Note:  This is fiction, for April Fool’s Day. The events depicted are not real. The names of individuals have not been changed. What is written here is not what anyone actually said or did. Tap/Click for more April Fool’s Day humor.

While this accounting is a bit dry, it does represent some of the pitfalls of attempting to accommodate all of the many facets and curveballs that a developer might bring up. The days are gone when a Planning Commission could reject a project based just on “We don’t like this.” With “objective standards” in place, if a project meets those standards, it must (by State law) be approved. 

Following the 11th hour adoption of the Gateway Area Plan on New Year’s Eve (see article, here), the Planning Commissioners expected to see some Gateway projects come their way for approval fairly soon.

At their first meeting of 2025, on January 11th, the Planning Commission found themselves looking at what would be the largest apartment ever to be approved by the Commission in the history of Arcata. The Houston, Texas, developer Max Buildout had set his sights on little Arcata. 

As anticipated, the project’s site was on the former AmeriGas site. The sale of the AmeriGas business to Sequoia Gas in the Fall, and the relocation of the PG&E equipment from the the northwest corner parcel all spelled “re-development” to this block-sized site.

What was not anticipated, however, was the size, scope, and ambitions of the project.

The first test of the Gateway Plan

By being in the Gateway Corridor district, the project could be built up to 5 stories. By using the State Density Bonus law, however, this project would be be eligible to be approved with up to 3 “concessions.” That is, there would be three architectural design standards, as part of the Gateway Form-Based Code, that Arcata would have to waive, at the request of the developer.

In this case, the developer, Max Buildout, chose to have the City waive the height restriction, waive the site-location standards, and waive the privately-owned public-access space requirement.

The project, as submitted, was six stories high, has very little building frontage on K Street, and provides no community open space and no community benefits.

In short, this design is exactly what the planners of Arcata did NOT want to see occur in the Gateway area.

To apply the State Density Bonus, the project has to have at least 20% of the number of units be designated as student housing for low-income college students. Low-income status is set by the student’s eligibility to the Cal Grant financial aid program. In other words, the rent cost can be paid for with grant money. The rules say that the students have to be low-income — not that the amount charged for rent must be at a low-income rate.

The nature of this project

This project is on a key parcel in the the Gateway area. The site fronts on K Street, the main thoroughfare, so it’s an excellent spot for ground-floor commercial operations. Its west side is on the L Street corridor, where two-story storefronts, deep-set patio space for the third floor residents, and a gently sloped building frontage with continued deep step-backs would minimize shading on the floor of the park. To the the north are the historic Devlin Cottages. It’s a site ideal for good design, an anchor spot for Gateway and for the Linear Park.

Here’s a wire-frame diagram of the project as submitted:

The Commission has lots of questions

The Commissioners had LOTs of questions. After all, this was their first experience with “Objective Review Standards” and with the new form-based code.

Commissioner DT:
How did you come up with this L-shaped design? It does not look as though it fits the block-sized site at all.

Project applicant Max Buildout:
I used this design for some apartments in Houston, and I figured I’d save some money and use it here. After all, when I save money, I can give those savings back to the community, right? It means that the rents could be less. “Could be less” — Haha. Someone said that one of your meetings.

Commission Chair SD:
Tell us about those upper story step backs. They don’t look like they fit our design standards.

Project applicant Max Buildout:
Well, those upper story step backs start at the 5th story, just like your code specifies. They are eight feet deep, as your code says.

Commission Chair SD (persists):
But they are only on the 7th Street and 6th Street sides. There’s no upper story step back on the K Street side, and also nothing on the L Street side.

Project applicant Max Buildout:
Upper-story step-backs are required for 75% of street frontage. The step backs on the 7th Street and 6th Street sides take care of that 75%. So they aren’t needed on the K Street frontage. That’s the math.

Commission Chair SD (persists further):
But there’s no upper story step back on the L Street — nothing at all !

Project applicant Max Buildout:
Ah, yes. What you are calling “L Street” is not a street. It’s a park. Upper story step backs are only required along street frontage. 

Commissioner AS:
And the setback from the property line along L Street, er, the park back there. What’s the deal? It looks like the building is set right up against the lot boundary there.

Project applicant Max Buildout:
Glad you asked. Yup, same thing. The code says “From property lines abutting a street: 10 feet. From all other property lines: No setback requirement.” That’s not a street. I can build right up to the property line.

Commissioner MS:
This thing looks like a hotel. You can’t have a big parking lot like that, facing K Street. It’s not allowed.

Project applicant Max Buildout:
What you call the parking lot that’s facing K Street — I took care of that with one of the three waivers I got by using the State Density Bonus law. I get to decide where my building sits on my site. I’m saving money, so you should be happy.

