►
Description
City of Arcata Live Stream
A
D
C
E
Okay,
okay,
I'm
gonna
call
this
study
session
to
order
so
good
evening.
Everybody
thank
you
for
attending
the
September
26th
study
session
to
review
and
discuss
the
Gateway
area
plan.
This
is
a
special
meeting,
and
so
we
will
take
public
comment
at
the
beginning
of
the
meeting
and
only
for
items
that
are
on
the
agenda.
If
you're
interested
in
providing
comment
on
the
Gateway
area
plan,
please
stand
and
make
your
way
to
the
podium
or,
if
you're
here
on
Zoom,
please
raise
your
virtual
hand
again.
E
E
Here
we
ask
that
you,
you,
please
apply
hold
your
applause
and
limit
your
remarks
until
the
end
of
the
public
comment
period,
all
right.
So
if
you
would
like
to
come
up
to
the
podium
I'm
going
to
shift
around
here,
so
I
can
actually
see
everybody
and
take
it
away
or
what
oh
yeah
we
need
the
timer
and
yeah
each
public
commenter
will
have
two
minutes
and
David
will
get
the
timer
out.
F
E
G
I
The
principal
here
is
pretty
simple:
putting
people
closer
to
each
other
makes
it
easier
to
get
around
in
climate
friendly
ways
like
walking,
biking,
rolling
and
riding
the
bus,
so
that
means
higher
density
housing
than
we
have
built
in
the
past
and
putting
it
near
existing
destinations.
The
Gateway
plan
is
good
on
both
of
those
fronts
and
actually
research
has
found
that
densities
achieved
right
around
the
Gateway
limits
around
four
to
seven
stories,
or
so
is
kind
of
the
ideal
development.
I
I
I
I've
heard
a
few
times
now,
which
is
that
your
idea,
your
decision
to
designate
a
linear
Park
means
that
the
buildings
near
it
should
be
shorter
or
smaller
and
I
think
that
research
shows
that
you
can
get
the
benefits
from
Urban
Greenery
with
a
relatively
small
area,
and
what
that
walkway
needs
is
access
to
residences
and
destinations.
It
doesn't
need
a
limit
on
that
development.
So
I
ask
you
to
keep
the
Planning
Commission
recommendations
for
building
Heights
and
to
move
this
plan
forward
as
quickly
as
possible.
Thank
you.
J
Good
evening,
members
of
the
Planning
Commission
and
members
of
the
council
and
I
want
to
thank
the
Planning
Commission
for
their
diligent
and
hard
work
over
the
last
few
years.
My
name
is
Elizabeth
Connor
I'm,
a
former
Arcata
planning
commissioner
and
former
Arcata
city
council,
member
and
passionate
affordable
housing
advocate
in
general.
I
want
to
say
that
I
continue
to
support
the
Gateway
area
plan
I.
Think
it's
a
great
opportunity
to
use
an
infill
area.
That's
already
has
most
of
the
infrastructure
and
services
to
site
that
allows
us
to
save
agricultural
land.
J
We
can
create
a
vibrant,
thriving
Community,
walkable,
community
and
I,
just
think
it's
a
great
opportunity
and
it
will
provide
affordable
housing
I
like
the
cutout
for
the
Arts
community
and
I
I.
Think
it's
a
forward-looking
plan
and
I
urge
you
to
adopt
most
aspects
of
it.
I
want
to
focus
in
some
comments
on
what
you're
discussing
tonight,
which
is
affordable,
housing
and,
as
you
know,
you're
looking
at
three
different
programs
and
I'd
like
to
start
with
the
inclusionary
housing
program
and
I
wrote
the
council
members
a
letter
and
I
hope.
J
You've
had
a
chance
to
read
that
so
I
would
recommend,
in
short,
that
you
would
reduce
the
inclusionary
zoning
threshold
from
the
current
39
units
or
start
at
40
to
a
maximum
of
15
units,
ideally
12.,
and
the
reason
for
that
is
because
we
don't
expect
that
whole
project
with
the
inclusionary
rezoning
zoning
requirements
to
be
financially
feasible.
We
want
that
program
to
bring
the
developer
into
the
jurisdiction
to
talk
about
how
we
can
fund
it
together
and
that's
why
we're
working
on
a
Regional,
Housing,
Trust,
Fund
and
other
funding
mechanisms
for
that.
J
Secondly-
and
and
also
so
you
know
it's
compatible
with
the
state
density
program
and
that
state
law
has
found
that
state
density
bonus
units
can
be
used
to
meet
inclusionary
zoning
requirements.
So
that's
a
big
deal.
Secondly,
on
your
community
benefits
program.
In
short,
nobody
wants
to
hear
this,
but
you
will
have
to
offer
much
more
to
be
competitive
with
the
density
bonus
to
have
local
control.
Thank
you.
K
Good
evening,
council,
members
and
Commissioners,
my
name
is
James
Clore
I'd
like
to
share
some
thoughts
about
things.
I
want
for
Arcata
I
want
efficient
land,
zoo
land
use
with
higher
density
buildings,
so
we
don't
have
to
sprawl
into
the
natural
lands
around
the
city.
The
new
Kramer
development
over
on
Foster
is
great.
It's
new
housing,
it's
just
pretty
inefficient.
In
my
opinion.
K
Imagine
if
we
could
have
condensed
those
buildings
from
many
many
two-story
structures
to
two
or
three
five-story
structures
with
green
space
in
the
middle
I
want
new
building
technologies
that
are
more
efficient
and
safe.
I
want,
grounded
Outlets
I
want
gfcis
in
my
bathroom
and
kitchen.
I
want
arc
fault
circuit
interrupters
on
every
circuit.
K
I
want
insulation
in
my
walls,
floor
and
ceiling
between
me
and
a
potential
neighbor
I
want
electric
heat
that
doesn't
pollute
the
air
that
I,
breathe
and
I
want
to
spend
less
on
heating
my
home
because
of
all
that
insulation
and
new
technology.
I
can't
tell
you
the
number
of
places
I
lived
in
Arcata,
where
I
had
to
have
one
of
those
stupid
grounded
Outlet
converters,
because
there
weren't
any
grounds
in
the
walls.
K
We
blame
tall
buildings
for
breaking
down
or
dense
neighborhoods
for
increased
crime
when
it's
the
people
that
are
managing
the
buildings
and
the
tenants
of
those
buildings
that
we
need
to
craft
health
and
safety
codes
to
protect
and
be
held
accountable,
and
let's
ensure
that
the
city
has
adequate
staff
and
teeth
to
enforce
those
codes.
From
the
first
page
of
the
Gateway
area,
plan
I
see
a
lot
of
the
things
that
I
want
for
Arcata
in
there.
Let's
make
a
commitment
to
housing.
K
L
Hello,
Council
hi
staff
public.
My
name
is
Ben
Goulart
I'm,
the
mural
man
I,
do
murals
around
town
I'm,
also
on
the
Arcata
playoffs
board,
and
we've
been
talking
a
lot
about
trying
to
incorporate
something
into
the
gateway
plan
for
the
Arts
and
I.
Think
you
guys
have
some
beautiful
ideas
of
like
1.5
percent
to
add
on
which
I
think
was
an
awesome
idea
and
I.
Think
I'd
like
to
see
more
of
that
as
well.
Art
is
actually
what
brought
me
here
to
this
to
this
area.
L
The
support
for
art
is
amazing.
I
think
it
draws
in
tourism
and
I.
Think
having
that
concessions
in
the
Gateway
plan
is
a
is
a
great
start
and
something
that
will
be
good
for
a
future
and
that
may
not
happen
for
10
or
20
years.
I
hope.
Maybe
we
can
incorporate
something
like
that
into
the
general
plan
as
well,
but
commenting
on
the
high
densityness
of
the
Gateway
project.
L
I
wanted
to
share
a
little
history
that
for
a
long
time
in
my
hometown,
we
fought
high
density,
housing
and
I
talked
with
many
experts
on
infill
versus
sprawl
and
I.
Think
some
of
the
other
speakers
touched
on
that
as
well,
and
it
changed
my
opinion
to
really
believe
that
infill
kind
of
is
the
way
to
go
for
the.
L
You're
able
to
kind
of
put
all
the
amenities
into
one
spot,
all
the
utilities
and
it's
just
way
better
for
the
environment.
Then
I
talked
with
college
students
and
people
of
the
younger
generation
who
really
kind
of
agreed,
and
they
want
taller
buildings.
They
want
to
be
able
to
look
out
over
the
city.
They
want
rooftop
restaurants,
so
I
actually
do
support
the
high
density
housing
which
I
used
to
not,
but
I,
really
think
the
infill
is
the
way
to
go
and
I.
L
Think
if
that
encourages
more
funding
to
the
Arts
which
it
looks
like
it.
Might
we
fully
support
that
as
well.
I,
look
forward
to
working
with
you
guys
in
the
future.
It
may
be
massaging
something
to
get
funding
for
the
Arts,
so
I
appreciate
all
your
efforts
in
letting
the
community
speak
a
lot
of
cities
just
kind
of
cram
things
through
so
definitely
appreciate
all
you
guys
efforts
as
well.
So
thank
you.
N
Good
evening,
the
last
year
and
a
half
I've
been
talking
about
specifically
the
wastewater
treatment
plant
and
particularly
about
how
sea
level
rise
will
be
affecting
that
I've
brought
up
the
coastal
commission
and
the
grants
and
just
to
get
the
Planning
Commission.
The
latest.
The
council
approved
the
second
grant
for
the
coastal
commission
and
we
also
had
a
report
from
the
city
stating
that
the
completion
of
some
of
these
grants
won't
be
until
the
summer
of
2024
are
into
2025..
So
my
question
to
you
has
always
been
for
a
healthy
Democratic
process.
N
We
need
to
have
those
studies
done.
We
don't
make
decisions
before
we
see
the
studies
and,
unfortunately,
in
this
process
we
seem
to
have
made
a
lot
of
decisions
before
we've
gotten
the
studies.
So
this
is
something
that's
inexcusable.
In
my
opinion,
the
problem
I
mean
I'm
all
for
folks
that
want
to
have
you
know,
high
density,
but
the
problem
is
you
don't
want
high
density
in
a
sea
level
rise
area?
N
That's
going
to
be
affected
in
the
future,
because
it's
going
to
be
a
total
waste
of
money
and
it's
also
going
to
be
affecting
people's
lives.
So
if
you
want
seven
story,
buildings
or
six
stories,
buildings
try
Bedrock
as
a
foundation
and
not
in
a
sea
level
rise
area.
That
would
be
my
recommendation
if
to
fall
forward
on
this
I'd
also
address
the
last
December.
We
had
danco
Ali
presentation
at
Cal
Poly.
N
We
had
some
pretty
strong
comments
from
a
major
developers
stating
that
wind
pencil
lay
out
at
567
stories.
I
haven't
seen
any
any
get
together
with
any
developer.
Since
that
statement,
I
mean
I
would
have
been
pretty
concerned
about
that.
If
I
was
sitting
in
your
shoes,
why
haven't
we
had
all
the
developers
and
asked
what
is
the
problem?
Why
they're
not
building
right
now
at
three
or
four
stories,
there's
nothing
stopping
them
from
doing
that
right
at
this
moment.
Thank
you.
G
D
Hello
to
commissioner
staff
and
council
members
I'm
a
bit
a
bit
of
a
skipping
record
on
the
topic
of
citing
step,
backs
and
setbacks.
Applications
of
these
principles
can
offer
Community
benefits
for
both
existing
and
future
arcadians.
By
applying
these
principles,
interchangeably
new
construction
can
interface
with
existing
neighborhoods
and
the
L
Street
Corridor,
which
represents
communal
Gathering
space
for
future
high
density.
D
Neighborhoods
dedication
of
open
space
along
the
L
Street
Corridor
through
guaranteed
required
active
frontages
and
hopefully
the
benefit
of
privately
owned
public
spaces
can
enhance,
will
be
the
primary
part
of
the
Gateway
in
the
future.
It
would
be
helpful
to
get
clarification
on
setback
frontages
located
on
packet,
page
138.
It
appears
to
only
address
active
non-active
from
property
lines,
abutting
8th
and
9th
Street
and
L
Street
between
8th
and
9th
Street.
Perhaps
a
separate
table
would
be
helpful
on
this,
citing
step
backs
and
setbacks
can
help
to
ensure
Gap
policies.
D
Ga9F,
solar
shading
ensure
new
development,
minimizes
solar
Shady
into
surrounding
properties,
Balkan
Massey
and
ga9p
human
scale,
maussian
provide
for
human
scale
and
pedestrian-friendly
building
massing
where
large
buildings
are
broken
into
smaller
volumes
and
fit
into
surrounding
neighborhoods
and
ga-9q
transition
to
lower
intensity
uses
and
require
buildings
to
incorporate
massing
strategies
to
minimize
impacts
on
adjacent
single-family
homes.
Please
keep
these
policies
in
mind
as
you
work
through
the
framework
of
the
Gateway
plan.
Thanks.
O
Good
evening
my
name
is
Lulu
Michelson
tonight
I'm,
a
renter
in
Arcata
and
professionally
I've
also
worked
extensively
on
housing
policy.
I
want
to
express
my
strong
support
for
the
density
currently
included
in
the
Gateway
area.
Plan
density,
as
we
heard
is
climate
friendly.
It
encourages
Equitable
transportation
and
prevents
sprawl.
I
also
want
to
celebrate
how
density,
including
the
four
to
seven
story.
Buildings
currently
included
in
the
plan,
is
critical
to
the
cities
of
arcata's
stated
value
of
inclusion
right
now.
Arcata
is
one
of
the
most
desirable
communities
in
Humboldt.
O
County
people
want
to
live
here
yet
in
our
current
housing
crisis,
so
many
struggle
to
find
safe
and
affordable
homes
in
Arcata.
