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 Delo, Jennifer, David, Julie (and Ben, whose email address I don’t have),
Delo mentioned in her phone call today that if I have any questions, etc regarding the community benefits decision process for the Gateway plan, I should mention them as soon as possible. So here’s a major one:

I explained to Delo that it seems backward, to me, to create any definitive list of items that developers could offer in return for a streamlined approval process (potentially a ministerial one) BEFORE the Planning Commission has had any substantive discussion or deliberation on the streamlining process options that could result in such ministerial project approval.
Understanding (deciding) who would have authority to determine whether, and the extent to which, a project proposal fulfills standards for providing “benefits” is essential to determining WHICH benefit offers should be on the “menu” and how they should be weighed in terms of qualifying for very high densities, building heights or mass, and streamlined or ministerial project approval.

One presentation to the Planning Commission (I think Ben Noble’s) proposed three different possibilities for varying types of planning commission or staff determinations of whether a project would qualify for additional density bonuses, streamlined/ministerial approval, etc.

I believe it’s very important for the Commission have those discussions before taking any definitive vote on recommendations for a “community benefits” program that would qualify a GAP project for relaxed standards, or for ministerial / streamlined approval.
Best,
Judith