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.

Dear Arcata City Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners,
I’m writing as a former Arcata resident currently living and working as a regional planner in Eureka. I would consider moving back to Arcata if there were better and more affordable housing options available to rent or buy, especially near all the fun in the Creamery District.
I support the Gateway Area Plan and urge you to take action to move it forward. Here’s why:
 The plan would encourage housing development in one of the most walkable places in our County. This plan is crucial to meeting regional climate goals, and is also an opportunity for Arcata to build a beautiful and prosperous place in an area that is currently underutilized. A mix of housing units at different affordability ranges, with storefronts and commercial activity, plus public amenities like trails will allow families,
professionals, students, and working people alike the opportunity to live, work and play in Arcata, and do so without needing to rely on a personal car. We need your leadership to make this happen!
 The max building heights currently proposed in each district would allow for the most flexible development options to actually see housing built. As Director Loya pointed out, the market will drive development and there are certain price points that make development feasible. Just like how very few buildings have maxed out the building height allowed under current zoning, the max heights allowed in the proposed plan should be interpreted as leading to a few buildings, if any, using the max height (and those would be a nice fit thanks to the form‐based code and community benefits). If needed in response to community desires, you could lower the max stories by 1 in each district so Barrel would be 7, Hub 6, Corridor 5, Neighborhood 4. If you significantly limit the height, I’d like to see an explanation of where else in Arcata you propose new housing to make up for what’s required by State housing law.
 Your staff are planning professionals, and have not only put forward a draft plan with excellent bones, but have also been communicative and responsive throughout a robust public process. The process has been admittedly confusing at times, but it is all coming together. I am re‐watching the Building and Massing Presentation video,
the Form Based Code workshops, Traffic Safety Committee meeting, etc. And your Planning Commission has put in a lot of time and effort to considering the plan. Direct your staff as needed and let existing advisory
committees do their work. Please do not approve the formation of this proposed Task Force as it will just lengthen the process without adding much. Perhaps you can direct staff to hold a series of longer form public workshops to collaborate with citizens on the L and K Street circulation element as there seemed to be traction on developing alternatives, and apparently there are volunteers standing by with unbiased expertise to offer who are willing to dedicate many hours of their time working on details of street layouts.
 Regarding concerns about wastewater treatment and capacity with cumulative development, I believe that issue is best addressed concurrently with the Environmental Impact Report that will be prepared for the GAP and General Plan. In practical terms, while the GAP and associated form‐based code encourage development, the
actual build‐out will be incremental and far less than the theoretical number of planned units. Phased over many
years, the project‐level implementation of the GAP will be able to address infrastructure problems as they come

up. While it is important to be aware of future constraints, including sea level rise, I don’t think it’s reasonable to
expect every technical issue to be worked out up front in a long‐range plan like this.
Thanks for reading and considering these vital issues