In
my
work,
advising
local
non-profit
organizations
I
have
connected
with
many
of
these
residents,
their
teachers,
Cal
Poly
Humboldt
students
and
service
workers
who
want
to
live
in
Arcata
but
are
instead
commuting
from
McKinleyville
Eureka,
even
Fortuna,
adding
traffic
and
admissions
to
our
area
and
missing
out
on
supporting
local
businesses.
O
I
heard
from
a
nurse
who's
commuting
two
hours
a
day
to
work
in
Arcata
and
struggling
with
high
Goss
prices,
I've
heard
from
older
adults
who
want
to
downsize
from
a
large
home
but
cannot
find
an
affordable
one-bedroom
option
in
Arcata
and
then
there's
my
personal
experience
and
that
of
other
young
professionals
who
want
to
stay
in
Arcata
and
raise
a
family
but
are
unable
to
afford
a
home.
Let
me
be
direct.
Limiting
building
Heights
in
the
Gateway
area
plan
is
a
form
of
exclusion.
O
It
means
less
homes
and
less
people
who
get
to
enjoy
the
benefits
of
our
community,
restrictive,
Heights
setbacks
and
zoning
guidelines,
increase
building
costs
and
reduce
affordability.
Anything
less
than
four
stories
will
make
it
virtually
impossible
for
mission-driven
developers
to
compete
for
State
funding
to
build
affordable
housing
in
our
area.
O
The
current
building
Heights
in
the
plan,
along
with
streamline
zoning,
will
allow
for
a
non-profit,
Community,
focused
and
mission-driven
developers
to
invest
in
building
affordable
housing
in
the
district
density
is
key
to
an
environmentally
sustainable
and
racially
and
economically
inclusive
future
for
our
city
and
I
hope
you
leave
those
elements
of
the
plan
intact.
Thank
you.
P
P
What
I've
been
hearing
from
the
community
and
from
both
sides
of
the
aisle,
both
Community
from
from
last
night
and
even
before,
as
I,
talked
to
people,
affordability
and
Home?
Ownership
opportunities
are
the
two
main
priorities
that
I
hear
over
and
over
from
people.
I
feel
that
we
don't
have
a
housing
crisis,
necessarily
I
think
we
have
an
affordability
or
affordable
housing,
crisis
and
I
think
as
a
city,
we
should
really
be
addressing
that
a
little
bit
more
aggressively
I
think
with
affordability.
P
The
inclusionary
zoning
should
be
at
least
at
20
percent
and
I
think
the
home
ownership
opportunities
that
people
have
been
asking
for
from
the
very
start
of
the
Gateway
discussions
are
like
I
think
we
should
be
focusing
on
those
too
whether
they're,
affordable
or
the
missing
middle.
Adjusting
the
missing
middle
Community.
Land
trusts
is
a
great
way.
I've
been
hearing
that
a
lot
smaller
lot
sizes,
I
I,
actually
would
be
encouraging
the
smaller
lot
sizes
during
town
homes.
P
That
are
two
three
four
stories
on
smaller
lot
sizes,
encouraging
even
more
strongly
and
more
aggressively
Adu
units
throughout
all
of
Arcata.
First
time,
home
ownership
program
should
be
reinstated.
Micro
units,
but
just
focusing
on
micro
units
that
are
market
rate
constructed
and
managed
by
investment
companies
is
not
a
solution
for
affordability.
Simply
more
housing
does
not
create
affordable
housing.
Rental
percentages
are
already
obscene
and
they're
going
to
get
worse
with
the
Gateway
area
plan.
I
think
we
have
to
balance
out
not
with
the
home
ownership
percentages
in
the
future.
Q
Q
Commissioner
Lehman
safe
housing
is
a
human
right
to
provide
affordable
and
safe
housing,
for
our
citizens
should
be
the
number
one
priority
of
the
Gap.
Commissioner
Davies
spoke
to
home
ownership
opportunities.
I
want
to
address
affordability,
there's
a
notion
of
building
more
housing
and
the
rent
prices
will
decrease.
This
is
what
has
gotten
me
to
this
point
with
arcata1.com.
It's
the
largest
myth,
I'll
call
a
outright
lie
that
is
contained
in
the
Gateway
plan.
Q
The
reference
studies
refer
to
Minneapolis.
They
have
a
five
percent
increase
in
population
over
six
years
versus
Austin
Texas,
which
has
had
a
23
percent
48
in
10
years
in
Austin,
the
rent
prices
went
up
31
in
three
years.
We
are
much
more
like
that
situation.
Minneapolis
did
not
have
incoming
population
and
therefore
their
rent
prices
dropped
thanks
very
much
I'll
address
other
items.
Let
me
get
to
the
other
aspects
of
tonight's
discussion,
thanks
very
much
for
your
work.
R
Hi
to
anyone
who
opposes
the
Gateway
plan
less
than
a
month
ago,
it
was
my
understanding
that
this
project,
which
has
been
in
the
works
for
upwards
of
two
years
now
I
believe,
was
approved
and
ready
to
go.
Unfortunately,
it
has
come
to
my
attention
that
there
is
a
very
vocal
minority
which
seems
to
be
opposing
not
just
this
proposal,
but
any
type
of
large,
affordable
housing
in
general.
I
have
heard
some
of
the
complaints
second
hand
and
I
would
like
to
address
those
and
perhaps
give
some
much
needed
perspective
to
those
individuals.
R
The
most
popular
pushback
seems
to
be
about
the
view
and
about
the
shade
and
to
you
I
say
it
must
be
nice
to
only
have
View
and
shade
to
worry
about.
The
majority
of
Americans
live
paycheck
to
paycheck,
and
the
people
of
Arcata
are
no
different.
I
am
fortunate
enough
to
not
be
in
that
position,
but
I
am
not
calloused
enough
to
believe
that
this
fact
does
not
affect
me
and
those
around
me.
Nearly
all
of
my
peers
can
hardly
afford
to
live
here
and
we
have
completely
abandoned
hope
of
owning
a
home.
R
R
R
Anyone
who
has
recently
applied
for
housing
can
tell
you
it
is
an
insanely
tight
market
and
I
cannot
understand
how
you
feel
that
your
individual
needs
are
greater
than
those
that
the
rest
of
the
population
which
live
beside
you
and,
in
fact,
supplies.
So
many
of
the
goods
and
services
which
you
enjoy,
such
as
Healthcare
without
workers,
you
can
say
goodbye
to
local
supermarkets,
restaurants,
cafes,
small
businesses
and
so
much
of
what
keeps
Arcata
special.
R
It
would
be.
It's
a
lie
to
say
that
I
am
not
mad,
but,
moreover,
I
am
deeply
disappointed
by
these
members
of
our
community.
I
truly
thought
that
we
as
a
whole
would
be
better
than
Petty
squabbles
and
trivial
disagreements,
especially
when
you
consider
the
gravity
of
the
situation
to
the
council
myself
and
most
reasonable
people
in
this
community
want
this
project
and
we
want
it.
Asap
I
urge
you
to
find
a
compromise.
S
Good
evening
planning,
Commissioners
and
city
council
members
who
are
able
to
be
here,
my
name
is
Joanna
Gary
and
I
always
like
to
talk
about
three
things,
but
before
I
do
that
I'd
like
to
share
that
at
the
last
Planning
Commission
I
shared
with
the
planning
Commissioners
that
I
know
no
one
in
the
city
of
Arcata
who
wants
sprawl?
If
you
know,
somebody
who
wants
sprawl
speak
up
now,
because
I
have
never
met
anybody
in
this
whole
process,
who
wants
sprawl
everybody's
in
favor
and
understands
infill,
and
they
understand
the
need
for
density.
S
But,
as
the
previous
speaker
said,
we
were
talking
about
strategic
and
or
gradual,
not
drastic,
and
so
the
three
things
I
guess
I
wanted
to
talk
about.
If
we're
talking
about
affordable
housing,
I've
been
struggling
for
many
years
trying
to
find
what
I
call
Safe
sane
and
affordable.
Those
are
three
things
that
are
most
important
in
housing.
S
Safe
sane
sane
is
very
important
and
affordable
and
people
can,
you
know,
give
up
on
some
of
those
criteria,
but
the
same
one
is
really
really
important:
I'm
wearing
my
favorite
color
tie-dye,
and
it
represents
for
me
the
fact
that
we
all
blend
together
equally,
there's
no
divisions
and
there's
no
barriers
and
with
diversity,
equity
and
inclusion.
Being
a
huge
part
of
this
I
just
really
want
that
to
be
I
just
want
this
whole
thing
to
be
really
under
the
the
Dome
of
all
these
concepts
of
inclusion
and
sanity
and
affordability.
S
M
My
name
is
Cody
Freitas
I'm,
a
member
of
the
operating
engineers,
local
three
we're
Rowdy
reek.
I
live
in
McKinleyville
I
came
out
here
tonight
to
speak
for
in
support
of
the
Gateway
project.
To
just
you
guys,
I've
been
hearing
it
but
just
say
again:
building
up
means
more
homes
for
more
people.
Building
out
means
more
land,
we're
taking
up
for
that
same
housing,
and
this
this
is
a
good
project.
I
think
we
should
move
forward
and
we
should
do
so
as
expeditiously
as
possible
and
is
safe
to
do
within
this
community.
Thank
you.
T
Good
evening,
everyone,
my
name-
is
Louis
I'm,
a
Arcata
resident
travel
member
I'm
here
to
support
the
Gateway
plan
and
I
am
a
little
bit,
admittedly
baffled
that
this
is
still
a
conversation
that
needs
to
be
had.
We,
the
the
building,
Heights
restriction,
stuff
I,
you
know
we're
in
the
midst
of
a
housing
crisis.
T
J
T
And
thank
you
thank
you.
So
I
I,
wow,
I'll
Soldier
on
I,
I,
I'll,
just
say
I
I
think
we
would
be
missing
a
great
opportunity
and
we
would
be
going
against
the
character
of
a
city
would
be
bringing
be
down
down
the
values
of
Arcata.
If
we
didn't
move
this
thing
forward
and
move
it
forward
fast,
yeah,
that's
it.
Thank
you.
U
Evening
people
don't
realize
that
under
State
density
bonus
law,
if
the
city
zones
for
seven
stories,
Max
a
developer
can
start
at
seven
stories
and
go
up
from
there.
The
seven
stories
that
some
City
Council
Members
want
will
become
10
to
11
stories
of
luxury
apartment
rentals,
with
only
a
few
affordable
units
provided
also
under
State
density
bonus
law
developers
can
completely
ignore
the
community
benefits
program
that
the
Planning
Commission
has
been
working
on
for
months
and
months.
Developers
will
be
able
to
waive
any
number
of
requirements
in
amenities
to
see
ones.
U
Inclusionary.
Zoning
requirements
in
the
draft
Gap
are
currently
five
to
nine
percent
affordability.
A
density
bonus
project
May
provide
as
few
as
nine
to
twenty
percent
affordable
units.
If
you
take
a
market
rate
building
of
43
units,
that's
the
size
of
the
sorrel
place.
There
would
be
only
two
to
three
affordable
units
under
our
community
community.
Our
current
inclusionary
zoning
under
a
density
bonus
project.
That
would
mean
only
five
to
eight
units
would
be
affordable.
U
Just
know
that
these
buildings
will
be
barely
affordable
and
no
amount
of
Supply
will
be
enough
to
reduce
rent
developers
will
not
put
money
into
projects
in
a
market
with
downward
trending
rent.
If
we
get
enough
Supply
rents
start
to
come
down,
we're
going
to
see
a
cessation
of
building
there's
going
to
be
an
equilibrium
there.
Really.
What
drives
development
in
arcade
is
just
like
anywhere
else
in
the
world,
and
that
is
the
greater
economy.
U
U
V
W
I
would
love
to
share
this
experience
with
more
college
students
that
are
coming
into
the
area
to
get
an
education
as
well
as
just
see
people
in
Familiar
Faces
Stay
in
the
area
and
not
get
priced
out
so
I'd
like
to
vocalize
support
for
the
Arcata
Gateway
program,
I.
Think
it's
an
amazing
program
and
it's
really
been
written
well
and
developed
in
a
very
thoughtful
manner
as
well
as
I.
W
E
X
Hi,
my
name
is
Genevieve
and
I'm,
just
chiming
in
this
evening
to
voice
my
support
for
the
Gateway
area
program
and
its
suggested
density.
The
city
of
Arcata
has
a
lot
of
lofty
goals.
Reducing
you
know,
private
vehicle
usage.
You
know
trying
to
move
towards
a
Greener
future
and
to
reduce
sprawl,
and
it's
unfortunately,
not
a
situation
that
you
know
can
work.
When
you
can
you
can't
have
it
both
ways.
You
don't
get
those
kinds
of
benefits.
When
you
limit,
Building
height,
the
buildings
need
to
go
up.
X
X
You
know
it
was
I've
recently,
you
know
written
written
a
letter
about
my
opinion
and
it's
it's
always
been
a
state
of
change.
So
the
idea
that
it
could
change
again
shouldn't
shouldn't
scare
anybody
and
to
maybe
give
a
little
perspective
on
on
80
feet
in
the
city
of
Arcata
at
the
time
that
it
was
built,
the
creamery
building
had
a
dome
on
it.
The
Dome
is
now
missing,
but
with
the
Dome
included,
that
building
was
80
feet
tall.
X
So
if
you
look
at
the
creamery
building
and
don't
worry
about
shade
and
you
look
at
the
creamery
building-
and
you
don't
worry
about
blocking
views,
if
you
think
that
it's
a
beautiful
building-
hopefully
maybe
gaining
a
little
bit
of
perspective,
might
you
know
speak
to
some
of
the
fears
that
we
have
the
city
of
Arcata
warming,
beautiful
and
Rain,
special,
even
with
taller
buildings.
