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 may 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.

Below and attached are my public comments for the April 25 Planning Commission meeting. Please
include them in the engagement report’s public comments.
PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR APRIL 25 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
First, thank you for managing to try to absorb and respond to all the policies proposed both in
the Gateway Plan and the overall General Plan and Land Use Element. It’s a prodigious task,
including for the public.
1. I want to remind you that staff have not yet laid out a plan for L Street as a linear park so
that the Commission and City Council can actually consider it as an alternative to a 1-way L
Street. I suggest that it would be useful to incorporate the K/L Street couplet as an
Implementation Measure rather than a goal and not to anticipate that it will take 30 years to
occur. City staff appear to want to be able to take action now.
2. I want to remind you that you have not yet scheduled a meeting to discuss the implications
of sea level rise for intensive residential building in the Coastal Zone and the Gateway Area
subject to sea level rise, and the legal and financial implications of failing to take sea level rise
properly into account.
3. More importantly, you will be discussing the Infrastructure & Public Facilities and the
Public Safety Elements tonight, that include policies on Fire Hazards, Potential Flooding
Hazards, and Seismic Hazards, all of which are addressed in general terms. Since the City
claims to have specific information and maps based on studies, it would be useful for the
Planning Commission to request that staff provide specific information for how these issues
are applicable to the Gateway Area.
Where are the faults? Are the soils there vulnerable to liquefaction? When will sea level rise
affect the areas north of Samoa Blvd? Is the new Gateway zoning code going to require
builders to elevate their structures in anticipation of flooding issues? Has the City planned for
moving the Waste Treatment Plant and associated infrastructure, and if so, to what possible
location(s)? And what is actually being done about fire safety? Who is going to pay to
protect the planned midlevel story buildings? What’s the status of discussions with Cal Poly
Humboldt? In terms of climate adaptation, what is the City actually doing? What’s the status
of Arcata’s Climate Action Plan?
2
These are just a few of the questions I’d like city staff and the Planning Commission to
address. The more information you have, the better decisions you can make. I hope you take
the time to adequate address these questions.
Thank you for your consideration.
Jane Woodward Arcata Resident