1.  The chapter number of the Code has changed. Previous version was 9.29 and now is 9.110 — perhaps we can get an explanation for the reason for this change.
2. Long‐Term Bicycle Parking Standards, Location. Page 55. The absolutely silly 750-foot distance is gone. Thank you, Commissioners, for insisting on this. It was a poorly-written policy. Now reads: ” Long-term bicycle parking shall be located on the site of the use that it is intended to serve.”
3. Long-Term bicycle parking security:  The definitions of security have not changed. This needs to be changed. Page 55. As it is, there is no requirement that long-term (over two hours) bike storage be inside, or that it even be behind a locked fence. “In an area that is monitored by a security camera” is sufficient. There is also no definition of what a “weather-protected place” would be. For images of what would be allowed under this current code, see:  What does the Gateway Code say about Tenant and Employee bicycle parking? — https://arcata1.com/gateway-code-tenant-employee-bicycle-parking/
4. The front-facing garage door situation has not been resolved. This was discussed at the April 23, 2024, Planning Commission meeting. This is on Page 43.

   For garages facing a street, it says “Garage opening facing a street shall be 25 feet side or less.”
   That’s an error in the sentence — some word or words are missing. What does “25 feet side or less” mean?

   This does not specify how many garages or the percentage of sizes of garage doors that can be on a parcel. The Planning Commission was specific on this, and this is not in this code. 
   It does not say “a single garage door” — just that the size of a garage door is 25 feet or less.
   This is not what the Planning Commission said.

   There is this on curb cut frequency – Page 53. There could be, according to the code, on a block-long parcel, two front-facing garage doors, each 25 feet wide, with a driveway entrance of 12 feet. Is a driveway “one-way” if a vehicle pulls in and then backs out? I think that would be “one-way traffic.”

   From the Code, page 53:
   3.  Curb Cut Frequency.  On a single lot, A maximum of two curb cuts for one-way traffic and one curb cut for two-way traffic are permitted per street frontage per 250 feet of lineal street frontage.
   4. Curb Cut and Access Drive Dimensions. The maximum width of a new access drive crossing a public sidewalk is 12 feet for a one-way access drive and 20 feet for a two-way access drive.   

   We can note how this curb cut frequency policy is written. “On a single lot, A maximum of two curb cuts for one-way traffic and one curb cut for two-way traffic are permitted per street frontage per 250 feet of lineal street frontage.” So on a parcel that is 100 feet wide — how many curb cuts are allowed?  At two per 250 feet of lineal street frontage — is it zero? Is it one? Do we round up? There are buildable parcels in the Gate area that are 62.5′ wide. How many cuts do they get? One, I would guess. The language of the code is not defined properly. Two cuts per 250 lineal feet could be interpreted as zero cuts on 100 lineal feet. It’s poorly written.

5. The Code still says “Greenways are required in the approximate locations shown in Figure 2-56.” Page 50. This is unchanged from the previous version. Director Loya told us that the locations shown are to indicate intentions of greenway locations, and that some will be used and some will not. The Code says that they are required in the locations shown. This must be clarified. 
   .

6. The Gateway Ministerial Permit Requirements table has been changed.  Table 2-19, Page 5.
   The table previously had it be that projects went to the Planning Commission if they were above 40 feet in height. To put this in perspective, Plaza Point is a tall 3-story building. Sorrel Place is a flat-roofed 4-story building. Both are above 40 feet in height.

   In all other versions of the Gateway Code, this table would have those buildings come before the Planning Commission. The wording was: ” New floor area over 40,000 sq. ft and/or building height over 40 ft.“

   At the April 23, 2024, meeting Chair Davies said that this table was not going to be discussed or altered. “Early on in this process, the issue of the Height of Buildings was really important to the community. And part of the position that we took to address and incorporate these concerns was this table and the sort of staggered review authority, so I would definitely be uneasy to make that change myself.”

   The Director has made a change here that is counter to what the Planning Commission said. 