Thank
you.
Y
There
we
go.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
all
for
this
meeting
today.
I
hope
you
have
the
opportunity
to
actually
sit
down
and
discuss
some
of
these
issues,
and
my
question
is
to
address
how
we
go
about
with
this
plan
incentivizing
and
actually
creating
affordable
housing
and
homeownership
opportunities,
disregarding
Building
height,
the
issue
about
Building
height
is:
does
it
cost
more
when
the
building
goes
higher
because
of
the
requirements
for
a
better
Foundation?
Y
Y
If
we
can
do
that
and
still
encourage
development,
but
we
need
to
find
a
way
to
keep
our
housing
as
we
develop
it
affordable
and
have
a
variety
of
levels.
We
don't
want
all
our
buildings
to
look
like
soil
place,
but
we
do
need
housing,
so
I
think
the
challenge
is
homeownership
affordability
and
and
making
it
a
very
livable,
enjoyable
visually
visually
likable
community.
So
thank
you
all
for
your
work.
I
hope
you
have
a
really
good
discussion
tonight
and
everybody
gets
a
chance
to
talk.
Y
E
Right
well,
thank
you
to
all
those
commenting
this
evening.
We
appreciate
it
and
thank
you
for
coming
out
and
before
I
turn,
my
back
on
you
guys
I'll
introduce
Heather
Equinox
who's,
going
to
be
our
facilitator
this
evening
for
two
primary
reasons:
one.
She
has
a
lot
of
experience
and
background,
especially
working
with
the
city
and
our
community
on
long
range
planning.
She
has
been
working
on
iterations
of
the
Gateway
plan
since
its
Inception
and
she's,
going
to
give
us
a
little
bit
of
background
on
that.
E
Secondly,
since
there
are
really
only
three
of
us
concentrated
on
making
these
final
decisions,
it
feels
better
to
free
myself
up
a
little
bit
and
not
have
to
focus
on
facilitation
and
allow
Heather
to
be
with
us
tonight
so
again.
Tonight
we're
coming
together
as
an
opportunity
around
the
table,
so
hopefully
I
hope
everybody
feels
comfortable
tonight.
Z
You
testing
whether
this
mic
works.
Thank
you
James
all
right,
so
I'm,
Heather,
Equinox,
hey
everybody.
This
is
officially
my
19th
meeting
I
facilitated
related
to
housing
in
the
last
four
years
for
the
city
of
Arcata.
The
vast
majority
of
those
meetings
were
Community
meetings.
I
think
I
visited
the
Planning
Commission
twice
if
I'm
remembering
that
accurately
so
almost
four
years
ago,
exactly
it
was
September
23
2019.
we
had
our
at
least
the
first
meeting.
I
was
involved.
With,
with
the
city
of
Arcata,
we
held
a
meeting
at
Arcata
Community
Center.
Z
It
was
a
housing
Workshop
about
50
people
showed
up
in
that
meeting
because
it
was
sort
of
like
the
launch
of
the
first
conversation
about
hey.
We
need
some
housing
in
Arcata.
What
are
we
gonna
do
about
it?
We
knew
that,
based
on
how
this
conversation
rolls
across
the
country
that
it
was
likely
to
be
a
very
polarizing
conversation.
Z
The
housing
plan
for
the
city
of
Arcata
and
ideally
could
also
start
to
at
least
understand
the
values
of
other
people
in
the
community,
so
that
we
wouldn't
end
up
in
the
same
polarized
place
that
so
many
other
communities
end
up
when
planning
for
housing.
So
that
was
four
years
ago
2019
and
we
started
that
meeting
by
asking
the
community
members
that
showed
up
our
neighbors
to
map
out
what
were
likely
going
to
be
some
common
tensions
that
our
plan
was
going
to
need
to
address.
Z
So
I
went
back
to
those
meeting
notes
from
four
years
ago.
Today
and
I
did
a
brief
snapshot
because
I
didn't
save
those
papers
had
I
known
it
was
going
to
take
us
four
years.
I
would
be
here.
I
would
have
saved
those
flip
charts,
but
I
did
not,
but
there
is
they
are
on
the
website
of
the
city
of
Arcata.
Z
If
you
want
to
see
all
of
the
comments
that
people
included
on
those
those
Maps
but
I,
just
sort
of
pulled
forward,
a
few
of
them
and
I
wanted
to
start
this
way,
because
I
think
this
is
still
that
the
intention
of
surfacing
the
polarities
that
we're
likely
going
to
exist
the
tensions
we
are
going
to
have
to
plan
for
was
so
that
we
could
leverage
them
well
creatively.
So,
ideally,
we
could
get
the
best
of
both
of
these
interdependent
values
and
stay
out
of
the
downsides
as
much
as
possible
from
those
values.
Z
So
I'm
not
going
to
walk
through
all
of
them,
but
I
wanted
to
at
least
set
this
up
and
set
the
stage,
because
we're
kind
of
coming
back
round
right
and
hopefully
lifting
our
gaze
and
not
getting
super
dug
into
the
trenches
of
any
one
of
these
values.
So
we
asked
people
hey,
there's
good
stuff
that
comes
for
for
developing
a
plan.
That's
really
planning
for
the
people
that
live
here
now
and
at
the
same
time,
there's
value
in
planning
for
the
people
yet
to
come.
Z
Z
Can
we
develop
a
plan?
This
was
another
polarity
around
building
in
our
current
footprint
and
expanding
our
footprint,
we've
heard
I
know
I've
LED
I've,
as
I've
said,
I've
been
in
19
meetings.
Now,
mostly
with
community
members,
we
hear
a
clear
preference
around
building
in
our
current
footprint
and
there's
also
some
acknowledgment
that
that
comes
with
some
downsides.
So
might
we
also
be
able
to
get
some
upsides
that
come
from
expansion.
Z
Stability,
little
or
no
growth
and
change
and
growth.
These
are
not
either
or
choices,
and
sometimes
we
act
as
though
these
are
binary
choices
that
we
need
to
make
yet
there's
ways
in
which
we
could
Leverage
The
Best
of
both
of
these.
But
we
wanted
to
at
least
acknowledge
that
that
there
are
downsides
related
to
both
okay
and
then
the
last
one
we
asked
people
to
think
about
is
focusing
on
affordable
housing
and
focusing
on
market
rate
housing.
Z
So
it's
likely
that
all
of
us
hold
a
preference
for
one
of
these
values
more
than
the
other.
One
of
them
is
probably
preferential.
One
is
subordinated,
and
when
that
is
the
case,
we're
likely
to
see
the
upsides
of
our
preferred
value
and
the
downsides
of
our
subordinated
value.
We
get
this
tunnel
vision
right,
I
see
the
good
stuff
that
comes
with
the
thing
I
prefer
in
the
downsides
of
what
I
don't
prefer
and
it's
accurate.
It's
just
that.
Z
It's
incomplete,
there's
another
part
of
the
puzzle
that
other
people
in
our
community
hold,
and
so
we
are
just
trying
to
give
space
for
people
to
be
able
to
hear
one
another
see.
One
another's
values
and
also
recognize
that
there's
trade-offs
that
we're
going
to
have
to
make.
So
if
we
really
want
to
stay
in
our
current
footprint,
it
is
going
to
be
walkable.
These
are
direct,
quotes.
I
didn't
make
this
up.
This
is
what
people
actually
said.
It
can
help
us
retain
our
open
lands.
Z
Z
Z
So
the
process
that
we're
proposing
is
we
start
with
the
first
topic:
Building
height
massing
and
density
planning.
Commissioners,
you
all
have
been
working
on
that
you've
made
a
recommendation.
We
wanted
to
open
up
the
space
for
you
to
just
popcorn
out,
share
anything
you'd
like
to
ideally
kind
of
briefly
but
share
your
rationale.
Why
did
you
recommend
what
you
recommended?
Z
Okay
and
then
turn
it
over
to
council
council
members?
What
are
the
core
questions
that
you
have
for
the
planning?
Commissioners?
The
core
questions
about
the
recommendation
to
help
you
understand
the
recommendation.
More
deeply
understand
the
analysis
understand
the
perspective.
Okay,
so
questions
they
might
be
clarification,
Etc
I'm,
going
to
chart
your
questions
just
so
we
can
track
them
all
and
be
clear
about
what
the
questions
are.
Z
I,
don't
know
how
many
you'll
generate,
maybe
you're
going
to
generate
a
ton.
We
might
have
to
prioritize
so
that
we'll
see
how
that
goes,
but
then
we'll
give
the
planning
Commissioners
a
chance
to
respond
right.
We'll
generate
your
questions,
here's
some
responses,
so
you
can
again
understand
this.
Is
a
study
session,
so
I'm
operating
under
the
assumption
that
you
want
understand
one
another
and
each
other's
thinking,
so
the
planning
Commissioners
get
a
chance
to
respond
to
see
who
has
responses
to
the
questions
that
generate
were
generated.
Z
Then
there's
this
gradients
of
agreement,
I'll
move
it
up
when
we
get
to
it,
but
it
is
something
it's
my
understanding
that
the
Planning
Commission
you've
been
using.
That's
how
you
arrived
at
your
recommendations,
so
I'll
move
it
up
and
then
I'm
just
going
to
ask
the
council
members
where
you're
falling
on
this
gradients
of
agreements
in
related
to
the
current
recommendation.
That's
before
you
and
then
wherever
you
land,
I'm,
just
going
to
ask
you
cool,
tell
us
why?
Z
What's
your
rationale,
how
what's
making
you
land
there
and
then
we'll
move
on
so
we
got
as
I
said,
we've
got
three
topics
to
cover:
I
am
going
to
test
to
see.
We
are
humans.
We
often
need
breaks,
and
so
after
covering
the
first
topic,
I'll
see
if
y'all
need
a
five
minute
break
and
then
we'll
dive
into
the
next
one.
Z
Where
are
you?
Are
you
good
here,
you're
already
on
the
green
secret?
Okay,
is
anyone
here
like
I'm,
not
doing
that?
Thank
you
very
much.
Okay,
cool,
so
Building
height
massing
intensity,
Planning
Commission!
You
spend
some
time
with
it
very
briefly.
Anything
you
want
to
share
with
council
members
to
help
them
understand
why
you
landed
where
you
landed.
Any
rationale
you
want
to
offer
up.
F
A
AA
AB
I'll
go
first,
many
people
have
said
this,
but
I'm
gonna
say
it
Arcata.
Our
city
is
going
to
experience
considerable
considerable
growth
in
the
next
few
decades.
Cal
Poly
is
expanding,
remote
work
is
becoming
General
and
we're
going
to
have
climate
refugees
move
here
because
we
live
in
a
great
place.
AB
G
AB
AC
I
just
was
happy
to
read
the
comments
that
the
city
council
made,
but
after
reading
them
I
was
kind
of
confused,
because
some
of
the
comments
talk
about
the
maximum
Building
height
being
four
stories
and
then
also
potentially
requiring
Planning
Commission
action
for
anything
over
five
stories,
which
would
mean
that
this
isn't
a
form-based
code.
So
I'm
hoping
we
can
clear
some
of
that
up
tonight.
H
I've
heard
from
some
large
employers
here
that
they
can't
provide
Staffing,
because
the
workers
have
no
place
to
live.
We've
heard
the
word
that
we're
in
a
housing
crisis
and
based
on
the
information
that
I've
learned,
I
100,
agree
with
that.
So
the
primary
thing
we
need
to
do
in
the
Gateway
area
is
to
create
housing
units.
H
AD
The
Planning
Commission
went
through
a
fairly
long
process
to
very
slightly
reduce
recommendations
for
maximum
building
Heights
from
what
the
original
draft
indicated
and
as
as
we
were
going
through
this
process,
I
realized
that
a
seven-story
building,
a
six-story
building
a
five-story
building
built
with
sensitive
massing,
that
let
light
and
air
onto
the
street
and
provided
it
for
residents
and
neighbors
would
make
for
a
livable
community
for
all
of
us.
For
residents
and
for
Neighbors
alike,
an
insensitive
monolithic
building
would
be
providing
housing.
AD
It
may
be
providing
affordable
housing,
but
it
wouldn't
be
providing
the
kind
of
housing
that
we're
really
hoping
for
in
this
plan,
we're
up
against
a
state
density,
bonus
law
which
could
really
override
a
lot
of
the
details
of
our
form-based
code,
especially
relative
to
Building,
height
and
massing.
And
so
what
we
need
to
do
is
find
that
balance
between
offering
something
that
will
attract
Builders
to
build.
AD
What
we
would
like
to
see
and
live
in
here
and
to
build
enough
of
it
to
make
it
worth
the
trouble
and
and
and
that's
a
balancing
point.
I
think
I.
Think
the
details
of
design
really
can't
be
separated
from
the
building
hate,
massing
and
density
thing
all
together.
It's
important
that
the
rear
sides
of
buildings
provide
access
to
light
and
air,
as
well
as
the
street
side,
and
we
have
a
policy
in
there
that
refers
to
360
degree
design,
which
some
of
our
other
policies
actually
in
the
draft
kind
of
contradict.
AD
We
need
to
resolve
those
things,
but
we
also
need
to
recognize
as
I
think
Elizabeth
Connor
just
wrote
brought
out
that
simply
offering
density
is.
It
may
be
actually
an
invitation
for
Builders
to
just
go
for
the
state,
mandated
density,
bonus
opportunities
and
ignore
our
recommendations
and
that's
what
you,
as
a
council,
I,
think
need
to
Grapple
with
we.
AD
We
did
have
a
suggestion
in
the
Planning
Commission,
which
was
not
made
cynically
I,
think
it
was
made
sort
of
strategically
to
set
our
building
densities
and
building
Heights
low
so
that,
if
someone
didn't
want
to
use
the
state
density,
bonus,
we'd
get
more
or
less.
