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 will 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.

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!

As for criticism, I can handle it. If I was able to do everything perfectly, I’d probably be a deity, not a community development director. And you have to have pretty thick skin for this work. And, I see your critiques as constructive.

You don’t have to do anything with my comments below, but I put them in for the safe of conversation.

As for the website presentation to the PC, 1 would suggest you provide a URL to me in advance and I can forward it to the PC. You can read it out to the record as you
like. But it wouldn’t be appropriate for you to run it on screen during your public comment. We can discuss this more if you like.

David Loya (him)
Community Development Director
City of Arcata

———————————–

I didn’t mean to not reply to your recent messages — I’ve been very busy. This is a bit of a broken record here, but I have no idea how you are able to do all that you do. From my point of view, you are juggling a dozen plates in the air at the same time.

As I’ve mentioned to you, I have been developing a website. I see it as a place where information can be available to people, in one central location. (Not “all” of the info — there’s too much.) Maps, videos, Planning Commission meeting links, background info, PDF documents, letters to the PC, etc etc. For example, I put up Jennifer’s video presentation there. It also contains commentary and opinion. In my life I try to separate fact from opinion, and on the website I’ve male it clear with titles and, in some articles, the color and indentation, just which parts are my commentary and which parts are factual.

I am planning on speaking at the Planning Commission meeting this evening (Tuesday, May 24) and announcing this website.

At this point the website is long on presenting the problems and kind of short on presenting solutions. This is in part a factor of gathering the background material (i.e. the past issues). And of course as we all know it’s easier to criticize than it is to create. But the intention is to have solid suggestions for solutions. I’ll be working on articles in that arena — solutions — in the weeks ahead.

I have concerns that you may see my website as a criticism of you. It is not personal — I admire what you are doing, although in many cases I disagree with you. I’ve brought some of this up before.

1. I think the process has to slow I believe that if this is brought up for a vote in 2022, it will not pass. And then there may be bad feelings all around.

Thanks for your insights. The process has been ongoing for 5 years. We have consistently received council direction to continue on this path with explicit direction
when applying for grants and at several key decision points in the past. If the current Council decides to sift gears, that is their prerogative. At this point, I am
operation on consistent direction by multiple previous councils.

2. I think that 8-story max will never happen, and that 5-stories (with commercial on the 1st story) may be accepted in some zones. I’m also fond of the 2 or 3-story height half-block deep setbacks along the “shopping district” or pedestrian-oriented streets, such as how Redwood City made their plan.

Yes. I’m pretty much there too. I’ve said in at least two public hearings at this point that we will be making a recommendation to reduce the building height. Or, if the Council wishes to keep the 8-stories, to limit it to one a very few parcels with strict setback conditions.
We also like the step backs. Our plan calls for that as well, and I anticipate this being fleshed out during the community design process.

3. As discussed, 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.

That may be the case.

4. I’ve said this before: I think full ministerial review will never be accepted. A two-tiered approach might work. I also think that acknowledging this sooner rather than later will help but that’s your call, not mine.

Tune in to the PC meeting tonight. Also look for the upcoming study session. I plan to go over this in more detail. If you have time, check out AB 2011 currently
making its way through the legislature. We can stamp our feet and say we want local control all day long. But the state is going to force our hand to resolve the
housing crisis. Our absolute best approach to maintaining local control is to work as a community to develop objective form-based design criteria that principally
permits the kind of development we want to see. I will continue to present this option to the Council as the best interest of the city and its residents/business
owners based on my professional knowledge and opinion.
Sometimes the right thing is not the popular thing. But I’m hoping that folks will start to embrace the community design process and get on board with the idea that
we can have more control by designing it now.

If the Council does not wish to pursue a ministerial FBC, then my recommendation will be to abandon the FBC
altogether.

We’ll still find ourselves subsumed by market forces. Have you notice that Cal Poly is buying property left and right. There is a market force at work there.
And CPH isn’t subject to our regulations. This is one example of how holding on too tightly to the illusion of local control will have unknown and unintended
ramifications.

5. While not required in the plan, I think that the public (and PC) would be well-served if you could supply some “Plan B” options for areas of the plan where there are dependencies. For example, the K-L couplet may be dependent on getting right-of-way rights at the northern end. As you’ve pointed out with the Foster Avenue extension, this might take 20 years or more. Is the couplet dependent upon having that right of
way? If K Street stays as a 2-way street, what’s the plan for the bike lane? In other words, if it takes 20 years to get the couplet going, do we also not have bike lanes for 20 years? Some kind of “Plan B” might help on those concerns.

Yes. I’ve mentioned several times that we will have to have a Plan B. You are correct that it doesn’t have to be embedded in the plan. But, for instance, if Level of service on K becomes so poor and walking/biking become so dangerous, we will have to have a plan B operationally.

6. From the beginning, 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? If the Wing building and the log deck area don’t become available for 20 years, then what?

It just seems to me that you are causing yourself more difficulty by presenting this figure (3,500) which seems unlikely to happen for any reasonable time period. Longer term, yes, I see value in planning for it.

It certainly didn’t have to be presented that way. The objective in the table where it is mentioned is to show the anticipated balance of housing and jobs. It is
important to understand the potential impact of all of the rezones we are proposing so we can implement planned controls on growth.

7. This is somewhat a matter of differences in our personalities, but, for me, when you say things like “If people want us to stop doing this plan, they’re going to see uncontrolled growth” you are alienating people. I don’t care for this plan. I still think planning is crucial, and you’ve gotten the ball rolling on getting a good plan developed. So it’s not “If people want us to stop doing this plan” — it’s “If people want us to stop doing a plan” or, that is, to stop planning. I think there’s a better plan out there.

That is a good point from your perspective. I have had calls to stop the planning process. I’ve had folks point out that we already have a general plan. I’ve had folks
suggest that we don’t need to plan for growth. I guess I’m responding to those comments when I say things like you’ve mentioned. It is an anecdotal narrative that I
expect more people can relate to than me listing the 10 housing element bills that are going to force us to accept any development whether we like it or not if we
don’t jump on the stick and get it done. We can explore this in more detail if you’re interested. But I really would rather do it in person. You can record me, but I
don’t have the time to respond in writing to a lengthy back and forth…

To be clear, I’m not asking those questions as me wanting a response from you. If we do want to discuss any of the questions more, then great, but
I’m not presenting them with the anticipation of a response.

My website is open to articles from the community, and that includes you, of course. I would be very happy to haves articles from you — either as a
counter-point to other articles there, or as a new article. Or a regular column by you dedicated to just your writings.
Thank you —
— Fred

p.s. I will be presenting the website at the meeting tonight. I only have 3 minutes, so I wasn’t anticipating actually showing the screen. I haven’t
been to an actual live PC meeting in many years. Do people have computer presentations that are projected onto the screen? Would it be beneficial
to the Commissioners if I could use your (or a City) laptop at the podium, and have it projected? Does the audience at home see what’s on the
screen? Thanks.
——————————————-
David Loya Mon, May 16, 3:33 PM (8 days ago) Reply
Hey Fred,

Too much here to respond to in writing. I’d love to grab a cup of coffee some morning, though.
Thanks for the feedback on Jen and her presentation! She worked hard on that and I thought she was very prepared. I wasn’t able to attend,
so glad to hear her time in preparation paid off!
More on other matters later.
Thanks again for your participation and openness to the ideas.