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.

To Arcata staff and Planning Commissioners:
I read the packet and want to commend staff for its excellent job in preparing
the packet information, including the slide presentation from Arcata Fire, the
summary of preferences for community benefits of individual Commissioners,
and the two proposed revised elements of the Arcata Genera Plan. It’s a huge agenda, and I wish you well in handling it all in this single session.

I have several observations:

1) I believe you need to seriously work with Cal Poly to address
the capacity of Arcata Fire to address buildings higher than 4 stories. If they’re
relying on the Arcata Fire District communities to foot the bill, I suspect there
will be a major taxpayer rebellion. They appear to have failed to work with
Arcata or the Fire District on this issue, and I hope staff will work with them or
at least tell us if they have or what Is planned. This Is a serious liability issue
for both Cal Poly and Arcata. Construction is planned to begin this month per
what I last read.

2) The Planning Commission and staff are spending a great deal
of time discussing and selecting amenities before it is even clear that building
greater than 4 stories is either desired by the Arcata Community (no valid
representative survey has been conducted) or feasible economically for
contractors to build, particularly if we are trying to construct affordable
housing, due to the enormous cost of the required foundations and other
building materials. We need to address both the Community’s desires and the
economic and environmental feasibility of constructing such buildings,
alongside the fire response issue.

3) The amendments to the Land Use Plan appear, on first
glance, to be comprehensive and excellent. But there is only very limited
mention of the possible benefit of building ADUs and second houses on
residential lots. I recently heard a story about an individual who was
purchasing individual homes, adding an ADU for that home, then adding a
second home with its own ADU, allowing the creation of 4 units on a single lot.
This is a new and creative form of investment (for owners and investors) and a
viable way of producing a major increase in residential units. I think the
Planning Commission and staff may wish to seriously explore and encourage
development of ADUs and second houses, etc. as an alternative to focusing
mainly on multi-story buildings. Limiting buildings to four stories may occupy
more space per lot, but it solves the solar shading and fire department issues.
Thank you.
Jane Woodward
Please include this letter in the Community Engagement section and forward it
to the new Planning Commissioners.