Commissioner MS (irritated):
Wait a second here. In the Gateway Corridor district, our Code specifies a maximum of one parking space for every four units. Your building has, what, about 100 units? For our Code, that would be a maximum of 25 parking spaces. The asphalt you’ve got in these plans is 150 feet by 180 feet. That’s 27,000 square feet of parking — enough for 80 cars. This is not what is in our Gateway Code. 

Project applicant Max Buildout:
Just how many parking spaces would you want me to have here for this project?

Commissioner MS (relaxing, if slightly):
Well, zero parking spaces would be what I would want.

Project applicant Max Buildout:
Would you accept three parking spaces? Would three parking spaces be okay?

Commissioner MS (softening considerably):
Just three parking spaces? I would definitely accept that. That would make this project a landmark case for minimum parking in Arcata.

Project applicant Max Buildout:
Let’s take a look the City of Arcata’s Land Use Code. Here we are. (He hands out the requisite 10 copies to Staff, who then distribute this to the Commissioners.)

Commissioner MS:
This is our chart of parking space dimensions.

Project applicant Max Buildout:
True, true. It’s your chart of minimum parking space dimensions. You’ll notice that it does not say anything about maximum parking space dimensions.

Commissioner MS:
Mr. Buildout, I’m not following you. You implied you’d be willing to accept a total of three parking spaces for your project.

Project applicant Max Buildout:
Let’s turn to page 14 of the project plans. Let’s see — here we are.

Commissioner MS:
And what are we looking at here.

Project applicant Max Buildout:
Three parking spaces. Three Texas-size parking spaces.

Commissioner MS (throws up his hands, disgusted):
What you are calling a parking space can hold more than thirty cars — each one of them.

Project applicant Max Buildout:
Well, I wouldn’t know about that.

Commissioner MS (turns the Community Development Director):
Staff, could we get some input on this?

Community Development Director:
I did some research on this. There are accepted standards of what a parking space is, but there is not a legal definition. As the applicant points out, the Arcata Land Use Code has minimum sizes for a parking space but does not show any stated maximum sizes. I’d suggest the Commission take this up at a future meeting.

Commission Chair SD:
And this project as a whole? Are we required to accept and approve this project?

Community Development Director:
With the State density bonus waivers, it does appear to meet the objective standards.

(The Planning Commissioners look at each other and talk inaudibly, with their mics turned off.)

Commission Chair SD:
Could we request a continuance, and continue this at our next meeting?

Community Development Director:
Yes, you are entitled to do that. However the results are likely to be the same.

Commissioner PL:
David, I have another question for the applicant, about the low-income student housing that is part of this project. Mr. Buildout, how many units of student housing will you be providing. You need to have 20%, correct?

Project applicant Max Buildout:
That is correct, 20%. It’s measured by number of dorm beds, not the number of apartment units.

Commissioner PL:
Alright, so how many low-income dorm beds are you providing.

Project applicant Max Buildout:
Let me be clear. The dorm beds aren’t low-income. The students are low-income. This qualifies them for grants. The dorm beds are at market rates. Right now, dorms with two beds in a room go for about $730 a month for each bed. The grant money pays the rent directly.

Commissioner PL:
Okay, okay. How many dorm rooms are in your building? What number of rooms or beds do you have to build to get these waivers for six stories and this god-forsaken parking lot arrangement?

Project applicant Max Buildout:
I’m required to have beds for three students, but I’ll probably make it four. Two dorm rooms.

Commissioner PL:
You said you supply 20%. In this huge building, you only have two dorm rooms — and you are getting the State density bonus for that?

Max Buildout:
The building as designed has six floors. Each floor has 2 units. Each unit has 8 kitchens, 8 living rooms, 8 bathrooms, and 16 bedrooms. So — six floors, two units per floor. That’s a total of 12 units. State law tells me 20% of the number of units is for low-income students. Twenty percent of 12 units is 2.4. We round that up to three. So we need housing for three students. 

Commissioner PL:
This is a 150,000 square foot building that you say has just 12 units? Chair, could we take a break here? I need to digest this.

Commission Chair SD:
Yes. Let’s take a seven-minute break, and then come back on a vote for a continuance of this project until our next meeting. Agreed? Agreed.

At the Planning Commission’s next meeting, the project was approved as submitted. The Commission had to approve it — it met all the objective standards, aside from those items that the waivers took care of.

At that second Planning Commission hearing for this project, a Commissioner JY asked the applicant directly:  “Where do you find an architect who can dream up this stuff?” and “What kind of tenants are you looking to rent to?”

The developer, Max Buildout replied:

“My lawyers choose the architects. The architects create the best solutions, based on what they are told to do. This is a system that has worked well for me for thirty years.

“I keep my buildings clean, and my tenants are happy to rent from me. I will rent to anyone who appreciates that a good building in a good location may not be the cheapest place in town, but will be worth the cost.”

Note:  This is intended as a parody of what might happen when Gateway projects do come to the Planning Commission. But some of it is true. There are loopholes in the current codes. In the meantime… Happy April Fool’s Day.