What
we
actually
expect
I
would
hate
for
us
to
have
to
make
that
compromise
here.
V
C
Sorry
for
being
the
zoom
person
here,
but
thank
you
for
accommodating
it.
I
thought
those
all
were
great
presentations
both
from
the
public
tonight
and
from
the
commission.
So
far
it's
this
is
a
wonderful
conversation.
Starter
I
would
like
to
say
just
a
little
bit
about
how
I
feel
like
we
came
to
the
building
height
and
massing
decisions
and
I
think
largely
it's.
C
It
feels
like
there's
an
intense
desire
locally
and
out
from
out
of
the
area
and
from
many
agencies
you
know
the
uroc
tribe,
so
many
different
people
have
said
housing
is
a
massive
issue.
People
want
to
live
in
Arcata
and
the
prices
are
just
too
high
So
based
on
a
lot
of
desire,
and
that's
why
we
all
live
here
and
why
we
so
covet
this
community
and
work
so
hard
to
keep
it
nice
how
how
what
direction
do
we
go?
Where
do
we
put
these
housings?
C
So
densification
is
the
only
scenario
and
we
I
feel
like
went
through
a
pretty
intense
discussion
about
Building
height
and,
what's
the
appropriate,
massing
and
height,
to
create
the
kind
of
urban
core
that
brings
in
other
things,
as
Colin
fist
points
out,
there's
kind
of
a
four
to
seven
story:
thing,
that's
just
being
done
in
so
many
places,
because
it
makes
sense
for
transportation
for
Trails
for
The
Human
Condition.
This
is
like
the
sweet
spot
in
in
densifying.
C
Some
of
our
communities
and
Arcata
is
targeting
that
sweet
spot
so
any
reason
to
lower.
It
feels
like
we're
artificially
kind
of
obstructing
Market
forces,
desirable,
building
structures
and
Heights
and
where
people
want
to
live,
and
what
that
feels
to
me
like
it
means
is,
you
know,
people
will
live
elsewhere
and
they'll
just
be
more
driving.
That
comes
up
a
lot
as
one
of
these
speakers
tonight
said
they
don't
know
anybody,
that's
against
this
project.
That's
for
urban
sprawl.
The
scenario
isn't
about
urban
sprawl
and
Arcata.
C
The
scenario
is
urban
sprawl
in
other
areas.
It's
about
commuting
to
get
to
Arcata,
because
you
can't
afford
it
because
there's
not
enough
housing.
I!
Think
that
we
also
need
to
include,
in
this
conversation,
simple
economics,
you
know,
if
you
supply
more
to
the
market,
it
will
affect
how
prices
respond.
C
C
Those
details
I
really
want
to
work
on
as
this
moves
forward,
but
at
the
beginning
of
it
is
to
allow
this
process
to
maximize
the
densification
that
that
it
that
I
think
we
are
all
mostly
agreeing
on
we're
pretty
close
to
like
somewhere
between
four
and
seven
stories
is
about
what
wants
to
happen
and
about
what
the
market
probably
will
support,
not
right
now
and
I.
Don't
if
a
builder
can't
build
that
next
year?
That's
okay
with
me!
You
know
this
is
a
long-term
project.
C
It
it
I
I.
Just
don't
see
why
we
would
put
limits
at
this
point
in
something
that
feels
like
there's
so
much
desire
and
Community
agreement
on
I
know.
There's
some
community
members
that
have
spoke
very
loudly
against
certain
Heights,
but
I
haven't
heard
that
massively
I've
heard
it's
some
I've
heard
a
lot
of
support
for
just
let's
just
do
this.
C
Z
AE
So
I
did
release
you
know
my
thoughts
on
this
a
couple
days
ago.
You
know
I
have
for
the
past
two
years
watched
every
Planning,
Commission
meeting
I
know
how
you
folks
got
to
your
decisions
and
I
really
thank
you
for
it.
I
understand
the
thought
process
that
you
went
to.
I
have
spent
hours
discussing
with
staff.
I
feel
like
every
book.
I
have
read
in
the
last
two
years
has
been
in
some
way
devoted
to
urban
planning,
I
mean
I,
I
am
and
I
hear.
AE
The
community
I
am
satisfied
with
your
recommendations,
the
questions
that
I
have
so
to
address
your
question
Abby
when
I
put
in
that,
you
know
review
at
five
I
guess
that
was
my
attempt
of
a
gradient
of
agreement
that,
if
that
is,
you
know
something
that
we're
sticking
on
then
I'm
willing
to
it,
but
really
I'm.
Okay,
I
am
understanding,
though
the
seven
story
building
I.
You
know
that
is
in
the
barrel
District.
AE
That
is
my
understanding
that
there
is
going
to
be
a
separate,
Barrel
District
plan,
which
is
what
I
read
that.
So
you
know
whatever
zoning
we
do
that'll
be
a
whole
different
plan
that
will
be
discussed
so
yeah
I'm,
looking
forward
to
building
some
houses
for
people
that
need
to
live
in
it.
I
will
say
that
you
know,
I
have
I,
have
children,
I
have
young
children
that
are
going
to
go
to
college
and
hopefully
want
to
come
back
here
and
I.
AE
I
really
would
like
them
to
have
a
place
to
live,
I
mean
from
the
Planning
Commission
and
from
the
public.
I've
heard
a
lot
of
like
speculation.
Like
you
know
the
economics
it
will,
the
it'll
even
out
you
know,
Market
rates
and
rents
or
it'll
be
really
still
too
expensive.
So
I
don't
know
we
don't
have
like
a
lens
into
the
future.
I,
don't
think
we
can
see
what
the
rents
are
going
to
be.
We
just
need
to
you
know
you
can't
get
a
doctor
here.
You
can't
really
go
to
the
I.
AE
Z
Might
have
been
question
underneath
it
so
like
and
again
you
don't
have
to
answer
yet
we'll
get
to
the
responses,
but
Barrel
District
whole
different
plan.
Also
maybe
I
don't
know.
Maybe
there
was
a
question
in
there
about.
Like
did
the
Planning
Commission
have
a
take
on
what
this
might
mean
for
rent?
Is
that
a
question
you.
AE
AE
F
E
Yes,
and
thank
you
folks
and
and
sorry
I
didn't
provide
comments
on
this
meeting.
I
was
away
at
a
wedding
in
Denver,
which
I
I
will
make
a
brief
comment
of
man.
This
whole
planning
process
has
completely
changed
the
way
that
I
travel
I
was
showing
Meredith
pictures
of
all
these
different
buildings
that
I
saw
and
different
ways
that
they
designed
their
roads
and
sidewalks.
So,
oh
my
gosh.
This
has
changed
the
way
that
it's
almost
not
enjoyable,
actually.
E
That
building!
Oh,
that's,
what
seven
stories
looks
like
so
forgive
me
for
not
sending
anything
in,
but
not
much
of
a
change
from
the
previous
comments
I
sent
in
but
question
wise
I
just
wanted
to
kind
of
hear
from
the
Planning
Commission
just
of
their
angle
on
we
hear
a
lot
of
questions
about
building
in
the
barrel
District,
because
it's
in
the
coastal
zone,
questions
about
liquefaction
and
so
just
kind
of
hearing
from
the
Planning
Commission
about
how
this
was
taken
into
account
with
their
recommendation.
E
The
plan
that
we
have
adopted
and
to
kind
of
you
know
see
it
as
yes
we're
going
to
adopt
this
plan,
but
it
still
can
be
a
living
document
for
our
community,
and
so
I
mean
what
kind
of
would
be
the
the
flags
coming
up
in
in
our
community
that
you
guys
would
see
as
a
chance
to
maybe
oh
hey.
We
need
to
review
something
about
the
Gateway
plan,
or
maybe
we
need
to
to
change
something
here.
So
what
kind
of
I
guess
this
is
a
really
long
question
I'm
repeating
you've
got
the
question.
Z
F
AF
Maybe
some
questions,
and
maybe
just
some
comments,
I,
feel
like
this
idea
of
polarization
and
things
not
being
necessarily
they're,
not
binary
or
mutually
exclusive,
that
we
do
tend
to
get
tunnel
vision.
I
feel
like
we
have
more
agreements
than
differences
and
I
feel
like
there's
been
some
mischaracterizations,
so
my
question,
I
guess
is
I,
might
have
misinterpreted,
but
I'm
wondering
if
there
was
I
feel
like
we
were,
throwing
out
setbacks
and
step
backs
and
like
Judith
I
feel,
like
Building
height,
hasn't
been
so
much.
AF
AF
I
see,
yeah,
building
facade
some
of
those
other
kinds
of
things
you
know,
I
was
in
Eureka
the
other
day
and
I
was
driving
and
of
course
somebody
was
right
behind
me,
so
I
couldn't
get
a
picture
and
I
was
pulling
over.
It
was
like
too
much
traffic,
but
my
memory
served
me
was
that
what
really
struck
me
about
this
building
is
that
it
created
a
lot
of
housing,
but
it
wasn't
bad
to
look
at
it,
wasn't
shading
or
causing
any
it
fit
into
the
neighborhood.
AF
There
were
these
setbacks,
and,
and
so
for
me,
you
know
the
average
block
of
being
250
I,
don't
think
we
need
to
have
any
building
longer
than
150
feet
right
now.
It's
set
at
300,
but
I
think
we
can
break
it
up.
Modulating
obviously,
would
be
preferred
to
not
individual
buildings,
but
you
know
preferable
if
it's
going
to
be
that
big,
let's
just
make
a
separate
building
and
that
way
we
can
create
that
setback
in
between
and
as
pointed
out
by
Judith,
it's
not
just
the
setback
in
the
front.
AF
It's
the
setback
on
the
sides.
All
four
is
going
to
be
taken
into
consideration
at
least
I
hope,
so
we
only
get
one
shot
at
this.
So
so
those
are
some
of
the
things
and
I
apologize.
If
somehow
I
have
miscommunicated
I
feel
like
there
has
been
some
Mis
characterization.
My
passion
is
housing.
My
passion
is
to
live
in
arcade
and
I
want
everyone
to
have
that
opportunity.
AF
My
passion
is
to
not
rush
through
this,
so
that
we
make
sure
we
have
enough
inclusionary
housing,
which
means
that
people
who
are
unhoused
low
and
extremely
low
income
are
taken
into
account.
I,
don't
want
this
to
be
all
about.
Gentrification
I
want
the
people
who
live
and
work
in
the
creamery
District
our
artists
to
be
able
to
afford
to
continue
to
live
and
work
in
that
particular
District.
Z
AF
If,
if
the
community,
you
know
most
of
you
are
aware,
because
you've
been
really
diligent
doing
your
homework,
but,
for
example,
we
have
a
single
family
home,
we
can
build
a
five-story
six
or
even
a
seven
story
next
to
it
without
having
this
monstrosity
next
door
to
it.
So
maybe
at
the
second
or
the
third.
In
fact,
one
of
the
examples
that
Ben
Noble
gave
had.
Actually
it
was
at
Second
Story
a
slight
step
back
and
then
it
would
graduate
you
know.
AF
AF
I
feel
like
what
I'm
hearing
and
and
maybe
not,
is
that
we
don't
want
to
do
that
because
it
won't
pencil
out
and
that
we're
going
to
be
building
these
monolithic
and
I
just
want
to
return
to
the
original
intention
of
the
Gateway
area
plan
where
we
talked
about.
We
want
to.
Let's
see
if
I
can
repeat
this
human
yeah,
it's
we
don't
want
help
me
with
the
word
somebody
here.
Thank
you,
I!
Have
it
in
my
notes?
Z
AF
Yeah
did
I
get
that
right
and
modulating
with
different
kinds
of
building
materials
so
that
we
don't
just
have
this
entire
block
of
this
great
big
monolith,
not
changing
building,
not
to
say
that
Sorel
place
doesn't
provide
housing.
It
does
and
I
think
it's
great,
but
I
think
that
we
can
kind
of
do
some
variations
and
and
we
can
still
meet
our
housing
needs.
E
AF
How
are
we
going
to
look
at
all
of
this
within
our
Arcata
fire
district,
because
I
do
stand
in
solidarity
with
what
they
feel
is
important,
and
then
we
got
to
try
to
work
that
out.
I
think
that
that
might
actually
would
we
be
willing
I
know
that
they
came
before
the
Planning
Commission.
It
was
super
helpful.
They
have
not
yet
come
before
the
city
council
I
did
talk
to
both
Chief
and
also
Eric,
and
they
would
be
willing
to
come
the
two
to
three
minutes
offered
in
public
comment.
AF
It's
not
even
you
know
it's
it's
not
worth
it
and
I.
Don't
think
that
it
would
actually
serve
the
purpose
that
you
know
they
would
be.
We
need
more
time.
So
that's
the
other
question
is
if
we
could
work
out
these
details,
I
think
that
there
wouldn't
be
that
polarization
that
people
think
is
happening.
I
think
there's
more
agreements.
AF
Then
there
are
differences.
I
just
think
we
have
to
tweak
out
the
details
and
if
we
can
Embrace
that
I
think
we'll
get
there
a
lot
faster.
Some
of
this
stalling
has
because
I
feel
like
we
haven't,
been
looking
and
hearing
so
this
study
session
is
the
step
to
doing
that
that
we're
going
to
get
to
ask
these
questions
and
and
think
out
loud
and
not
feel
like
you're
on
the
hot
seat,
because
then
those
questions
might
not
ask
and
they're
very
important
questions
that
could
be
missed.
Otherwise,
love.
Z
It
so
I
noted
this
question
about
the
fire
district
and
it
just
so
happened
that
that
was
actually
one
of
the
Planning
Commission
meetings.
I
did
go
to
was
when
you
had
like
a
really
lengthy
presentation
from
the
fire
district,
so
I
just
asked.
