basis and provided unfeasible examples from which the report’s findings were based. The report does not appear to be sensitive to Arcata’s needs. The goal of the Gateway Plan is to create a dense, vibrant community containing housing for a wide income range of Arcatans. This Urban Field Studio report seems to have missed the point of the Gateway Plan, in very many ways.
For the Councilmembers, I consider this to be a “must view” (or read) presentation. It can take about 30 minutes of reading or listening.
On Arcata1.com I have an article on the Urban Field Studio report. You can read it and listen to it or watch it. The article includes the 20 slides of the presentation and a transcription of the presentation, as well as transcriptions of the Commissioners’ questions and the responses and my 3-minutes of comment. Also there are the segments of the video (cued up to the starting spot so you can easily watch them) of the presentation and the public comment. Also there is the 11-page written report from the agenda packet. There is an audio track of the presentation and questions, so that you can listen while you read. (You can download the audio as an MP3 to listen to it separately.) Below is the table of contents for this article, with direct links to the article.
I wrote this lengthy article and am sending this message because this report is important. The full article is set up so that you can watch sections, read, listen to it, skim, skip around, and so forth.
I will also say this: The report has so many caveats and statements along the lines of “Well, in theory this would work, but because of cost considerations it will not” that there is insufficient solid, conclusive evidence presented. While in theory the intention of the report was only to see if we could we achieve the level of density required for our housing goals, based on what’s in the Gateway Code. I say: We already knew that was the case. This report should tell us more. And it does not.
From the Council’s point of view (and mine), I’d like to know how much this report cost. I would request a second version, based on what is so sorely lacking in this report and its clueless attitude on what the Gateway Plan is. What I say is: Urban Field Studio did not do their homework. There should be a re-write — or a refund.
In the Summary (below), I wrote on just some of how this report could be improved. I am glad to discuss this with any Councilmembers or Commissioners or with the consultant, so we can get a meaningful report and move forward.
In terms of the question “Why am I so critical?” there is an easy answer. It is not a very good report. It needs to be improved if it’s going to be of value to us.
Thank you.
— Fred Weis
Summary
- This report does not take into account many important issues that are in the Gateway Plan or the draft Form-Based Code, that the Planning Commission has discussed. Examples of this include a lack of understanding displayed of: Maximum parking requirements; Daylighting Jolly Giant Creek; Our intentions for privately owned publicly accessed open space; The proposed removal of parking on K Street; The necessity of ground-floor commercial space as a means of helping to create a lively, interesting, valuable neighborhood.
Density and vitality in the newly-formed neighborhoods is what we’re seeking. The report shows a misunderstanding of the locales of Arcata. As an example, there’s a discussion regarding the wisdom of requiring commercial space in the ground floor of a hypothetical building located on the Tomas site at 8th & L.
Quote:
“The ground level retail I think, is just a little too far from your city core. It’s a real stretch. One of the challenges if the retail is not successful is that the street can be a little less safe, if those are vacant storefronts.”The consultant does not seem to realize that this retail/commercial space is across the street from the activity of the Creamery — The Pub, Redwood Raks, the retail businesses, the Playhouse, etc. It is already a ready-made neighborhood. More commercial space would expand on what’s already there.
The same error is made in the consultant’s analysis of the AmeriGas site (“Shops and restaurants in this area, it’s a little more industrial on this side of town. And there’s probably not a regular pattern of robust foot traffic to support an urban format of retail.“), the car wash site (“The surrounding neighborhood has a low density of walkable shops and may be difficult to set up a business.”) and the St. Vinnie’s site (“Difficult location for urban retail.”)
- 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. And that it’s likely we’ll need more parking. Why? More parking because the lenders (banks) will want the assurance, from their analyses, that the apartments will not have vacancies because prospective tenants want parking.
- Three of the four examples include economically unviable multi-story parking, while the report acknowledges that multi-level parking will unlikely never be part of housing development here. (The cost is $40,000-$50,000 per space, and our rents won’t support that.) “The structured parking is expensive, which may require higher rents or luxury units to help cover those costs, if it’s feasible at all.“
- At the same time, the consultant’s examples called for about one parking space for two apartments (Studio, 1, 2, or 3-bedroom apts), and the current Gateway Code calls for just one parking space for every four apartments.
- Commissioner Tangney asked about five stories being feasible. Ryan Call said probably not.
- More than once the consultant called for three-story buildings and surface parking as being a likely feasible design. In my view, this defeats the point of the Gateway Plan.
There are a dozen equally large issues with this report — and more. You can read further at E-mail from Fred Weis to the Planning Commission and Video of comments by Fred Weis specifically on the presentation.
Outside of this presentation, as I wrote to the Commissioners on July 9, there is this: What can we do to ensure that we do not have too low of a density?
As it stands, there could be a block-size development of “Foster Avenue Sunset Terrace”-style apartments. That medium density is not enough to create a neighborhood. How would you like it if the AmeriGas site was covered with rows of two-story buildings, a total of 50 or 60 apartments? Would that be in keeping with the aims and goals of the Gateway Area Plan? No, it would not.
From my point of view, if that were to occur, we would have failed. That is the opposite of what we want to create. And yet the current Form-Based Code and Gateway Area Plan would allow it.
The people at Urban Field Studio are architects. I am not an architect. It does seem that they did not give enough quality time or thought to this study. Or, possibly, not have considered much to what makes Arcata special, and to what we’re trying to achieve.
Thank you.
— Fred Weis
Contents
Click on any link to go directly to that spot in the article.
- Introduction
- The Presentation ~ 25 minutes
- Questions from the Commissioners ~ 23 minutes
- Video of comments from the public ~ 34 minutes
Comments related to the presentation, and general comments on the Gateway Area Plan. - Video of comments by Fred Weis specifically on the presentation 3 minutes
- E-mail from Fred Weis to the Planning Commission July 9, 2023
Written after seeing the Urban Field Studio report, in the Planning Commission agenda packet, before seeing this presentation.
Appendix
A. The written Urban Field Studio report
From the Planning Commission agenda packet for the July 11, 2023, meeting. 11 pages.
B. Ryan Call’s presentation to the Planning Commission, July 11, 2023
If you prefer to watch the video rather than read and listen.
Cued up to the start of his presentation.
==============================