   I am in favor of changes to this table — I believe there is value to the Planning Commission to have all (or close to all) projects come through the Commision. How else would the Commission learn how the development community views the Gateway Plan and the Gateway Code? As we know, good projects will sail right through.

   If this discussion is going to be opened up then I feel obligated to inform the Planning Commission that parts of what the Director said at the April 23 meeting are not correct. They are his opinions — not facts. For the first six months of 2022, at the start of the Gateway conversation, the Director said things that were similar. The current Chair, Julie Vasissade-Elcock, former Commissioner Judith Mayer, and myself all knew that what he was saying was incorrect, and made attempts to correct his speaking. At the first workshop with the Code consultant Ben Noble on June 29, 2022, he discussed this issue. What Ben Noble told us was not what the Director had been saying.

   You can view the Ben Noble presentation at:  Ben Noble:  Form-Based Code presentation June 29, 2022 – https://arcata1.com/ben-noble-fbc-june-29/  At the time, I considered this to be a “must watch” presentation.
   
   It is a 1-1/2-hour audio plus PowerPoint slides. All the slides from his presentation are in the article. There is a full transcription of his presentation, with a table of contents so you can jump to sections that interest you.
   .

7. Inclusionary Zoning requirements are not what the City Council decided.
   This is what is there currently. Page 31 in the “May 14, 2024” Gateway Code.
   “For projects with 30 dwelling units or more, the project provides a minimum of 4 percent of the units affordable to very low income households or 9 percent of the units affordable to low or moderate income households as defined in Chapter 9.100 (Definitions). Moderate income units shall be for sale units consistent with State Density Bonus Law.”
   This is incorrect on three levels. 
   1) The Commission’s proposal was for 4% very-low or 6% low plus 10% Median. 
   2) The Council specified buildings with 15 dwelling units or more. 
   3) The City’s Inclusionary Zoning requirements have nothing to do with moderate income units being for sale. That is indeed in the State Density Bonus Law, but it’s not applicable to the Gateway inclusionary zoning.
8. The Greenway Location map has been updated, a bit. Page 49. But it is incorrect as shown — in a new way. The wrong location of the greenway on 7th Street that would block the Devlin cottages is marked “End at L St.” and it is promised to have the map updated. This had been there unchanged since the first version, eleven months ago.
   
   What has been added that is incorrect is “Figure to be replaced with update adding 6th between L and K Streets.”
   The space on 6th between K and L has to be a woonerf — to provide access to the Bud’s and AmeriGas sites so that they don’t have entrances on K Street. A woonerf can have vehicle traffic — a greenway does not. 

9. Under “Greenways Required” (Page 50) sentences a. and b. were added. 
   Under “Standards” (Page 50) sentence a. was modified. The modification has the one sentence be identical in meaning to the two sentences (a. and b.) above.
   I believe sentences a. and b. under “Greenways Required” are in the wrong section. They belong in “Standards” which is where it is. I believe a. and b. in “Greenways Required” are there as an error, and should be removed.

   The net result of “Standards a.” is that under Table 2-31, there is a 15 foot building frontage zone — if the Greenway is built not on an existing or proposed street. If the greenway is built on an existing or proposed street, then the building frontage zone would be based on the district standards, typically 10 feet minimum, 20 feet maximum.

   This is a very odd addition to the Gateway Code and should be looked at. 

   What is its purpose? It differentiates between a greenway that is built on an existing or proposed road, and greenways that are not.
   Looking at the map of conceptual greenway locations, where are there greenways that are built on existing or proposed roads? There are none.
   
   N Street  north of 11th will be a greenway or linear park. There is no road there.

   L Street will have portions that are linear parks and portions that are woonerfs.  Neither a linear park nor a woonerf is a greenway. They have different standards.

10. The Conceptual Greenway Location map (page 49) shows greenways on N Street north of 11th, and on 12th, 13th, and 14th Streets for one block each between M and N Streets. 

    As a result, there is no vehicle access for the parcels at the top left corner of the Gateway area — the parcels to the west of N Street and from a half-block north of13th Street. This is the former Reid & Wright mill location. (Parcels to the west of N Street and up to the half-block north of 13th Street have access from O Street.)

