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.

At this point in the online meeting my impression is that this is an offensively elitist process
with the intention of excluding people of lower incomes from the Gateway Area.

Given the need and requirements for low-income housing and ultra-low-income shelter in
Arcata, what is the flexibility in the Form-Based Code for provision of low-income housing
and ultra-low income shelter. (Note: IF the FBC is ultimately a means to preclude low-income housing and ultra-low-income shelter, then I will be a vocal opponent of both the
GAP and the FBC basis.)

Hello David and Commissioners,
Here are my questions for the public event on Tuesday August 16 regarding the Gateway
Area Plan:
1. What are all of the requirements for increasing infrastructure capacity that are
raised by the magnitude of proposed new development? e.g. waste treatment.
1. Related: How will the capital be provided for the infrastructure capacity
increases that are required by the magnitude of proposed new development?
2. What are the projections for sea-level rise that would affect the GAP geography?
1. Related: What is the mitigation required to avoid the maximum projected
statistically-possible water incursion for the next 100 years?
3. What are the controls that the city has regarding Cal Poly Humboldt to preclude
inappropriate development by CPH and increased requirements for unfunded
services and infrastructure?
1. E.g Recently a 20+acre parcel on the west side of the city that has been
designated for senior housing and for which a locally-run group had
established a letter of intent with the owners was just sold to CPH for a
ridiculously high price, shutting out the designated use of that parcel that was
in process of being fulfilled.
2. Relative to the GAP plan and parcels, how can the city manage the behemoth
that CPH has become?