So
perhaps
when
we
go
back
to
you
all
planning
Commissioners,
maybe
what
you
might
respond
to
is,
how
did
you
include
or
consider
what
was
shared
with
you
from
the
fire
district
in
relationship
to
the
recommendation
that
you
ultimately
produced
great
all
right
questions
planning
Commissioners,
where
you
want
to
start
Scott.
AA
I'm,
just
gonna
I'm
respond
to
a
couple
of
Sarah's
questions
and
then
let
the
rest
of
the
the
commission
weigh
in
I
think
regarding
questions
about
the
barrel
district
and
sea
level
rise,
and
how
did
we
think
through
that
piece
with
those
sort
of
taller
buildings
being
there
I?
Think
people
perhaps
confuse
proximity
to
the
Bay
for
vulnerability
from
Sea,
Level
Rides
and
one
of
the
things
that
became
clear
when
we
had
the
expert
panel
come
to
us.
AA
One
of
the
things
that
was
most
useful
was
the
mapping
tool
that
they
provided
and
in
that
mapping
tool.
It
was
clear
that,
with
even
as
much
as
10
feet
of
sea
level
rise,
the
Gateway
area,
including
the
barrel
District,
was
going
to
be
almost
entirely
Untouched.
By
that
there
will
be
other
areas
of
Arcata.
AA
That
would
suffer
a
lot
more
and
so
it
it
was
some
strong
science
behind
focusing
increasing
density
in
areas
that
were
going
to
be
the
least
vulnerable
to
sea
level
eyes,
as
well
as
as
close
to
the
downtown
Corridor
as
possible.
So
that
was
one
thing
and
the
other
thing
I
wanted
to
speak
to
quickly
was
the
question
about
this
being
a
living
document.
AA
It's
something
that
we
talked
a
lot
about
in
our
meetings
and
we
we
talked
around
a
concept
of
sort
of
like
almost
a
dial
content
concept,
not
a
switch
and
the
discussions
we
had
with
it.
You
know,
after
a
couple
years
we
would
have
a
chance
to
review
what
kind
of
buildings
are
we
getting
and
compare
that
and
map
it
over
what
our
intent
was
and
that
at
that
point
you
know
we
would.
G
AB
Peter
would
like
to
address
the
the
issue
of
the
kind
of
facades
buildings
would
have
or
the
kind
of
shape
they
would
have,
and
that's
addressed
in
the
form-based
code
and
in
detail
and
I.
Think
that
that's
where
it
should
be
addressed,
and
if
the
council
has
issues
with
how
the
code
is
is
requiring
that
buildings
be
built.
We
should
change
the
code,
but
the
code
is
there
and
it.
It
makes
a
good
attempt
to
provide
buildings
that
are
interesting
and
different
and
would
provide
a
a
an
attractive
City
for
us.
AD
One
thing:
I,
I,
I,
I
guess
I
I
would
like
to
just
raise.
Is
that
a
great
deal
of
that
138
Acres
is
actually
land.
That's
big
blank
spots
on
most
people's
maps,
they're
psychological
maps
in
Arcata.
This
is
land
that
is
not
used
for
housing.
At
the
moment,
it's
land
that's
wide
open
to
creative
ideas
and,
frankly,
from
the
perspective
of
developers
coming
in
from
outside
Arcata,
it's
going
to
be
really
cheap.
Land.
AD
Okay,
I
mean
by
arcadis
terms
the
owners
of
that
underutilized
industrial
land
are
going
to
make
a
killing
because
they've
been
sitting
on
it
for
so
long
couldn't
develop
it
because
it
was
zoned.
Industrial,
we're
gonna,
give
those
landowners
the
opportunity
to
make
some
money
and
I
think
that
gives
us
some
latitude
in
calling
for
the
types
of
development
with
the
design
features
that
we
really
want
to
see
in
ways
that
we
probably
couldn't
do
if
we
were
in
a
part
of
the
U.S
or
California,
where
land
costs
are
much
higher
and
they're.
AD
Therefore,
we're
developers
would
feel
the
squeeze
a
little
bit
more.
On
the
other
hand,
we
also
want
lower
housing
prices
than
in
those
areas
and
I
think
that,
when
we're
looking
at
in
effect
for
opening
up
low-cost
land
for
development,
we
also
need
to
take
action
to
ensure
that
what
we
get
is
going
to
be
affordable,
which
is
another
set
of
items
in
there.
But
I
I'm
really
hoping
that
the
council
will
give
the
Planning
Commission
some
opportunity
to
continue
to
address
the
details
of
that
form-based
code.
G
H
V
Z
AE
Can
I
ask,
can
I
ask
a
quick
question:
I'm
sorry,
if
I'm
cutting
anybody
off
was
it
the
will
of
the
most
the
entire
Planning
Commission
that
they
wanted
more
time
to
work
on
detail
I
know
we
gave
that
July
date
as
a
review
date,
because
you
know
we
wanted
to
see
where
we
were
but
I.
Also
I.
Think
I
asked
this
at
another
meeting,
maybe
with
the
last
study
session
that
these
things
we
could
do
concurrently
like
we
could
still
move
forward
while
the
Planning
Commission
was
still
working
on
Design
Elements.
AE
AA
Yeah
I
mean
at
the
Planning
Commission.
We
understood
that
we
were
going
to
do
everything
we
could
to
meet
the
request
of
the
city
council
to
make
a
recommendation
by
July
11th,
but
we
also
knew
it
was
highly
likely.
We
were
not
going
to
finish
all
the
work
we
wanted
to
do,
but
that
we
would
make
a
handoff
to
you
folks.
At
that
point
you
could
begin
diving
into
the
work
we've
been
doing
for
so
long
and
we
could
continue
along
that
track.
AA
I
think
that's
predicated
on
an
assumption
that
the
city
council
was
going
to
walk
with
the
Planning
Commission
down
the
road
of
supporting
density
and
taller
building
Heights,
which
are
kind
of
the
core
of
the
Gateway
area,
and
understanding
that
you
would
make
some
different
choices
with
different
components
of
it.
I
think
one
of
the
things
we
talked
about
a
lot
was
setting
realistic
expectations,
and
this
is
something
that
goes
to
all
of
the
questions
that
were
asked.
AA
You
know,
I
would
love
to
see
buildings
like
the
example
that
Julian
Berg,
designed
in
and
Drew
with
bus
passes
and
solar
and
as
much
park
space
as
possible.
Everyone
everyone
would
love
that,
but
that
at
that
end
of
the
scale,
if
that's
the
direction,
that
we
end
up
prioritizing,
there's
an
understanding
that
we're
not
going
to
get
affordable
housing.
If
we
do
that.
G
AB
It
was
with
the
understanding
that
the
Gateway
plan
will
be
a
living
document
that
we
could
change
now
on.
The
road
I
think
it's
imperative
that
we
get
it
approved
soon.
I
developers
are
not
going
to
come
here
if
they're
uncertain
what
the
rules
are
and
we
need
to
have
the
rules,
even
if
they
are
imperfect.
At
this
point,
we
can
change
them
down
the
road,
but
we
need
to
get
it
approved
so
that
we
can
get
on
with
this
development.
Z
AD
Yeah
I'm
wondering
if
today's
staff
could
weigh
in
on
this
because
I
know
there's
a
process
since
the
the
fire
district
folks
talk
to
us,
that's
been
initiated
between
the
city,
the
fire
district,
the
fire
department
and
the
university
and
I
think
the
county.
Maybe
you
could
just
explain
that
a
little
bit.
A
So
we
are
actually
getting
questions
from
potential
candidates
that
would
be
proposing
to
work
with
the
city
in
The
District
in
Cal
Poly,
on
that
study,
that
capacity
study
and
but
still
I,
think
that
that
study
is
going
to
take
us.
You
know
probably
at
least
I
would
love
to
say
less
than,
but
I'm
going
to
say,
probably
a
year
really
to
get
through
completion.
So
you
know
we
have
continued
to
move
forward
with
our
planning.
I
think
this
has
been
a
common
question
as
well.
A
Is
that
when
do
you
make
decisions,
and
when
do
you
continue
to
study
and
I?
Think
to
Heather's
opening?
Is
that
a
lot
of
the
studies
that
we
started
to
do
around
housing
really
were
back
in
2019
some
of
the
original
sea
level,
vulnerability
studies
that
we
did
were
around
217
to
you
know
2017
to
2019,
and
we
will
continue
to
update
that
information.
B
Yeah
I
just
also
wanted
to
add
that
component
to
the
the
or
the
zoning
ordinance
for
the
Gateway,
there
would
also
be
standards
that
we
would
pull
down
from
larger
buildings.
It
was
one
of
the
commitments
that
we
made
early
on
as
a
way
to
mitigate
some
of
the
concerns
about
fire
safety
and
so
we're
working
on
those
with
the
fire
marshall
right
now
and
we'll
be
running
those
through.
AE
Thank
you,
yeah
yeah,
I,
take
away
when
I
had
a
meeting
with
the
fire
department
too,
is
that
we
continue
to
like
plan
for
the
things
that
they
wanted
to
see
as
far
as
fire
suppression
and
safety.
But
you
know
from
what
I
understood
like
there's:
no
real
difference
between
like
a
four-story
and
a
seven
story
building
as
far
as
like
they're
the
same
level
of
complicated
and
so
and
we're
already
allow
four-story
buildings.
AA
The
Planning
Commission
also
considered,
though
the
fact
that
streets
in
general
were
a
much
greater
risk
to
Public
Safety
and
that
do
we
weigh
smaller
streets
that
are
going
to
keep
pedestrians
and
traffic
safer
versus
the
fire
component.
So
there
was
again.
This
is
just
an
example
of
how
these
issues
are
nuanced
and
complicated
and
we're
weighing
it
lawfully
against
other
matters
that
are
also
important,
like
Street,
pedestrian
and
bicycle.
G
B
C
Dan
hi,
thank
you,
I,
partly
wanted
to
follow
up
on
what
Peter
said.
I
feel
like
there's
so
much
information
moving
forward
in
this
project
that
what
we
want
to
do
is
get
it
done
so
that
we
can
see
how
the
development
Community
responds
to
it,
and
it
is
a
living
document
as
projects
come
forward,
we'll
learn
right
away.
C
Are
we
at
like
if
we
are
sticking
to
four
stories?
It's
completely
different
conversation
and
the
Gateway
area
plan
kind
of
loses
its
its
its
momentum.
It
there's
so
much
in
it.
That's
larger
than
four
stories.
Without
going
above
four
stories,
we
hardly
have
a
conversation
or
we
have
a
completely
different
conversation.
So
I
would
like
to
push
back
a
little
bit
at
some
point
towards
the
council
to
address
that.
AF
I
got
this
right
and
and
certainly
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
I
said
you
know
what
what
what
I
got
from
them
was
in
the
presentation
to
the
Planning
Commission
on
January
10th
of
2023,
the
district
recommended
limiting
Building
height
to
less
than
four
stories
until
funding
was
established
for
required
additional
Staffing
equipment
and
training.
This
does
not
mean
that
the
council
should
not
debate
and
establish
anticipated
maximum
building
Heights
for
the
Gateway
area
plan.
AF
It
does
recommend
that
the
plan
and
adopting
ordinances
set
these
maximums
as
provisional
conditioning
final
implementation
on
establishing
the
appropriate
fire
district,
Staffing
equipment
and
training
required
and
funding
this
Staffing
equipment
and
training.
So
you
know
I
know
that
the
city,
the
district
and
Cal
Poly
Humboldt,
are
cooperating
with
the
standard
of
coverage
I
kind
of
wish.
We
would
have
done
that
a
little
bit
before
and
that's
my
input,
not
the
fire
district,
and
so
they
talk
about.
AF
Fiscal
analysis
will
then
be
required
to
estimate
the
Gap
in
funding
that
is
required
to
meet
the
likely
expenses
and
finally,
the
city
and
the
district
and
University
question
mark
will
need
to
secure
funding
once
all
of
this
is
accomplished,
the
higher
maximum
zoning
can
be
adopted.
So
what
I'm
understanding
is
that
you
know
as
opposed
to
what
Fred
had
suggested
was
you
know
a
certificate
of
occupancy?
AF
AF
That
was
what
the
feedback
was
if
I'm
wrong
I
apologize,
I
think
that
it
would
behoove
us
to
have
a
further
conversation
on
the
council
level
and
and
give
them
some
time
so
that
they
can
do
because
a
lot
of
things
have
changed
since
that
presentation,
when
I
was
on
the
Planning
Commission
that
they
did
so
I.
That's
my
recommendation.
V
Z
AF
Z
Okay,
I
think
this
question
is
still
on
the
table
and
then
I
wanna,
as
we
had
agreed,
I
was
going
to
pull
the
I
was
gonna
pull
the
council.
Sorry
I
wrote
that
on
where
you
are
currently
landing
on
the
draft
recommendation.
That's
before
you,
okay,
so
this
one
here
which
was
hey
human,
scaled
pedestrian,
friendly
step
back
step
backs.
Z
AG
I
think
we
actually
thought
about
this.
For
about
two
years
we
talked
about
it.
Well,
I
wasn't
even
on
the
planning
question,
yet
you
all
talked
about
it
for
about
a
year
and
then
I
joined
the
final
commission
and
we've
talked
about
it
for
almost
another
year
and
we've
heard
from
the
community
over
and
over
again
about
their
concerns.
AG
We
only
got
this
this
afternoon,
so
I
didn't
get
to
read
through
everything
but
at
yesterday's
event,
folks
had
a
chance
to
write
down
their
thoughts
about
housing
and
their
concerns,
and
we
heard
the
concerns
that
we've
heard
a
lot
of
times
about
solar
shading
and
about
density.
But
then
we
also
heard
concerns
from
people
who
were
desperately
looking
for
housing.
