"It is important there is a citizen group involved to improve transparency, trust and community buy-in." "The city staff cannot begin to know or identify all the potential impacts of such a significant face-changing development, and the Gateway Plan Advisory Committee provides the citizens of Arcata a meaningful process by way to understand and participate."

"A special advisory committee / task force would likely improve the public process and enhance the ultimate quality of the final plan. For example, in the past, the city benefited from council-appointed task forces such as the Arcata Task Force, the Plaza Improvement Task Force, the Solid Waste and Recycling Task Force, Aero Waste Task Force, General Plan 2020 Environmental Policy Task Force, Design & Historical Preservation Task Force, etc."

"As a resident of Arcata for the past 43 years, I value the slow(er) paced lifestyle of our community, and the thoughtful planning that has resulted in moderate development that "fits in" over the past four decades." "I would encourage you to adapt the same sort of strategy for the Gateway Development Plan, using a citizen based advisory committee working with City staff to a plan that identifies and then addresses the range of opinions and concerns the community has concerning this issue."

"Many flaws have been described in the draft plan, with Dr. Andrea Tuttle's the most comprehensive I am aware of." A letter of recommendation for the formation of an Advisory Committee to assist with the creation of the Gateway Plan.

"Thank you for supporting the Arcata Gateway Advisory Group. The group should have a seat at this table in determining the future of the City."

"I am hoping that you will support the creation of a Gateway Plan Advisory Committee, at tonight's meeting. It seems to me that an advisory committee could sort and consolidate all of the diverse opinions of residents about the Gateway Plan, and provide the Planning Commission with recommendations for a good path forward."

"As a former Commissioner I don’t want to take up much of your valuable time before tonight’s meeting. I would like to ask that you support the formation of a Gateway Plan Advisory Committee. Sincerely, and thank-you for the hard work that you do!"

"I support, and have signed onto, the proposal by Responsible Growth Arcata to create a Gateway Advisory Committee. The city's outreach to the community on the planning and pursuit of the Gateway plan has been inadequate, and I believe we need to regroup as an actual community so that the voices of people who live here in Arcata can be adequately heard and well incorporated into the planning process."

"I agree with you, a task-force/committee is essential as we move forward with the Gateway Area Plan. It will actually speed up the process in the long run preventing both log jams and public mistrust. Transparency and community “buy in” is key. More than community “buy in”, it should be community driven with recommendations given to staff, City Council and the Planning Commission."

"I served on such an advisory committee in the 1980s when the City was planning on upgrading the waste treatment facility." "While it might seem like a detour to slow the process down while the advisory committee works, I believe that ultimately the resulting plan will be better supported by the community and implementation of the new development will be smoother and quicker."

*** 4 stories maximum *** "I urge you to consider the establishment of a GPAC[Gateway Plan Advisory Committee]. I've decided to write again to voice support that new structures not exceed a maximum of four stories. I have many other thoughts in regards to the Plan but trust those would be addressed by the GPAC."

"In my opinion, the maximum height of any new structure within the proposed Gateway area should be limited to four stories only. Also, an advisory committee such as the one described below in the pdf, should be implemented in order to guarantee that the Arcata community truly has a voice in the planning of this project."

"The L Street pathway could be a community jewel in the heart of the Gateway area. --- Request for a “Plan B” if the K Street & L Street couplet cannot be constructed -- The City wants to destroy a quiet strolling pathway so that car and truck traffic will be split between L Street and K Street. Meanwhile, cities all over the world are attempting to get rid of car traffic in favor of walkable public spaces. A "Plan B" has been promised since January [2022]. So far, nothing. ---- The K & L Street one-way couplet cannot feasibly be built. The City does not have the rights-of-way, and seems unlikely to be able to obtain them -- The not-yet-negotiated old railroad rights-of-way, individual property owners’ rights of way."

"I feel the establishment of a GPAC [Gateway Plan Advisory Committee] would go a long way in addressing the concerns and hopes of the entire community. I urge you to consider the establishment of a GPAC."

Gobbledygook: Could the Gateway Plan be approved before we even see the Form-Based Code that defines the design? This is what David Loya has outlined... and which the Commissioners say cannot possibly occur.

A view of the whole story. In Arcata, California, the Gateway plan calls for 8,000 people, possibly within 8-10 years. This will alter our town forever. Is it feasible?

Here is a one-hour presentation on what a Form-Based Code is, some background of its development, some examples nationally, some Northern California examples, and the nature of the Ministerial Review permitting process. 

A view of the whole story. The Gateway plan for 8,000 people, possibly within 8-10 years. Is it feasible?

How is it that McKinleyville has all of the info for their Town Center plan in one location?  And in Arcata, the same info is scattered all over the place -- or is in obscure locations that so buried that it might as well not exist. Read more here.

Links to the Humboldt County website for info on the McKinleyville Town Center, and Mad River Union articles.

A letter to David Loya introducing Arcata1.com. His response at that time: "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!" -- Points and opinions: This plan will not pass in 2022. -- 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. -- I think full ministerial review [i.e zoning admin review] will never be accepted. -- 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?

Providing housing for working-class people does not involve rocket science. Major technological breakthroughs aren't required to create low-income housing. It is a matter of national will.

Video of portion of the April 12, 2022 Planning Commission meeting. Vice-Chair Judith Mayer says Form-Based Code and discretionary review are not mutually exclusive, and will work hand-in-hand well together. Comments from David Loya on Form-Based Code and what went wrong with the Village project.

Which does Arcata want? Ministerial review, to smooth the way for developers, or Planning Commission and public input, which allows for greater oversight? We can have both.