It is my belief that City Staff have been withholding information that the People require in order to make an informed decision.

I would hope that we would see a remedy to what is an on-going issue. I have been observing this ever since I started learning about the Gateway plan, in January 2022.  I see it as a repetitive pattern — showing disregard of normal, acceptable operating procedures and process.

In the efforts to getting the Gateway plan adopted in an “efficient” and speedy manner, what we are seeing is, I believe, a case of a belief that “the ends justify the means.” That is, we do want a good plan. But there seems to be an attitude that doing whatever it takes to get this done is okay.

And that is where I disagree. I want a good plan too. But I’m not willing to see the public being shoved out of the way by violations of public process. I’m not willing to see specific requests of the City’s Committees and of the Planning Commission being disregarded and ignored.

When someone of the stature and importance to the Arcata Community as a director of the Arcata Fire District can talk about the views, concerns, and input of the Fire District as being ignored, then I’d say we have a problem.  (See Arcata Fire District Director Eric Loudenslager’s speech and video here.)

• I ask that the City Council and the City Manager see that all efforts to remove the public input from the process and the ignoring of the Commissioner’s and Committee Members requests end — immediately.
• I ask that the City Council and the City Manager instruct all chairs of Committees and all City staff liaison persons that limiting the public input to 90 seconds — or 60 seconds — when there are only four speakers wishing to speak is a violation of the the Court’s interpretation of the law. In my opinion, for a Committee that meets only once a month to be unwilling to extend a meeting beyond two hours in order to have meaningful discussion on something as important as the Gateway plan is very much out of line — and is antithetical to democratic process and the laws designed to enact transparent governance. A two-hour-plus meeting might be considered both appropriate and necessary — and be absolutely considered a part of the work of any City committee.  And aside from this, shortening public input to 90 or 60 seconds for each of four or so members of the public  is not the way to shorten a meeting.
• I ask that the letters from the public on the Gateway Process — to the Council, to the Planning Commission, and to the Committees — be made available within 10 days of receipt, or, if received within 5 business days of a scheduled meeting, to be available within 3 business days of that meeting — prior to the meeting, along with the standard agenda packet. No excuses.
• I ask that the minutes of the meetings of the Planning Commission show a list with each speaker and a one-sentence (minimum) synopsis of what is said — as is done for the City Council minutes. In my view, this is not too much to ask.
• I ask that the City Manager instruct the Community Development Director to never, ever, again hijack or substitute a Planning Commission meeting agenda. To have done this was pure insubordination. In the business world this would be a fireable offence. 
• I ask that the City Manager instruct the Community Development Director to respond to reasonable requests by the Planning Commission, the City Committees, and the public for information and resources in a timely manner. 
• I request that the Community Development Director be instructed to separate facts from opinions, and to take far greater care about expressing opinions as factual information, and to take even greater care about saying things as fact when it just is not so.

Do you want an example, a recent example, of this?  How about this one — one of many — from the “Building and Massing” presentation, released on Friday, August 12th, just last week. Module #3: Proposed Setbacks and Massing Impacts, at the 1 minute 29 second spot on the video. “I looked at these opportunity sites and broke them into sites that are vacant and ready to develop as soon as this plan is adopted. These three sites could probably develop immediately.”  The problem is that one of the sites specified currently has the building where Bug Press, the North Coast Fencing Academy, a storage garage used by the Arcata Fire District, and a contractor’s operation, plus a private residence. That site is not vacant. A second site has the Tomas Building, where Open Door Community Health Center is. It has an extensive garden for the Montessori school, including recently planted apple trees. And that site also is not vacant. (It also had been the site of the big-top tent — but that can come and go quickly.) The third site referenced is indeed empty.  How can the Community Development Director say that these sites are “vacant and ready to develop as soon as this plan is adopted”? The statement is 100% false.

And I look forward to seeing the creation of a superb Gateway plan for the future of Arcata.