G
AG
Who
couldn't
find
anywhere
to
live?
And
so,
when
we're
weighing
those
concerns,
you
have
to
weigh
them
against
the
people
who
are
looking
for
housing
looking
for
an
affordable
place
to
live,
and
that's
where
the
Planning
Commission
to
my
understanding
came
to
the
recommendation
we
did
was.
We
did
a
weighing
of
those
two
things
and
we
decided
to
increase
the
allowable
height
in
some
portions
of
the
Gateway
District,
not
as
much
as
we
could
have,
because
it
would
allow
more
homes
for
more
people
in
our
community.
Z
Z
Okay,
all
right
so
as
promised
we
wanted
to
just
poll
council
members,
you
have
a
recommendation
before
you
related
to
Building,
height,
massing
and
density.
So
what
I'll
do
is
just
check
where
you
are
on
this
gradient
of
agreement
with
the
current
recommendation.
One
is
I
completely
I
agree
completely
with
no
concerns.
Two
is
I'm
supportive
with
minor
concerns.
Three
I'm,
neutral
or
I
have
no
opinion.
Four
I
have
strong
objections,
but
I'd
stand
aside.
Five
is
I
cannot
support
this,
so
to
be
clear,
this
isn't
a
decision-making
meeting.
V
Z
G
E
AF
Either
one
of
you
go
in
so
the
reason
I'm
doing
it
too
is
for
the
reasons
that
Shane
pointed
out
was
you
know
we
have
policy,
and
then
we
have
the
nitty-gritty
and
I
guess.
My
fear
is
that
we
move
forward,
but
then
all
of
these
changes,
which
we
don't
have
attract
changes,
but
you
know
you
can
look
through
and
see.
AF
The
number
of
pages
are
quite
different
and
there
have
been
changes
in
the
form-based
code
with
regards
to
setbacks
and
step
backs,
and
so
sometimes
rather
dramatic,
like
half
from
20
to
10,
and
so
so
that
was
my
concern.
Is
that
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
when
we
have
these
tall
buildings
that
we
don't
have
these
monoliths,
which
is
why
we
moved
I
mean
that
was
the
whole
intention
of
the
Gateway
area
plan?
AF
AE
Z
E
Z
Z
All
right
so
topic
number
two
that
we're
going
to
talk
about
is
community
benefits
that
seemed
to
work
right.
We
heard
rationale:
Planning
Commission,
we
generate
questions
from
Council.
We
heard
rationale
a
little
back
and
forth
some
polling.
So
if
that's
okay,
love
to
repeat
focus
on
community
benefits,
this
time
we
budgeted
about
the
same
amount
of
time
as
we
just
spent
right
on
Building,
height,
massing
and
density.
Just
to
give
you
like
a
time
check
internal
sense
around
that
topic.
Number
three
inclusionary
zoning,
only
25
minutes
for
that
one.
Z
AD
AC
G
AD
Discussion
and
and
I'm
not
sure
we're
going
to
have
enough
time
to
have
it
here,
although
that
appears
to
be
the
homework
that
you've
given
us
and
I.
Think
some
of
us
have
gone
around
and
done
those
exercises,
but
at
some
point,
I
think
that
it
would
be
great
for
the
city
council
and
the
Planning
Commission
to
actually
have
the
time
to
have
that
discussion
in
detail.
E
Z
AA
Yeah
I
think
Judith
brings
up
a
good
point,
I
think,
quite
simply,
it's
very
straightforward.
The
higher
the
building,
the
more
Community
benefits,
are
brought
to
Arcata
so
that
there's
a
pretty
simple
correlation.
There
I
think
we
can
dive
into
as
Judith
points
out
sort
of.
Where
do
we
each
put
weighted
emphasis
on
which
Community,
benefits
and
I
think
that's
an
important
discussion.
AA
I'm
sure
the
city
council
will
have
good
ideas
there,
but
there's
a
direct
relationship
between
Building,
height
and
Community
benefits
the
higher
the
buildings
and
the
more
density
we
get
the
more
leverage
we
have
to
bring
Community
benefits
into
the
community.
The
one
other
thing
I
would
add
before
solid
soliciting.
Some
input
from
other
planning
Commissioners
is
that
affordable
housing
is
a
community
benefit,
and
so,
if
a
developer
does
end
up
taking
the
state
density
bonus,
we
will
in
fact
get
one
of
our
core
Community
benefits
by
way
of
getting
affordable
housing.
C
Thank
you,
I'm
really
fond
of
the
community
benefits
program.
I
did
hear
Elizabeth
Connor
say
that
we
might
have
to
embellish
it
a
little
harder
to
make
it
attractive
to
development,
but
I
love
the
concept
and
I.
Think
of
it,
as
if
arcade
is
going
to
have
some
of
these
taller
buildings
that
have
some
challenging
aspects
to
the
community
like
slowly
shading
or
massing.
C
One
last
thing
that
I
want
to
throw
out
on
it
is:
there
is
one
category
of
communion
benefits
and
I'm.
Sorry,
I,
don't
have
the
packet
in
front
of
me.
That's
about
inside
the
building
benefits
like
a
computer
room
for
tenants
and
a
few
things
like
that,
and
free
Wi-Fi
and
I
I
do
want
to
have
a
little
discussion
with
Council
about
their
feelings
about
that
one
it
that
one
to
me
feels
less
like
a
community
benefit.
C
It
feels
more
like
a
benefit
to
the
people
that
live
in,
that
exact
building
and
I
and
I
I.
Don't
quite
get
the
rationale.
Those
things
feel
like
they
would
be
more
about
a
lease
agreement
or
a
purchase
agreement
from
the
occupants
of
the
building,
so
I'll
just
throw
that
out.
Leave
it
there.
Thank
you.
H
B
Z
AF
G
AF
And
one
of
the
things
that
I
had
said
was
that
we've,
you
know
when
I
was
on
the
Planning
Commission.
Well,
everybody
has
spent
a
lot
of
time
creating
these
wonderful
Community
benefits,
and
it
would
be
such
a
shame
that
it
was
all
for
naught
so
I'm
really
hoping
that
some
way
somehow
and
I
don't
know
what
that
would
look
like.
But
that's
why
we're
here
is
to
somehow
beef
it
up
so
that
it
is
more
attractive
to
choose
our
benefit
program
over
the
state.
But
I
have
a
new
word:
I
call
bonicity.
AF
AF
Think
that
what
we
really
when
we
first
envisioned
this,
it
may
have
worked,
but
a
lot
of
has
changed
during
that
time
when
we
first
created
these
Community
benefits
and
so
we're
going
to
have
to
Pivot,
if,
if
there's
any
chance
of
Leverage
for
that,
and
so
I'd
like
to
talk
about
how
we
might
make
it
more
desirable
for
them
to
choose
our
benefits
and
I
do
agree
with
who
said
this
Scott
that
affordable
housing,
indeed,
is
a
benefit.
So
that's
a
win-win
yeah!
That's
what
I!
So
that
wasn't
any
questions
there
were.
Z
Okay,
here's
what
I
checked
I
mean
part
of
it
was
we
were
you're,
responding
to
Dan,
also
saying
like
hey
the
computer
room,
Wi-Fi
Child
Care
on
site?
Is
that
really
a
community
benefit
and
then
can
we
look
again
at
the
point
system
and
how
might
our
benefits
be
more
attractive
than
the
states
am
I?
Did
I
capture
your
ideas
correctly.
E
You
yeah
all
right
and-
and
my
only
really
question
comment-
question
comment
directly.
Yeah
relates
to
what
Dan
said
and
and
to
kind
of
what
Kimberly
said
as
well
and
just
kind
of
to
weave
these
together.
But
I
guess
the
question
is,
but
it
sounds
like
the
commission
wants
to
do
more
work
on
this
anyway.
How
you
know,
do
we
arrive
at
these
Point
values
and
that
you
know
looking
at
some
of
these
Point
values,
it
does
seem
like
an
easy.
E
That
are
the
higher
point,
value
things
that
are
actually
like,
quite
amazing,
especially
in
like
the
open
space
piece
of
it
like
daylighting,
creeks
and
restoring
habitat
and
things
that
we
actually
probably
really
do
want
to
see.
Those
probably
are
not
going
to
happen
because
they
can
just
say
Wi-Fi
great
we're
done.
G
E
Just
looking
at
some
of
those
and
how
we
value
these
points
and
really
putting
the
microscope
on
which
things
are
benefits
for
the
whole
Community,
because
I
think
that's
the
idea
behind
this,
that
if
we
are
going
to
impact
neighborhoods
by
building
large
dense
buildings,
then
what
can
we
put
back
in
our
community?
That's
going
to
benefit
those
people,
not
necessarily
the
people
living
in
the
building.
A
AE
Planning
Commission,
the
only
thing
like
that
whole
category,
seven
with
the
Wi-Fi
and
all
of
those
things
that
are
just
benefits
for
the
people
living
in
there,
maybe
just
the
one
thing
I
did
like,
though,
is
commercial
space,
though
in
buildings
I,
think
that's
really
important
for
economic
development
and
for
a
walkable
neighborhood
to
have
like
a
coffee
shop
or
a
grocery.
You
know
something
like
that.
In
a
retail
space
in
a
building,
I
would
like
to
keep
that
cool.
Z
Thank
you
all
right,
so
we
got
some
questions
and
I
just
linked
these
two
together,
the
let's
look.
Can
we
look
again
at
the
point
system
and
how
are
we
going
to
even
arrive
at
them
and
how
can
we
make
sure
that
we're
really
getting
the
things
we
value
and
that's
going
to
benefit
the
whole
community?
That
was
a
joined
question
right
there.
Z
AC
Z
V
AD
AD
And
so
we
may
actually
want
to
beef
up
the
the
level
of
Community
benefit
points
at
a
lower
level
rather
than
that
higher
level,
because
that
will
then
make
our
program
more
attractive
than
the
state's
density
bonus
program.
But,
of
course,
there's
the
danger
that
then
they
use
the
state
density
bonus
program
anyway,
because
that's
what
they're
used
to
and
yeah,
we
get
nothing
okay,
except
exactly
except
we're
going
to
get
affordable
housing
in
places
where
we
want
to
adult.
And-
and
you
know
we
may
decide
that.
AD
But
if
we
put
our
livable
design
components
in
as
density
bonus
points
rather
than
basic
requirements,
we
may
have
made
a
mistake
there
and
we
may
want
to
look
at
some
of
these
points,
not
in
terms
just
of
the
Gateway
program,
but
as
requirements
Citywide
as
we're
updating
the
general
plan
and
our
city-wide
zoning
code.
That's
not
something
that
I
think
the
planning
Commissioners
have
discussed
in
depth.
But
it's
certainly
something
that
you
know.
AA
I
appreciate
Judith's
comments
and
just
wanted
to
add
a
couple
things.
This
is
in
in
just
circling
back
to
Dan's
comments.
This
is
another
area
where
we
decided.
We
really
just
need
to
get
started
and
see
what
happens
and
how
this
is
implemented,
and
it
will
give
us
a
chance
to
change
the
waiting
adjust.
The
point
value
or
you
know,
turn
that
dial
in
some
way,
given
what
we
see
when
we
start
seeing
buildings
built.
AA
The
other
thing
I
just
wanted
to
give
to
the
city
council
for
consideration
is
that
one
of
the
discussions
we
had
is
the
area
of
benefits
that
feel
at
first
glance
like
they
are
only
given
to
residents
of
a
building,
like
perhaps
bus
passes,
but
really
have
a
wider
Community
benefit
in
a
reduction
of
vehicle,
miles,
traveled
and
CO2
emissions.
So
some
of
those
that
that
are
specific
to
building
residents
also
clearly
have
community-wide
benefits,
so
just
a
little
sharper
clarification
there.
Thank.
V
Z
AG
So
I'll
I'll
just
say
I
would
oppose
the
suggestion
he
made
to
increase
the
community
benefits
required
at
a
lower
height,
and
the
reason
is
that
you
know
these
Community
benefits
to
us.
Are
this
great
benefits
to
our
community,
but
then
to
the
developer?
They're,
just
an
added
cost,
and
you
know
all
this
housing.
AG
AD
Housing
good,
if
I
could
just
respond
to
that.
You
know
that
in
in
a
lot
of
places
where
form-based
codes
have
been
used,
they're
they're,
separated
from
Community
benefits
programs
and
many
of
the
types
of
things
that
we're
considering
benefits
are
basics
in
form,
gate
base
codes
elsewhere,
developers
are
biting.
G
AD
And
so
I
think
it's
important
not
to
be
put
off
by
the
idea
that
a
developer
is
going
to
respond
to
a
flexible
set
of
options
that
we're
presenting,
because
in
many
communities,
especially
those
in
in
effect
redeveloping
industrial
land,
those
things
are
given.
Developers
on
the
west
coast
know
how
to
deal
with
them
and-
and
they
are
really
not
that
put
off
by
them
and
I
would
add,
especially
in
an
area
where
land
is
relatively
cheap,
which
is
what
our
cater
remains.
At
this
point.
Z
AG
E
AA
A
real
brief
last
comment,
which
is
that
there's
there's
a
sentiment
on
the
Planning
Commission
that
if
we
could
articulate
to
developers
in
part
through
the
code,
but
also
through
our
community
benefits
the
things
that
are
most
important
to
us.
The
developers
may
very
well
see
that
as
an
opportunity
to
build
a
building.
That
would
be
my
more
financially
successful.
Knowing
ahead
of
time
that
they're,
including
the
kind
of
amenities
and
impacts
on
our
community,
that
we're
all
hoping
for.
U
AF
Once
okay,
yeah
and
I
guess
I
just
want
to
also
convey
that
we
have
local
developers
that
want
to
build
relationships
with
us,
and
so
we
can't
just
assume
I
mean
they're
going
to
be
invested
in
the
community
and
also
to
the
point
of
what
Judith
said.
Is
that
so
many
of
these
things?
We
just
need
to
be
really
clear,
and
some
of
these
things
are
Givens
like.
Why
are
we
giving
them
points
for
something
that
should
be
anyway?
Like
we've?
We
don't
want
to
lower
the
bar.
AF
We
I
wanted
to
add
one
more
thing:
I'm
sorry
I
also
concur
with
oh
Scott,
said
about
the
bus
passes.
The
overall
Community
benefit
just
like
bike
storage.
It
may
not
benefit
the
whole
community
in
that
way
directly,
but
indirectly,
you
know
we're
we're
benefiting
the
community
because
we're
lowering
our
carbon
footprint
and
all
of
those
other
wonderful
things
that
we
all
get
to
benefit
from
as
a
whole.
So
those
things
I
think
would
be
fine,
lovely.
G
AD
F
AD
E
Sounds
like
kind
of
yeah
that
you
know
some
of
you
are
maybe
even
seeing
this
for
the
first
second
third
time
and
saying
oh
yeah.
When
did
we
talk
about
that?
And
so
you
know,
I
I
think
that
taking
what
we
talked
about
tonight
and
looking
at
these
different
categories
of
what
you
know,
you
hear
us
saying
to
take
that
information
that
we
we've
given
you
now
and-
and
you
know
we
can
always
come
back
and
look
at
this
point
system.
E
If
this
is
you
know
something
that
you
guys
are
interested
in
having
as
an
agenda
item
to
to
update.
You
know
this
this
recommendation
and
maybe
look
at
some
of
these
benefits
and
as
we're
now
putting
it
in
quotes,
category
seven
sounds
very
Sinister
and-
and
so
you
know
I
would
be
amenable
to
the
Planning
Commission.
You
know
taking
at
least
another
session
to
look
at
these
numbers
and
kind
of
bringing
them
back
and
saying.
E
Okay,
we
feel
solid
about
this
and
and
looking
at
some
of
these
two,
maybe
tonight's
not
the
conversation
to
get
into
it,
but
because
I
was
gonna,
ask
kind
of
more
specifically
Judith.
You
know
high
level
overview,
but
like
what
do
you
see
as
some
of
these
things
yeah,
that
we
should
incorporate
into
to
code?
E
AE
F
E
I
will
defer
to
my
community
development
director
on
the
plausible
timeline.
For
that,
but
I
mean
we
got
one
more
study
session
in
October.
We're
definitely
gonna
have
to
have
a
meeting,
probably
just
three
of
us
at
least
one,
if
not
more
but
again,
I
think
hammering
down
the
policy
and
then
being
able
to
do
the
eir
in
in
Concourse
with
that,
but
I'll
defer
to
David.
B
Is
a
council
driven
process?
There
are
some,
you
know
timelines
that
we
can
discuss
in
more
detail
at
a
later
time
about
you
know,
grant
funding
and
that
sort
of
thing,
but
right
now
the
schedule
has
us
running
through
early
next
year.
March
or
April
is
what
I
presented
in
our
the
last
time.
We
talked
about
a
timeline,
update
and
I.
Still
think
that
we
are,
you
know,
relatively
on
track
to
meet
meet
that
timeline.
Assuming
that's
the
desire
of
the
council.
AF
AF
Just
David
created
this
wonderful
program
when
I
first
got
into
the
Planning
Commission
I
was
so
excited
and
then
all
you
know
everything
changed
up
to
no
fault
to
you
know
anybody,
except
for
that
the
state
law
has
changed
and
so
I
think
that
we
can
do
better
and
hopefully
they
will
choose
ours
and,
as
someone
else
pointed
out,
the
the
goal
is
affordable
housing.
So
if
they
choose
the
state
density
bonus
law
and
we
create
more
affordable
housing,
then
that's
a
win
also.
AE
Z
Z
Sweet
so
I
want
to
check
I
was
I
was
noting
some
specific
next
steps
related
to
the
community
benefits,
which
is
hey.
It's
really
great.
If
the
Planning
Commission
could
look
again
at
the
point
system
and
look
at
what
you
should,
you
think
should
be
part
of
code
versus
Community
benefit
and
sorry
I
meant
to
note
the
category
seven
stuff.
Z
Z
Did
I
track
that
correctly
that
those
were
the
three
primary
things?
Okay,
so,
given
that
that
piece
of
work
it
sounds
like
people
are
amenable
to
making
that
happen,
it
seems
to
me
that
it
would
still
be
great
to
just
do
a
quick
poll
to
see
like
knowing
that
there's
more
work
to
be
done
generally.
How
is
this
Landing
with
you?
Z
Z
Okay,
sweet
all
right,
so
knowing
you're
going
to
revisit
these
items
after
the
Planning
Commission
works
on
them.
Again,
where
are
you
on
the
gradients
of
agreement
around
Community
benefits?
One
I
agree
completely
with
no
concerns.
Two
I'm
supportive
with
minor
concerns
three
I'm
neutral
or
have
no
opinion.
Four
I
got
some
strong
objections,
but
I'll
Stand
aside,
five
I
cannot
support
this.
E
You
know
hazy
and
there's
a
couple
categories:
I
put
little
arrows
things
that
I
think
maybe
could
could
be
worth
more
points
Etc.
But
you
know
overall
the
plan
the
way
that
it's
built
the
tears
I'm
happy
with
it
and
I
think
that,
overall,
the
generalization
of
where
the
points
land
does
prioritize
the
things
that
are
important
like
open
space,
affordable
housing,
Transportation
kind
of
climate
action,
things
and
so
I.
Think
that
looks
great.
In
my
opinion,.
Z
AG
Y
I
E
Z
Right
so,
the
third
item
that
we
wanted
to
cover
tonight
was
around
inclusionary
zoning,
so
reset
shift
gears
and
here's
just
an
opportunity
for
any
Planning
Commission
members
who
want
to
share
rationale,
share
thinking
that
could
be
helpful
to
the
council
members
to
understand
how
you
arrived
at
this
recommendation.
Yeah.
AG
Yeah,
so
new
housing
is
expensive,
just
sort
of
by
the
very
nature
of
it.
Being
new
I
I've
been
saying
to
people
it's
like
a
new
car
right.
If
you
buy
the
the
2024
model
that
just
came
out,
it's
going
to
be
more
expensive
than
the
20
year
old.
One
that's
been
driving
around
for
a
longer
time
in
order
to
make
sure
that
some
of
the
housing
that
is
built
is
Affordable
to
people.
One
thing
you
can
do
is
have
an
inclusionary
zoning
requirement.
AG
AG
But
you
get
a
mix
of
incomes
living
in
that
building,
which
is
a
positive
that
we
all
want,
and
so
that
desire
bumps
into
a
state
law
that
get
allows
developers
to
add
density
in
exchange
for
the
same
thing
having
these
restricted,
affordable
units
for
exactly
the
same
reason
right,
you're,
building
this
new
housing.
We
don't
want
it
to
be
only
wealthy
people
living
there
or
you
know,
people
who
can
make
market
rate
rents
which
are
not
exclusively
like
billionaires,
who
want
to
live
in
a
you
know,
single
unit
apartment.
AG
But
you
know
it's
the
same
thing,
and
so,
if
you
set
our
included
zoning
too
high,
you
run
into
that
state
law.
And
so
we
had
a
long
I
think
a
couple
of
meetings
talking
about
this
and
we
ended
up
at
the
number
and
the
trigger
of
number
of
units
that
we
did,
because
we
were
trying
to
weigh
those
two
things,
and
this
is
a
difficult
conversation
and
I
I
want
to
be
very
clear
about
that.
AG
But
like
this
was
a
hard
one
for
me
personally,
where
of
course,
I
want
as
many
units
as
possible
to
be
affordable.
But
we
also
want
the
community
benefits
and
we
also
want
the
buildings
to
actually
get
built
right
because
we
can
set
our
inclusionary
zoning
net
30
percent.
But
thirty
percent
of
zero
is
zero,
and
so
that's
how
we
got
to
our
recommendation.
Unless
anyone
disagrees
with
me
and
happy
to
talk
about
more.
AD
AD
AD
We
may
need
to
rely
on
those
other
tools.
More
and
and
I
and
I
know
that
we
can
throw
around
a
20
inclusionary
zoning
requirement
like
they
have
in
some
California
communities,
including
several
college
towns
roughly
equivalent
to
ours,
which
you
know
in
some
cases,
they've
been
very
effective.
In
other
cases
they
haven't
and
and
what
I
would
suggest
is
whatever
inclusionary
zoning
requirements
we
build
into
our
code.
AD
We
join
them
together
with
other
types
of
requirements,
including
this,
this
horrible
kind
of
right-wing
term
that
I've
gotten
queasy
using,
but
the
idea
of
sort
of
more
naturally
affordable
housing
types,
which
is,
if
you
need
apartments
for
people
who
are
single
and
don't
necessarily
need
a
whole
lot
of
equipment,
build
single
room,
occupancy
Apartments.
Those
are
what
privately
owned.
AD
Dorms
are
okay
and
we
we
seem
to
find
a
need
for
them
if
we
need
housing
for
families
with
three
kids
and
we
want
it
to
be
affordable,
build
that
kind
of
kind
of
housing,
but
require
that
large
developers
provide
a
mix
of
housing
types
so
that
we
can
have
neighborhoods
and
development
with
people
who've
mixed
income
levels
rather
than
you
know.
You
know
this.
This
is
going
to
be
a
huge
development
of
one-room
Studios
and
that's
going
to
be
a
development
of
three-bedroom,
townhouses
and
they're
all
going
to
be
spatially
separated.
AD
G
AD
And
I
I
I
get
a
little
queasy
when
I
when
I.
Think
of
as
quibbling
about
you
know
three
and
four
four
percent
or
three
percent
versus
20.
When
inclusionary
zoning
itself
may
not
even
be
the
most
effective
tool,
we
can
offer
so
I
mean
I,
I,
hope,
I'm,
not
undercutting
this
discussion.
You
looked
at
me
so
I
you.
Z
I
do
wanted
to
see
if
other
Commissioners
have
rationale
you
wanted
to
share
about.
What's
in
the
recommendation,
but
I'm
also
sensing,
what
you
were
just
offering
Judith
is
like
there's
a
recommendation
about
inclusion,
Arizona
and
there's
other
tools
outside
of
that
recommendation.
That
could
be
employed
in
order
to
meet
the
interests
of
our
community,
which
is.
AA
Excuse
me:
it's
a
complicated
issue.
We
did.
We
did
Wrangle
with
it
quite
a
bit,
but
just
to
reiterate
that
we
set
the
inclusionary
zoning
recommendation
where
we
did,
because
we
thought
we
set
it
just
below
the
point
at
which
the
state
density
bonus
we
kick
in
and
just
under
the
presumption
that,
if
we
set
it
higher
than
that
developers
would
end
up
just
using
the
state
density
bonus
and
it
would
sort
of
negate
any
value
in
the
inclusionary
zoning
program.
So
that
was
sort
of
numerically.
Why
we
landed
there.
C
Cool
I
just
want
to
appreciate
what
the
Commissioners
have
said
so
far,
and
particularly
how
Matt
put
that
you
know
like
30
percent
of
nothing,
is
nothing
that
really
we're
just
trying
to
find
that
sweet
spot
where
projects
are
attractive
and
get
built
so
that
we
can
move
forward
on
this
whole
process.
You
know:
there's
no
inclusionary
housing
if
no
projects
get
built
zero
or
any
other
housing,
so
we're
I
feel
like
we
spent
a
lot
of
time
just
trying
to
find.
C
AE
E
How
was
that
something
that
you
guys
considered
at
all?
And
how
did
you
come
to
your
you
know,
decision
around
the
that
moderate
income
level
cool
and
then
yeah?
No,
that's
it
are
you
sure
another
question?
Well,
it's
not
really
a
question,
it's
just
kind
of
a
response
to
what
Judith
said
and
then
also
I,
guess
a
question
that
could
come
from
it,
but
I
mean
just
looking
at
it.
E
It
goes
all
the
other
things
because
the
mix
of
development
types
and
how
that
is,
you
know
in
the
community
benefits
but
then
is
that
something
within
the
community
benefits
that
should
be.
You
know,
included
within
our
code
or
you
know
what
are
some
of
these
other
tools
that
you
kind
of
alluded
at
that
we
could
use
to.
You
know
really
incentivize
this
type
of
living
that
yeah
isn't
all
like.
Like
we
see
here,
we
get
a
lot
of
it.
Just
like
the
Kramer
project
off
Foster.
E
Z
Did
I'm
gonna
double
check
that
I
got
both
of
your
questions
right,
though
so
yeah
in
other
cities,
there's
occlusionaries
20
inclusionary
zoning.
That
also
includes
people
with
moderate
incomes,
the
whom
are
renters,
and
so
was
this
something
you
considered
for
you
know
people
with
moderate
income
and
then
did
I
get
that
one
right
and
then
the
second
one
was
what
are
some
of
the
other
tools
we
could
be
using
to
ensure
I'm
sure
this
is
not
the
technical
term
like
mixed
types
of
housing.
AE
G
Z
AF
So
to
piggyback
on
that
so
I
guess.
The
question
is
like
you
know,
the
state
density
bonus
could
change
and
it
would
be
great
to
have
this
program
in
our
zoning
code.
In
that
event
and
not
have
to
scramble
to
rewrite
and
then
just
to
mention
that
you
know
not
all
developers
are
going
to
be
building
these
super
large
projects
and
and
I
do
hear.
AF
And
it's
just
it's:
it's
an
incredible
neighborhood
and
what's
really
nice
about
these,
and
and
so
it
is
part
of
an
inclusionary,
these
kinds
of
tools
or
resources
are
part
of
the
inclusionary
zoning
and
they
stay
affordable,
home
ownership
opportunities.
