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.
Dear David, Delo, Jennifer (and Ben, whose email address I don’t have),
Delo called this afternoon to make sure we’d all have devices we can use for the exercise tomorrow, and suggested that if I have any suggestions for how the list should be presented that I let you know as soon as possible, in case you can make changes before the meeting.
In creating the categories for selecting and later ranking potential “community benefit” items, I hope you will also include a category that allows Commission members to recommend that a desirable item NOT be included as a community benefit for credit/ streamlined approval because they believe that item should be required for
approval of large projects throughout the entire Gateway area, or in code amendments for large projects city‐wide (as we amend Arcata’s General Plan and Land Use Code).
Without adding that category, a simpler yes/no or any ranking choice would misrepresent an item that a respondent thinks is so important that it should not be left to a “community benefit” menu, but SHOULD be a basic requirement for large projects, either throughout the entire Gateway area, or city‐wide.
Here (below) are a few suggestions for edits of the list you distributed, organized in the order of the list you sent out as Attachment A. (I only include items for which I’m suggesting changes.)
See you tomorrow!
Judith
SEE BELOW:
Community Amenities to be Considered for “Community Benefits” Incentives:
Housing Creation.
1. Increased Residential density (Policy GA‐3j). Increased over what? (If the “community benefits” are to be credited for streamlined approval and to allow for high densities, “increased residential density” couldn’t /shouldn’t be weighed on both sides of the balance! …
4. Set mixes of: affordability, unit size, tenure (e.g. SRO and multi‐bedroom unit mix). (What does “set mixes” mean?) …
7. Limited‐equity cooperatives/co‐housing with permanent affordability restrictions. Combine with #3 above?
…
8. Rent‐stabilized housing beyond future City or State requirements.
9. On‐site management for large projects. One of those that should be required city‐wide in new large projects…
Arts and Culture / Beautification.
1. “Benefits” guided by Arcata’s Strategic Arts Plan Identified Projects (GA‐5h). 2. Contribution to an Area‐wide Beautification Fund (assuming fund is established? No info on what it would cover or who would manage it) …
3. Blight Reduction and Adaptive reuse of historic structures (GA‐10f). (“Blight” is very subjective, esp. where it could characterize viable existing small businesses)
4. Set aside land to support an Native Arts and Cultural Space (GA‐5d). (What would that mean?) …
5. Contribution to “community arts trust” (GA‐5c) (Conditions? levels?)
7. Housing for artists/ craft workers / small businesses using live‐work (GA‐5d). (Already counted under”Housing”)
Open Space and Recreation.
3. On‐site publicly accessible recreation facilities (playground equipment, benches/tables, drinking fountains,toilets) (GA‐6m). (Toilets are NOT either open space or recreation facilities) …
6. Payment into fee program for open space/recreational maintenance and expansion. (beyond existing city‐wide in‐lieu fees or Quimby Act?)
8. Wetland Banking (GA‐6k). (Since state WQ approval would be necessary for this, how would it either streamline approval or be ministerial? )
“Green” Building, Sustainability, and Resilience.
2. Energy‐efficient “Net Zero” design or “Carbon Negative” design, construction, and operation (i.e. project that generates energy). (Levels should be separated)
5. Beyond‐minimum dark‐night lighting & window treatments; bird‐safe and bird‐friendly construction. (Two different things ‐‐ separate these! Also, bird‐safe building standards should be added to LUC city‐wide for new large projects)
6. Publicly accessible landscape features beyond FBC standard, e.g. street trees, green walls. (Would need to be specified in code)
10. Maximize effective recycling/reuse of building materials from existing buildings that are
demolished. (Building & LUC should require this city‐wide! State codes will likely require it anyway.)
11. Use of building materials from sustainable sources, very low VOC emitting materials. (Duplicates LEED & other sustainability ratings ‐‐ don’t double‐count!)
Transportation & Mobility: Active Movement and Other Features to Minimize Car Impacts.
4. Cycle facilities (indoor or covered safe cycle storage; public access bike racks on private lands). (Separate parts ‐‐ some should apply GAP‐wide or City‐wide)
6. Underground parking where it would reduce/eliminate surface parking
7. Contribution to fund for bike lane/trail enhancement and associated public space.
8. Contribution into fund for electric car share/bike share. (Specify who would manage & administer funds & decide on their use)
Enhanced Architectural Features and Exterior Design. (GA‐9z)
8. Install very low water use and/or native landscaping. (Updated code should require this for large projects GAP‐wide)
Building Amenities ‐ Structural and Operational Features that Enhance Residents’ Quality of Life.
8. Prohibition of indoor smoking and vaping (beyond State/City requirements). (Enforcement nightmare!)
Economic Development and Job Creation, and Provision of Essential Services
5. Commercial uses that accommodate delivery vehicles off‐street (Should be GAP‐wide for new construction!)
7. Use of locally sourced materials and labor in construction. (Specify details ‐‐ Overall duplicates highest outside sustainable building standards)