To: Planning Commissioners, Community Development Director David Loya, Senior Planner Delo Freitas
From: Fred Weis
Subject: Comments on the permit and approval process – Saturday, April 22 meeting

Highlights are used so that you can skim.

Synopsis:

The staff report (Page 10) shows this:

Zoning Certificate Properties for Properties under 10,000 sq.ft. and building height <40’
Zoning Administrator Hearing for Properties < 20,000 sq.ft. and building height < 50’
Planning Commission Hearing for Properties >20,000 or Buildings >50’

[Note: In the year since that April 2023 meeting, these figures have been modified. Previously the ministerial review was based on property size. Now it is based on projet size, which is what the letter requested and which is far more logical. The table in the current draft is contradictory, so that needs to be fixed. The current draft of the Gateway Code shows:

Zoning Certificate for projects under 30,000 sq.ft. and/or building height <37’
Zoning Administrator Hearing for projects 30,000 to 40,000 sq.ft. and/or building height < 47’
Planning Commission Hearing for projects >40,000 sq.ft. and/or Buildings >40’

I propose:

1. That the criteria is based on square feet of the project, not the property size. For one thing, a project might be on just a part of the property. For example, a building was planned at one time in the parking lot of Northcoast Children’s Services and Holly Yashi. Those Properties are both larger than 20,000 sq.ft., but the building could be 9,000 sq.ft. — so to go by Parcel size would not be appropriate.

There are 55 parcels greater than 20,000 sq.ft. in the Gateway Area. Of these are roughly 20 that are likely to be built on. There are 129 parcels that are smaller.

2. That the criteria be much lower for Planning Commission review. Such as: PC review required for anything over 4,000 sq.ft. building area.
Or: PC review required for everything (except for the simplest of projects, to be defined).

How would this work? The Julian Berg Valley East project took 31 minutes to be approved. If a project is well-designed and adheres to the Form-Based Code, then approval by the Planning Commission would be, in the words of the Redwood City Principal Planner, “smooth sailing.” 
A local architect has told me that having to prepare a project for review by an agency (i.e. Planning Commission) results in a better project — more thoroughly gone over by the architect, and better overall.

   
Specific Points:

1. What our Form-Based Code consultant Ben Noble had to say on the issues of permit requirements and ministerial review

Ben Noble’s June 29, 2022 presentation is on Arcata1.com — there is an audio track and a full transcription that you can read. To listen to that section is 14 minutes. Reading it is faster.  The link to the article is: arcata1.com/ben-noble-fbc-june-29
There is a full table of contents of each component of his talk — you can skip right to the ministerial review section.  The full presentation is 60 minutes. The article includes all the slides and visuals of his presentation — about 60 slides, including sections of Form-Based Codes from other cities. 

2. Sequence of the Commissioners’ decisions

The staff report says:
A: “The Commission should first confirm its agreement with the following: projects in compliance with the design standards and [that] provide community benefits should receive ministerial review.”
B: “If the Commission confirms, it should then provide direction about the permitting structure that should be in the Plan.”

Analysis: I believe the definition (“direction”) of the permitting process should be discussed first. It is against logic and decorum to vote on something prior to knowing what it is that you are voting for. I believe that it is a certainty that the Commission will vote that Gateway projects will receive ministerial review — the question is what that ministerial review will be.

Suggestion: First talk about what the forms of ministerial review are, and come to an agreement on where each type of ministerial review is used. Then have the vote that says whether those forms of ministerial review will be used.

3. The reality of “objective standards” not being perfectly defined.

Recognize that regardless of how strong the attempt is made at creating “objective standards” is, and regardless of the State laws (and local desires) are to reduce the discretionary component from decisions, even the best “objective standards” will involve some degree of interpretation. The example in the staff report of ” 2×4 construction with  16” spacing” is a simplistic example of an objective  standard — it is very easy to agree on and very easy to achieve. It is more likely that we may see a Form-Based Code that does allow some interpretation. That is just the nature of trying to be objective.

4. We are being asked to reflect on the degree of how “objective” the Form-Based Code standards are — and we do not have the Form-Based Code to check this against.

[Note: When the Commission met on April 29, 2023, the Form-Based Code (Gateway Code) had not yet been released.]

This conversation will have to be revisited after we see the effectiveness of our draft Form-Based Code.

5. We can look at how other communities handle Zoning Administrator vs Planning Commission review — in Form-Based Codes.

In Grass Valley CA, buildings of 3 stories have one review process, and buildings above 3 stories have a different process.
Redwood City has three distinctions: Large projects, small projects, and historic projects. “Large projects” are over 3 stories (the maximum is 12) or over 30,000 sq.ft. total floor area.

For us here in Arcata this might translate to be anything above 2 stories or, say, 7,500 square feet. “Large  projects” in Redwood City require Planning Commission review.

6. What happens in actuality?

The Julian Berg Valley East project (December 2022) took 31 minutes to be approved. If a project is well-designed and adheres to the Form-Based Code, then approval by the Planning  Commission would be, in the words of the Redwood City Principal Planner, “smooth sailing.”                             

There is very little downside to having virtually all projects going through Planning
Commission review.

7. More eyes and brains looking at a project results in a better project.

We can use the unfortunate example of the fence at the data center building on 11th Street as a case of something that “got by” the eyes of the Zoning Administrator. The Dutch Bros. shop in Valley West — and perhaps the entire Tractor Supply building — are similar.

To me, the more eyes and brains that look at a project, the better the project will be. And the less chance of something “getting by” inadvertently.

This includes comments from the public also. The public can understand the nature of a nondiscretionary decision.

.

The letter as it was sent: