Ben Noble’s Form-Based Code presentation is good — but far from perfect.

For anyone who wants to understand more about what a Form-Based Code is and how it would work in Arcata, I strongly recommend reading the transcription on this website, link here.  This presentation really MUST be read by everyone who is involved in the Gateway plan process.

But the presentation could have been soooo much better.  Here’s what was missing.

1. No tall buildings are shown.
   Arcata’s draft Gateway plan calls for buildings up to 8-stories tall. Other than a illustrative diagram for a Form-Based Code example in the metropolitan city of South Bend, Indiana, the buildings shown are 2- and 3-stories, with a sprinkling of 4-stories.  We want to see how a 4-story or 6-story — or 8-story! — building fits into an existing neighborhood. Could you show us some examples of mixed-height, mixed-massing neighborhoods?

2. From my perspective, the Form-Based Code example of Meriam Park in Chico is terrible! (Around 31:49 in the presentation.)  Meriam Park is so awful it needed a whole article to itself, view it here. Reader, take a look at it.  It seems to be a case where the Form-Based Code helps the developer get what he wants  — and then call it something hip. Form-Based Code will help to enable the vision, but if the vision isn’t beneficial for the community, bad planning will result. I hope nothing remotely similar to Meriam Park will ever get close to Arcata.
3. It seems some of his examples are counter to the New Urbanist concepts that he is presenting.  Such as the Meriam Park example.  The streets are purported to be walkable, but they look pretty uninviting.
4. He talks about “creating public spaces” — but how is that done?  Do the Amenities programs in other cities’ Zoning Codes actually work?  Will developers in Arcata actually give up precious land, when they can already build as many units within the building’s envelope as they want?
5. Ben says: “And I think a priority of the city as well to facilitate additional housing production, particularly an increased diversity of housing types of more affordable and attainable to all income levels.”  Sure, that’s a wonderful dream.  But how? How?  What about this plan makes that happen?

6. The number of units in the entire building is not specified.  The size of the building will be determined by the Form-Based Code, within the constraints of that neighborhood.  So the density will be based on the how many units the developer wants to build within the space of the building.  If the developer wants more units, then the developer can have smaller units in the building.

   Ben Noble says:

   “And that building envelope can be divided into however many units an applicant, property owner or developer chooses.  So that incentivizes smaller units that are therefore more affordable.”

   Opinion:  This is spoken by someone who is dealing with numbers and not people.  The developer could choose to make 100 studio apartments of under 400 square feet… rather than a blend of studio, 1-bedroom, 2-bedroom, 3-bedroom apartments.  An apartment building consisting only of studio units may not be what is good for Arcata! (See how this is happening in Santa Cruz, link here.)  We might need more 2-bedroom and 3-bedroom units — you know, for families.  Remember them?

   This is a terrifically elitist statement. To say that smaller units are more affordable is missing the whole point of housing. The purpose of housing is to provide a home for people. Building smaller units — to house fewer people — does not help the people who aren’t living in that studio unit.

   Why not count the bedrooms instead of counting the units?  Apartments with 2-bedroom and 3-bedroom units might be far better suited for Arcata than a whole building of studios.

7. The December 2021 draft Gateway plan has four districts, or neighborhoods.  In reality, the 138-acre 64-block Gateway area needs more districts.  And I feel certain that as the Form-Based Code develops, we will see more neighborhood districts included in the plan.  Any development in the Creamery District needs to be distinct from other nearby areas, and so far there’s not much recognition for the Creamery District as requiring its own design and human-oriented guidelines.
8. Public Open Space.  Ben Noble said:  “The Gateway plan also includes an open space concept plan within the plan. We’ll translate that into public open space requirements, with standards for these open spaces that are established within the code.”
   See the articles on this website on the need for parks:  Gateway Needs Parks! and Quimby Act Dreams — How do we get parks in Gateway?
   
   There are five types of parks, and distinctions must be made between them.  There are natural open spaces; trails and paths; parks as places to sit, meet, and congregate; parks for teen & adult recreational activities; and playgrounds for children.
   The Gateway plan purports to recognize their importance and does a good job with the open spaces and trails and paths.  But for parks as places for people to meet and sit, for recreational activities, and especially for playgrounds, the plan does very little.
   Tell us, Ben:  What in the Form-Based Code will help this?

9. Ministerial Review Option 3: Planning Commission Public Meeting
   

   Could Ben Noble or David Loya please explain why Option 3 has never been mentioned in all the months that we’ve been talking about Ministerial Review?

   “The third option for the Ministerial process is similar to Option Two, but with the Planning Commission being the decision-maker on whether or not the project conforms to the objective standards.”

   Could Ben Noble or David Loya please explain why Option 3 has never been mentioned in all the months that we’ve been talking about Ministerial Review?

10. Ben says:  “We’re concerned that continuing with the existing Design Review process for the Gateway area will generate frustration for neighbors who will be asking the City to exercise discretion that it actually does not have.” 

    First off, we are not intending on continuing with the current Design Review process. I propose that any notion you may have heard on that is false. 

    Second, how about this:  You give us a good (or excellent) Form-Based Code. You explain where the discretion is and where it is not, and we will take care of any potential local frustration.  In the readings I’ve done on Form-Based Code, while the code is supposed to be so clear that two people would form the same conclusion, quite often it is not.  And that’s where having public input and Planning Commission review comes in.  Because more people looking at a project should result in a superior project.

11. In the Form-Based Code examples there is a drawing from the Grass Valley Development Code (about 36:43 into the presentation) it shows an elevation (side drawing) for a three- or four-story building. Their Form-Based Code calls for a building maximum height of 3 stories, or 45 feet. In small print under the drawing it says: “Buildings taller than three stories will be allowed only with approved use permit.”  In other words, over 3 stories requires a review process, with public input and, likely, Planning Commission approval.

    

That seems to an option other than the three mentioned by Ben Noble.
We are aware that Redwood City has a blend of Discretionary Review an Ministerial Review with their Form-Based Code.  How Redwood City handles their review process is shown here.

How does that work?  Are there other possible ways of going about the review process?