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.

PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR APRIL 27 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
I want to welcome to our new Planning Commissioner Joel Yodowitz. You, Joel, have a lot on
your plate to try to catch up to all this material and public comment.
First, I want to address Commissioner Tagney’s concern about whether the public feels heard,
and how to address that. There are those of us who continually submit both written and
public comment in person and online on subjects of concern, such as L Street, sea level rise,
parking, building height and density, and extension of high density residential designation to
new areas in Arcata (the latest concern).
To give you an example, I, the Transportation Safety Committee and others have asked Staff
to put a plan on paper 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 truck route road. Without an
actual diagram (or a detailed plan for how L Street would look if it became a one-way street),
you went ahead and appear to have decided 4-2 on a straw vote to maintain the L-street
couplet as a goal rather than as an implementation measure or a recommendation, on the
presumption that it might take decades to actually occur and to allow the City to begin
applying for grants and easements on properties they don’t currently own. You haven’t even
gotten feedback from the Great Redwood Trail Agency, or existing businesses and residents
along L Street, as far as I can tell.
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.
That is simply one example of my concerns. Another is the failure to schedule a discussion of
the implications of sea level rise after having the joint session. We point out these issues, and
they rarely appear to trigger discussion or get on agendas.

Next, the general plan proposal to upzone additional areas of Arcata is a huge problem. Due to Fred Weis’s efforts on Arcata1.com and the efforts of others, property owners and neighbors are beginning to learn of their possible fate. That’s no way to treat the public. Thus far, I’ve seen no articles in the local papers to put the public on notice. Plus, several additional areas such as Bayview, Northtown and Sunset have been added as implementation measures, which designation probably means very little to the public, which doesn’t monitor what’s happening on a regular basis. I had to have it explained to me.
Last but not least, there are clearly problems with giving proper notice to the public of exactly
what’s going to be on the agenda and providing attachments showing what’s going to be
discussed. It’s not sufficient to say that you’re continuing discussion on “X” topic from a
prior meeting when it’s not evident how far into the document that discussion ended and what
remains to be addressed. These problems continue.
These are just a few of the issues I’d like City Staff and the Planning Commission to
consider. I hope you take the time to adequate address these issues.
Thank you for your consideration.
Jane Woodward, Arcata Resident