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.

Planning Commissioners,
I am writing to comment on the transportation‐related community benefits for the Gateway Area Plan which you will be
discussing tomorrow night. These comments pertain to staff’s compiled list, Attachment A in your packet. We support
most of the proposed community benefits, but offer the following specific comments:
1. We support incentivizing residential density and affordability as community benefits. Denser, more affordable housing near jobs, services and other destinations is key to enabling healthy, low‐carbon transportation for all.
We also support provisions to encourage mission‐driven developers who are dedicated to long‐term affordability and long‐term maintenance of facilities and programs.
2. We support incentivizing developers to provide free bus passes to all residents as well as improved bus stops/shelters. However, bus stop improvements should only apply after consultation with HTA and/or AMRTS
results in a finding that the location is appropriate for those improvements. Additionally, we request the
inclusion of bus passes for employees (not just residents) in the community benefits program.
3. Some bike parking is required by current Arcata codes, and more may be required by state building codes in the
near future. Incentives for bike parking/storage should only apply to bike parking which is substantially in excess
of requirements AND is of a high quality ‐ i.e., inverted‐U or similar short‐term racks with weather protection, or
secure, enclosed long‐term storage facilities.
4. We support incentivizing bike‐share and car‐share systems. To be eligible for consideration as a community
benefit, financial or other support for a bike‐share or car‐share system must be sufficient to ensure access to
nearby, convenient vehicles (i.e., a bike‐share station or dedicated car‐share parking spaces) and to cover the
costs of new vehicles at a reasonable ratio to the expected number of new residents.
5. We do not support inclusion of underground car parking in the community benefit program. Underground
parking structures are extremely expensive and amount to a massive subsidy for car ownership and use. This is
not what the city should be encouraging developers to do. A full complement of high‐quality facilities, programs
and incentives for active transportation and transit can almost always be provided for less cost than
construction and maintenance of an underground parking facility.
Thank you for consideration of our comments.