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.

Thank you ahead of Ɵme for reading this email. I have mostly stayed out of the discussion of this issue because I have
not had Ɵme to keep up with it, and I didn’t want to say something dumb. I am one of the owners of Pacific Builders,
and a 50% owner of our building at 880 L St., which is within the Gateway proposed area.
I am supporƟve of many of the goals of the Gateway Project. My concerns are as follows:
1. Loss of a valuable complexity of character of the town by displacing dozens of small businesses. Having them,
like mine, so close to the heart of the city enriches the community in many ways. I eat lunch in town, do my
shopping by walking to the local businesses, and interact with the other businesses on the west side. There is no
replacing this harmonious arrangement of commercial and business enterprises. Moving to the outskirts just is
not the same. The city runs the risk of a homogenous residenƟal culture, actually making it more likely that
inhabitants will need to use cars to do their daily business. And there is no aƩracƟve place to house these
businesses.
2. The creation of two Arcatas. There is nowhere in this plan for more single family homes, which many, if not most, individuals and families choose to live in. Houses like yours, I presume. The grandfathered sections of town will continue to enjoy backyards, one and two care garages, and ample street parking while anyone who chooses to live in the multi‐story buildings, or is forced to, will never enjoy that. In fact, practically no one new
will enjoy that, as the only new conventional homes to be built in the city are the odd infill lot available here and
there. I see no recognition of the idea that the city should offer choices of living conditions across the spectrum of incomes and desires. The project runs the risks failure if it builds only one type of home and tries to engineer how people live. This has been a failure over and over in the world. Under current conditions, the project were approved tomorrow, no developer would take the chance at market homes or rentals the way it is currently
configured, unless it was subsidized housing.
3. More on the two Arcata theme: keeping the existing zoning configuration of the built out 12‐houses‐to‐the‐block portions of Arcata intact is pretty elitist, solving the housing density problem “over there”, while eliminating much effect on the property owners (and voters) who would no doubt be stirred to action if their neighborhoods were affected. This seems like political expediency, whether or not intended. The Gateway Project depends on the market to push it into gear; no one is forced to change the use of their property until the numbers make sense. They would have to get an offer from a developer to buy, and certainly demolish, their property before any residential construction took place. Why are we not doing the same thing on, say, upper 11th street? Who is to say that demolishing some homes in existing residential areas won’t make more sense economically at some point in the unknown future?
4. L street. This part of town is already somewhat separated from the commercial district by K street, which is
busy. Building another throughway is going to cut a nice, walkable neighborhood in a way that goes against all
planning principles current today. It will make it less walkable; it will make it more dangerous; it will make it
harder to interact business‐to‐business. The people living in the new residenƟal units will have two busy streets
to get past rather than one.
2
5. TransportaƟon: there is currently one bus taking an hour to get me to my doctor’s office in Eureka; there are several that take longer than that. The last one returning from that office leaves Eureka at 1:30. If I were to miss it, there are no alternatives. This is just one example of why there needs to be a parking option, one car to the unit, plus spaces for visitors. If we don’t do that, the units become less attractive to end users, and hence,
developers. There may be a market for what the project is selling, but it is not for3500 units. The only vision I can see for it is student housing. If that’s what this is about, it’s very disappointing. If Arcata is to become more or less a student housing facility, then it’s no longer attractive to me as a place to live. When I move off my rural parcel, which is a half mile outside the city limits, I will move to a place that’s smaller, easier to take care of, and near commercial stores, but I would never move to a homogenous neighborhood populated mostly by students.

I hope these criticisms are looked on as helpful rather than obstructive. I would rather have the town remain more or less as is, but I’m absolutely against the unfairness and elitism of keeping part of it the way it is and delegating the housing solution to our area over here. Mostly, I don’t think it’s going to be successful, and I do wish it success.
Nick Lucchesi

Project Manager
Pacific Buildders