So,
like
you
know
they
became
you
know,
they've
got
a
raise.
They
moved
up
the
ladder
they
graduated
from
Cal,
Poly
and
now
they're
in
a
great
job.
So
they
can
pass
this
on
to
the
next
person
to
have
an
opportunity
to
have
a
home
ownership
opportunity
at
affordable
rate
and
it's
not
market
rate.
AF
AF
One
Land
Trust
thank
you
and,
and
also
to
say,
I,
that
natural,
affordable
housing
could
also
work
for,
like
the
older
adult
community,
Adult
Community,
who,
for
whatever
reason
they
are
no
longer
needing
a
three-bedroom
home,
and
they
don't
want
the
upkeep
of
a
three-bedroom
home
or
the
Landscaping,
but
there's
nowhere
to
move
and
they're,
not
ready
to
move
into
a
retirement
home.
I've
talked
to
so
many
of
the
older
adult
community.
AF
That
would
absolutely
move
into
a
you
know
some
kind
of
condominium
or
one
bedroom
that
had
all
of
those
wonderful
amenities
which
we
are
building
the
Gateway
area
plan
for
it's
walkable,
because
they
don't
necessarily
A
lot
of
them,
aren't
driving
you
know
or
not
at
night.
So
they
would
be
happy
to
get
rid
of
the
car
and
have
a
walkable
place
that
they
could
work
shop
or
not
work,
but
but
shop
live
or
maybe
work
volunteer.
Whatever
that
might
look
like
people
are
working
into
a
later
age
these
days
but
yeah.
AF
So
it
would
work
not
just
for
students
or
single
adults,
older
adult
community
and
also
speaking
of
what
Santa
Cruz
does
is
20
and-
and
they
do
include,
like
you
said,
the
moderate
income
and
it's
it's
renters,
I
I
think
that
we
do
need
to
go
higher
than
the
you
know.
It's
five
percent
and
the
nine
percent
I
guess
with
or
to
include
the
moderate
income.
It's
up
to
nine
I
I.
AF
Don't
think
that
that's
enough,
if
we
want
to
guarantee
that
the
low
income
or
extremely
low
income
have
an
opportunity
and
even
the
middle
income,
those
that
fall
between
the
Gap
have
an
opportunity
to
live
there.
If
we
don't
build
it
in
there,
it
might
not
happen
and
that's
my
concern
is
that
this
might
become
not
affordable.
AF
There
are
arguments
out
there
that
say
just
because
you
build
more
housing,
doesn't
mean
it's
going
to
be
affordable
housing,
but
we
could
guarantee
it
by
doing
inclusionary
zoning
high
enough
to
ensure
that
it
is
affordable
housing
for
those
who
who
need
that.
You
know
extra
and
I
guess
I
getting
tired,
so
I'm
kind
of
babbling,
so
I'll
stop
now.
AF
Also,
just
to
remember
that
you
know
it's
not
necessarily
that
the
developer
is
going
to
foot
the
bill.
This
is
sometimes
quite
often
shared
by
the
jurisdiction,
so
we
could
be
looking
for
Grants
and
other
Land
Trust
opportunities
or
get
really
creative
and
and
come
up
with
something
new.
So
it's
not.
We
don't
expect
them
to
finance
all
of
it
and
I
think
that
that
was
pointed
out
to
me
by
a
Community
member
that
that
was
one
of
the
miscalculations
so
and
then
also
one
more
thing:
yeah
the
30.
Z
AF
AE
Z
Okay,
that's
okay!
So
should
we
plan
for
the
state
density
bonuses
are
going
to
change?
Did
we
consider
other
tools
like
Land,
Trust,
I,
think
I
got
that
one,
and
then
you
talked
about
older,
adult
community
members,
and
so
did
the
you
know.
Do
those
planning
Commissioners?
It
was
more
of
a
statement,
but
maybe
the
planning,
commissioner,
is
also
considered
older
adults
and
have
some
thoughts
they
want
to
share
about
that.
This.
Y
V
Y
P
Z
G
AF
Z
AA
AA
B
Exactly
so,
very
low
income
is
50
or
less
early
median
income,
and
it
scales
by
household
size
and
low
income
is
80
area
median
income
again
scale
by
household
size.
Moderate
income
is
120
percent
area.
Median
income
I
do
want
to.
You
know
reflect
on
the
relationship
between
this
conversation,
the
one
you
just
had
on
community
benefits
just
briefly
and
I'll
elaborate
on
that.
If
you
want
to
but
I
think
you
know
where
I'm
going.
U
F
AD
AD
I
I
feel
strongly
that
these
policy
initiatives
should
be
Citywide
and
should
not
be
restricted
to
the
Gateway.
We're
having
this
Gateway
discussion
first,
so
they're
coming
up
here.
First
but
I
I
feel
that
this
should
actually
be
a
city-wide
policy,
and
not
just
one
in
the
Gateway
there's
still
plenty
of
room
in
the
community
benefits
program
to
provide
higher
points
than
we've
seen
so
far.
G
H
AE
B
Can
I
just
throw
in
an
observation
too
that
I
think
mayor
Schaefer's,
observation
and
I
heard
it
echoed
by
a
couple
of
the
other
council
members
of
you
know,
adding
in
a
component
of
inclusionary
zoning
that
takes
into
account
middle
income.
Folks,
the
the
moderate
income
you
know
is
a
is
a
potential
area
where
there's
sort
of
clear
sky,
between
density,
bonus
and
and
and
the
inclusionary
zoning
requirements.
You
know
I
need
to
do
a
little
bit
more
research
on.
B
You
know
how
to
structure
that
before
making
a
recommendation,
I
think
that's
something
the
Planning
Commission
can
take
up.
You
know
outside
of
this
venue
to
come
back
with
another
recommendation,
but
if
you,
if
you
bump
the
low
and
very
low
income
categories
up
or
the
moderate
income
household
category
home
ownership
category,
so
that
it
intersects
with
State
density
bonus,
then
it
negates
the
the
community
benefits
program.
We
talked
about
this
last
time
and
I
just
want
to
re-emphasize
that
that
absolutely
will
happen.
B
There's
still
some
long-term
benefit
having
an
inclusionary
zoning
program.
You
know
because
the
state
density
bonus
only
requires
affordability
for
a
period
of
55
years
and
so
inclusionary
zoning
is
effectively
in
perpetuity,
but
that's
a
long
term.
Investment
I
think
we're
looking
at
more
short-term
impacts.
The
other
thing
that
I
wanted
to
point
out
and
I
did
bring
this
up
in
in
you
know,
sort
of
the
second
second
or
third
time
that
we
talked
about
at
the
the
Planning
Commission
level
and
I.
B
Don't
have
the
chart,
unfortunately
available
right
now
it's
on
the
the
network.
We
don't
have
that
up
and
running
right
now,
but
there
are
there's
a
you
know:
there's
a
I
I
think
a
psychological
impact
of
saying,
hey,
let's
set
our
inclusionary
zoning
higher,
but
the
the
difference
between
the
inclusionary
zoning
at
the
the
lower
levels
and
at
the
you
know,
the
the
state
density
bonus
levels.
Don't
even
have
an
impact
on
projects.
Up
to
and
above
you
know,
80
percent
or
I'm
sorry
80
units,
and
we
can.
B
We
can
take
a
look
at
that
with
the
Planning
Commission.
So
it's
just
there's.
You
know
we
need
to
look
at
how
we
structure
those
if
making
changes
and
reflecting
on
how
it's
going
to
impact
the
rest
of
the
you
know
the
Gateway
area
plan.
What
we're
trying
to
to
do
increasing
the
value
of
community
benefits
and
increasing
Community
benefit
are
increasing.
Inclusionary
zoning
simultaneously
negate
one
another.
Z
B
I
think
we've
taken
a
look
at
if
you
want
to
increase
inclusion,
inclusionary
zoning
to
do
that
at
the
moderate
income
level.
That
really
is
a
need
in
our
community
for
Workforce
housing
and
it
also
it's
kind
of
win-win,
because
the
the
rental
rates
for
moderate
income
are
going
to
be
higher
than
they
are
for
low
or
very
low
income
housing,
and
so
it
makes
the
projects
financially
more
feasible.
If
a
proportion
of
that
inclusionary
zoning
is
set
at
moderate
income-
and
it
also,
you
know-
doesn't
run
afoul
of
sort
of
the.
G
B
The
the
rental
rates
on
return
on
those
are
just
have
exceedingly
long
Horizons
for
return
on
the
investment,
so
you're
you're,
basically
tamping
down
the
ability
for
developers
to
be
able
to
build
in
your
community
by
setting
it
too
high.
But
there
may
be
some
clear
space,
some
some
blue
sky.
If
we
can
set
those
as
modern
income,
that's.
AE
B
Yeah,
exactly
in
particular,
because
the
the
moderate
income
category
is
only
for
ownership
in
density,
bonus
law,
and
so,
if
you
had
a,
if
you
had
it
structured
so
that
your
low
and
very
low
income
categories
were
less
than
what's
triggering
density
bonus
and
then
the
balance
of
that
was
made
up
with
moderate
income,
housing
you're
still
ensuring
that
there's.
You
know
this
range
of
affordability,
which
we
all
want
and
you're
not
running.
Z
B
Yeah,
just
real
quick
I
mean
the
city
of
Arcata
has
always
been
very
successful
at
producing,
affordable
housing.
We
work
with
a
number
of
developers
on
a
routine
basis
and
we
also
have
a
number
of
property
owners
who
we've
worked
with
on
occasion,
and
so
you
know
our
our
grants
program
is
very
robust.
We're
successful
at
getting
grants.
We've
developed
over
700
units
of
affordable
housing
in
partnership
with
with
various
Partners
over
the
last.
You
know,
30
40
years,
so
I
think
those
resources
are
out
there.
G
Z
AD
Guess
I
I'm
kind
of
thinking
that
we
could
actually
include
as
a
policy
and
translate
it
into
code
that
larger
projects
need
to
have
a
mixture
of
housing,
types
and
affordability
in
a
smaller
project.
You
know
you
need
to
that's
where
an
inclusionary
zoning
kick
might
provide
a
couple
of
units,
but
in
a
larger
project.
I
think
that
we
can
actually
kind
of
make
that
our
bottom
line
and
then,
of
course,
for
a
really
large
project.
That's
going
to
be
building,
you
know
the
equivalent
of
you
know
private
dorms
or
single
room,
occupancies
or
Studios.
AD
AF
V
Z
Z
You
have
a
current
recommendation
around
inclusionary
zoning
that
has
come
from
the
Planning
Commission
and
we
just
wanted
to
do
quick
polling
around
a
quick
polling
around
where
this,
where
you're
currently
sitting
on
this
particular
proposal.
So
again,
one
completely
agree.
No
concerns
two
I'm
supportive
with
minor
concerns.
Three
neutral
or
I
got
no
opinion.
Four
I
have
strong
objections,
but
I
would
stand
aside
and
five
is
uh-uh.
I
cannot
support
this
so
again,
love
to
know
again,
not
a
final
decision.
Just
information
gathering.
Where
are
you
and
rationale?
F
AF
V
E
Hear
yeah
and
I'll
just
add,
and
just
thank
you
David
for
wanting
to
take
up
my
mantle
on
looking
at
you
know
expanding
that
category
to
to
renters,
because
I
feel
like
at
least
because
I
I
am
that
that's
who
I
hear
from
a
lot
too,
these
medium
median
income
renters
who
are
having
a
hard
time
finding
housing
and
you
know
being
included
in
that
housing
market.
They
don't
quite
qualify
for
other.
E
You
know
housing
assistants,
yet
don't
really
make
enough
to
sustain
a
living
here
in
Humboldt
County,
especially
within
Arcata
and
so
I.
Think
taking
just
another
look
at
that
group.
But
besides
that
one
little
piece
I
totally
understand
where
you
guys
have
fallen
on
this
and
how
it
interacts
with
the
density
bonus
line.
Why
we
kind
of
need
to
sit
at
this
level
that
you
guys
have
put
it
at.
So
thank
you
guys
for
that
recommendation.
AE
F
AF
Cool
Mike,
my
concern
is
well
first,
if
we're
going
to
do
inclusionary
zoning,
it
should
be
at
a
meaningful
level
and
I
really
feel
like.
We
have
been
remiss
and
not
exploring
some
of
these
tools.
I
totally
forgot
about
Cooperative
housing
tonight,
so
I'm
really
glad
that
that
was
brought
up
and,
of
course,
land
trusts.
And
of
course
we
have
an
incredible
people
who
write
grants
in
our
city.
They're.
AF
The
other
thing
that's
really
concerning
me
is-
and
this
has
been
the
argument
like
there
are
people
out
there-
that
don't
have
homes
at
all.
Well,
if
we
don't
I'm
concerned
that
this
will
continue
to
be,
and
of
course
you
know
it's,
it's
not
just
our
kid.
It's
Nationwide,
but
we're
a
smaller
community,
so
we
can
I
think
make
a
difference,
and
you
know
living
out
in
Valley,
West
I
see
it
every
day
and
of
course,
I
know
that
you
know
it's
downtown.
It's
everywhere.
AF
It's
changed,
it's
a
game
changer
for
them
to
have
housing
first,
the
rest
is
following:
lives
are
being
changed
and
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
don't
leave
those
people
out
of
our
Gateway
area
plan
I,
don't
see
anything
for
Supportive
Housing
there
at
all
and
I
just
want
to
make
sure
in
our
inclusionary
zoning.
You
know
with
these
grouts
that
maybe
we
can
catch
the
rest
of
these
folks
that
you
know
are
not
even
extremely
low
income
like
no
income
right.
Where
do
they
go.