The "Other Considerations" table supposedly consists of a list of recommendations for changes to the draft Gateway Plan that were in conflict with the draft. The first table came out four months after the 2nd Gateway draft arrived, and contains only a small fraction of the comments from the City's Committees, from the public, and even from the Planning Commissioners that "do not comport" with the official viewpoints.

Please be aware of the multiple Brown Act Violations committed in connection with material in the July 25, 2023, Planning Commission agenda packet. The Director said: “We’ve inserted what we expect you’re going to say, as a Commission — that you concur with staff on this issue, for example.” 

The Urban Field Studio report indicates the Gateway Plan will not really produce the results that we want. The report 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.

A critique of the Urban Field Studio report from the July 11, 2023, Planning Commission packet. There is further critique following the Urban Field Studio presentation at that PC meeting, available also on Arcata1.com.

This is the introduction to the lengthy article on the Urban Field Studio "Code Site Test. PLEASE READ THE FULL ARTICLE ALSO. It will take about 30-45 minutes to read. The full article has both critique and support by an expert of the Gateway Plan, and a good Q&A from Arcata's Planning Commissioners.

IMPORTANT presentation to the Planning Commission, July 11, 2023. Can high-density tall buildings be constructed in the Gateway Area? This report presents findings on four specific sites. The answer: In theory, yes. On a practical, economically-feasible, realistic basis -- the answer is NO.

The people at Urban Field Studio are architects. I am not an architect. It does seem that they did not give much time or thought to this study. Or, possibly, not have much thought to what makes Arcata special, and to what we’re trying to achieve.

Community Meeting ★ The Gateway Area Plan ★ The L Street Pathway & Linear Park ★ Bring your questions ★ Everyone is welcome ★ Discussion – Strategies – Involvement ★★★ Monday  July 10th - 5:30 to 7:00 PM ★★★ Doors open at 5:20 – Come early! ★ Arcata Playhouse - The Creamery Building ★ 1251 9th Street.

Arcata’s Gateway Plan seeks to provide dense in-town housing to make for a walkable, vibrant community. It promises affordable housing for people of all income ranges. Home ownership opportunities. Open spaces for walking, meeting, biking, and fun. But the current draft plan doesn’t deliver on what it proposes. Housing that’s affordable for working Arcatans and opportunities to build wealth by owning, not renting? In the current draft plan there are no valid mechanisms to make this happen.

At the June 13, 2023, Planning Commission "special meeting" Chair Scott Davies asked the question "And do you know or have you looked at what percentage of the actual buildable parcels in that 138 Acres is the ratio of those orange parcels to the total acreage of the Gateway Area?" **** This question is critical for understanding development in the Gateway area. The key is the phrase "the actual buildable parcels."

Now at eighteen months from the introduction of the Draft Gateway Area Plan, the wonderful world that was promised by the plan seems ever more unlikely. I refer to that wonderful world of “thousands of housing units that are environmentally sustainable and affordable to people in all income ranges” and “a broad range of housing densities and types, including rental and owner‐occupied options” that is promised on the opening page of the Draft Plan and continued in that theme throughout the document. *** Let’s look at what’s been ignored over these past eighteen months.

Arcata's Community Development Director David Loya explains his version of how single-family houses will become available for sale. As more apartments are built, people will want to live in apartments and rental houses will become vacant, and the owners will sell. Could this be true?

Providing housing for people is the key purpose of the Gateway Area Plan. "Home ownership opportunities” is defined as owner-occupied housing that’s affordable to people of all income ranges, including middle-income and even lower-income households. *** David Loya told the Planning Commission how these home ownership opportunities could happen. In my view, what he describes as being feasible is nonsense.

If indeed L Street were to become a through road carrying truck traffic from Alliance Road, there would be some pretty major issues. UPDATED

Note: This article was written June 10, 2022 -- almost one year ago. The topics that are brought up then are still current. The same issues that existed in May 2022 still exist in May 2023 -- one year later.

The City planners consider walking distance as an "as the crow flies" distance -- NOT a real-life walking distance. This a entire “10 minute walk” map is very misleading. It is a computer-drawn map with no regard to actually walking along a street. Yes, the Gateway area is close to town, and, yes, it is walking distance to many locations. But it is not true that “the Arcata sports complex is just within a 10-minute walk.” A person has to cross Highway 101 on 7th Street to get to the Sports Complex.

The proposed development currently titled “The Gateway Project” would be closely adjacent to, and thus materially impactful on an existing arts neighborhood, The Creamery District”, that is inclusive of the offices and performance space of Arcata’s Local Arts Agency (Playhouse Arts) and a number of other longstanding and culturally storied structures and institutions. As such, it is critical that any new development in this area be planned and designed with careful consideration of aesthetic and logistical implications regarding the surrounding space and the community that occupies and frequents it. Failure to do so could result in the dilution (and potentially dissolution) of some of the place-based traditions and practices that help to make Arcata and Humboldt worthy of investment in the first place.

This letter from Playhouse Arts, Arcata's local arts agency, was sent April 4, 2022, to the City Council and staff. However it was not available to the public until August, four months later. Signed by 23 people.

There are two articles on the rezoning of specific areas: The 17th & Q and Eye Street / Craftsman's Mall. *** There does not seem to be any accessible collection of MSDS information available to the public. What Commissioner Lehman speaks to is not what is "required by law" as Director Loya has mischaracterized. *** The need for a City park to be located in the heart of the Gateway Area. We may have, in 20 years, potentially 1,000 or 2,000 additional people in this area.

We're told the same long-range planning process -- where the Foster Avenue Extension took 30 years to build -- applies to Gateway's theoretical L Street. This is the proposed couplet new road that cuts through the heart of the Creamery Arts district... and makes a mockery of the serene spot that's been created over these years. The two situations are not remotely similar.

Again and again and again, we hear it said that the Foster Avenue Extension was 20 or 30 years in its planning, and that if it hadn't been proposed and planned for then it never would have happened. The Foster Avenue Extension and the proposed new L Street couplet are different roads, for different purposes, in very different environments, and with completely sets of buildings (both existing and proposed) alongside them. Consequently they will have very different planning processes. The situations are 100% different --they are like night and day. There is very little in common between the two roads.  *** WITH AERIAL PHOTOS ***

What happened at the April 11, 2023, Planning Commission meeting? The Chair first announced that there would be just a single period for public comment. Then, after a one-minute private discussion with David Loya, the Chair relented and allowed additional public comment at the conclusion of the main topic of the night. Video and transcription.

Fred Weis has already drafted an excellent justification for eliminating L Street as a one-way street through the Gateway Area. I agree with his comments, and want to add a few of my own. Staff argues that there are no alternative direct north-south routes from Alliance to Samoa, and one is needed a) to ease projected traffic as a result of projected increased residential density and b) avoid pedestrian and bicycle accidents. And if it’s in the Draft Plan, it will remain an option. There are several problems with this argument.

In previous Planco meetings, you've devoted time to discuss the need for parks as a "community benefit." We already have a beautiful park in the L‐Street corridor, which just needs some landscaping. Why destroy a "community benefit" that is already in place with a truck/car corridor? If you put a street with major traffic running through it, it will destroy the peace and beauty of the Creamery District with noise and pollution, destroying a "community benefit" already in place.