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.

Hello Council Members and Planning Commission,
Unfortunately I was unable to attend this evening’s meeting, but a colleague informed me that some of my comments may have been misinterpreted. The NEC is not advocating that there be no development in the Barrel District. What we are advocating for is that some of the taller building heights (up to 8 stories) that are proposed for that area be concentrated in the northern part of it where they will be less vulnerable to sea level rise. We want any housing that is developed to be livable and safe for as long as possible.

The Northcoast Environmental Center, whose offices are located in the southern portion
of the Gateway Area, is generally supportive of the Gateway Area Plan and the City’s
efforts to plan for future housing and business development that is people-friendly and
climate-friendly. As has been stated many times throughout this process, planning for
development that allows people to live, work and play without relying on personal
vehicles not only makes for more livable communities, but it will also help us to reduce
our greenhouse gas emissions, which is absolutely vital given the fact that we are in a
climate crisis. We also mustn’t forget that Arcata is a coastal city in a region that is
expected to experience higher rates of sea level rise than other regions on the West
Coast and make sure that this factors into planning efforts. The Plan currently allows for
the densest development and tallest buildings in the Barrel District, which is also
projected to be more vulnerable to sea level rise because it is closest to the Bay.
Although we are supportive of the efforts to increase density, we suggest that the taller
buildings and densest development be designated for areas further north which are less
vulnerable to rising water levels. It can be difficult to project just how much sea level rise
will affect the area because scenarios vary and there is still a slim chance that we get our
act together and stop emitting carbon, but 1 meter of SLR (which is projected potentially
by 2060-2090) would have the water level coming up to Samoa Blvd in some parts of the
Gateway Area, meaning any dense development in that area would potentially only be
useful for a few decades. When it comes to housing people, a few decades of use is still
worthwhile, but it may be a hard sell for developers who need to see a return on their
investment in rental properties. That said, we do support taller buildings in areas less
vulnerable to SLR, especially with the caveat that developers must include community
benefits in order to build taller. We know that there are calls to cap building heights at 4
stories, which we don’t support because it won’t allow for the density we need to meet our
housing needs. We don’t support lowering the building height below 6 stories in the
densest areas of the Plan.
In terms of circulation, we also support the L Street couplet concept, especially devoting
space to protected bike lanes on K and L Streets. One of the appeals of the Plan is
providing safe alternatives for those who want or need to get around without a car, which
will require dedicating space in the roadways to bicycles and increasing pedestrian
amenities. Preserving the L Street path and making it a continuously buffered path will
increase safety by decreasing the areas in which cars and pedestrians interact. And
anything you can do to increase bike and ped safety on K Street will be a vast
improvement to the current situation.
One aspect that is not a part of the Plan but that needs to be considered with any
increased development is the capacity and location of the wastewater treatment plant.
There have been calls from some members of the community to scrap the Plan due to
capacity limitations of the current wastewater treatment plant, but even if we were to halt
all development in Arcata, the wastewater treatment plant would still need to be updated
and adapted or relocated because of SLR vulnerability. We should look at this as an
opportunity to promote housing development AND increase our wastewater treatment
capacity; these are needs that go hand in hand and as the State devotes more resources
to SLR adaptation the City should be able to find the funding to increase wastewater
treatment capacity. We sincerely hope that effort is happening already.
From the workshops I have attended, it seems like the City is on track with the community
benefits/amenities that would be required for increased building height. From our
standpoint, one of the most important aspects of the Plan is affordability; one of the things
that makes Arcata the funky town that it is is that it is still marginally accessible and
affordable to artists, activists and intellectuals. Ensuring affordability and incentivizing
retention of public green spaces, alternative ownership options (such as cooperative
housing) and live/work spaces can help make sure that Arcata remains affordable and
retains its charming weirdness.
In terms of the proposed Task Force, we see this as redundant since there are already
multiple City committees and boards that have been studying various aspects of the Plan
for the last 6 months. However, if you do decide to go this route, we highly suggest that
the Task Force be composed of a diversity of people, including renters, students,
members of the Spanish-speaking community and other underrepresented groups. In
order for a Task Force to be productive, it shouldn’t just be duplicating the work that these
other bodies have done and a strong effort should be made to ensure that it is reaching a

diversity of Arcatans. If it isn’t explicitly clear that this is what the Task Force would be
doing, we highly suggest you don’t go this route and that you rely on the outreach and
research that has already been done.
Thank you for all of your work so far on this Plan. Hopefully you are able to wrap it up
soon so we can start to see some new, much-needed housing being built.
Thanks,
Caroline