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.

Please heed Michael Machi”s warning re: sea level rise, the wastewater treatment plant and Gateway Plan

David, thank you for your response. Just a couple more questions, if I may: Does the city have a plan, and
by that I mean a very specific plan (with maps) for where to relocate the sewage treatment plant and
businesses south of Samoa and West of Old Arcata Rd.?
Also, is the city prepared for a worst case scenario like the mega floods predicted to hit California in
approx 30 years? Or the type of floods that occurred here in 1964, which according to climate scientists,
are becoming more frequent?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/12/california-climate-crisis-
megafloods
How about a tsunami or major earthquake? Do you have a plan for what to do if a major disaster strikes?
Have you tested the soil in the Bottoms to see if it’s even safe to build a 6, 7 or 8 story building there?
Arcata’s fire chief has warned that the fire department lacks the capacity to respond to a fire in
a 7 or 8 story building. And our resources are stretched thin as it is (roads, water, fire, police,
hospital capacity, etc.).

I’ve been informed that the wastewater treatment plant can only handle about 4000 additional users. Is
that right? Cal Poly is bringing in an extra 7000 students, and the GP calls for an additional 8,000 (is that
still the goal?).
I recognize the need for housing, so I’m *not* against the project. I just want to be sure that it’s done
right. I think a lot of people feel that way.
At the last PlanCo meeting, Kimberley White said that this feels more staff driven than community driven.
That’s why we’re calling for an advisory board made up of professionals and better community
engagement. I think that’s a reasonable request, but the council is turning a deaf ear.
What that means in the long run is that you won’t get buy-in from the public and could even end up with
a lawsuit, further delaying the project. (That’s *not* intended as a threat in any way. It’s just reality.
When people don’t feel heard, they look around for other ways to protect their communities.)
I suggest the city council and planners start listening more, and bring the rest of the community in.
People have concerns that this is done right. You did a survey for the webinar recently and only 30
people participated. Most were white home owners. That is not representative of everyone who lives in
Arcata. Please consider sending a survey out to every resident.
In truth, I think we need a full EIR, but that won’t come until later in the process (perhaps too late). So,
the request for an advisory board is a reasonable “ask” that would go a long way towards instilling
confidence in people and getting the community’s buy-in for the GP.
Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.
Lisa

David Loya:

We don’t have a location identified for it. Currently we’re working on
rehabilitating it in place. One of the studies the Coastal Commission asked for is an alternatives analysis.
We’ll be conducting that study soon. And we’ll also likely evaluate it in the General Plan EIR.
Yes. Please do forward this to anyone you think is interested. I think we’ll do a meeting on this topic with
the PC soon as well. [This was August 25, 2022. As of January 25, 2023 — 5 months later — there has been no meeting with the Planning Commission on this.]

David Loya:

Even with a meter and a half of SLR, the Gateway Area is largely protected by existing infrastructure and
elevations. This map shows 9’ of SLR.

Considering the 95% probability model with the high (RCP 8.5) emissions model, King Tides (MAMW) will
not exceed five feet of sea level rise by 2100. By 2100, the 500-year event would exceed 6’ of elevation
relative to our 2012 base year. The ’64 flood was a 100-year event.