    Greenways are not woonerfs. They have no vehicle access, except as required the Arcata Fire District for emergency vehicle access.

    The Conceptual Greenway Location map shows these parcels as isolated — with no vehicle access. This needs to be looked at and fixed.
    

11. Mirrored Glass. Page 43. Commissioner Yodowitz brought this up at the April  23 meeting. I don’t think this is resolved.  The Code now reads:
    “Windows shall provide a clear and transparent view into ground floor uses of nonresidential buildings. Mirrored glass is not allowed.”

    First, to avoid any ambiguity, the two sentences should be switched, so that a reader does  not think that the ” Mirrored glass is not allowed” refers only to  nonresidential buildings.
    “Mirrored glass is not allowed. Windows shall provide a clear and transparent view into ground floor uses of nonresidential buildings.”

    Second, do we mean “ground floor uses of nonresidential buildings” or do we mean non-residential uses of ground-floor spaces?
    “Ground floor uses of nonresidential buildings” applies only to a complete building that is non-residential — which we won’t  have many of in the Gateway buildings. 

    I think what is meant is “on-residential uses of ground-floor spaces”
    [Edited, first hyphen removed:
    I think what is meant is “on residential uses of ground-floor spaces” ]

12. Privately Owned Publicly Accessible Open Space.  8. Active Uses. Page 60. The second sentence was added — highlighted here.
    “Active uses are permitted to spill out into open space if they provide seating and shading. Such seating areas may occupy no more than 30 percent of the total open space area.“

    Commissioner Joel Yodowitz tried to bring this up at the April 23 meeting. It has to do with privately owned publicly accessible open space, where the developer has given an easement for public use. It may be  desirable for an active use, such as a restaurant, to “spill out” into the open space. But it is not private space — it is a public space. There needed to be some limit on how much space the restaurant could use. The figure of 30 percent is reasonable. The Commission will understand that this  30% is a total — it is not the case that one restaurant can use 25% and other use 20%, etc.

    It also may be necessary to point out to the business that the placement of their chairs does not create an exclusive area. The entire area is public open space. If a person wants to sit at one of “their” seats and not be a patron of that restaurant, they may do so.

    A possible change might be to remove “and shading” from the first sentence requirement. In some locations shading is necessary and in others it is not.

13. Rooftop solar energy facilities may project above the maximum building height — changed from 5 feet to 8 feet. Page 30.
14. Figure 2-46 remains unchanged. Page 34-35. This shows a Vertical Façade break that is a minimum of 8 feet wide, a minimum of 4 feet deep, and a minimum area of greater than 64 square feet. (The figure shows greater or equal to 64; the text shows greater than 64.)
    As Commissioner Lehman pointed out at the April 23 meeting, these numbers don’t make sense.

    This section, “C. Long Building Division,” appears to have its policies covered by “B. Building Modulation” above. If so, then “C” would be superfluous. If not, “C” should be re-written. The Code author would have to advise on this. 

    I think this may be a case of where the author copy-and-pasted this section from somewhere else, and did not actually read or think abou how thi works.

15. The depth of weather-protection awnings is not changed. The Commissioners discussed this possibility.
16. Added May 11, 2024, and in the addendum:
    
    The requirement that a full block parcel requires an alley has been removed.
    This was done without any discussion by the Planning Commission.
    
    It is not in the “May 14, 2024” version. In the January 31, 2024, version, it was on page 52, under “Curb Cut Frequency.” It read:

    “b. On a development site that occupies a complete block face, a new alley must be
    established to provide vehicle access. In such a case no other curb cuts are
    permitted.”
    (Note: To have such an important requirement hidden and stuck here under “Curb Cuts” was inappropriate. Requiring an alley is a fairly major requirement.)

    This is discussed in my “Comments and Suggestions” article at:
    arcata1.com/gateway-code-comments-suggestions/#Toc164371870
    I had counted four block-size parcels in the Gateway area where this *might* be applicable, not including and new blocks made in the Barrel district.

    Requiring an alley in a block-sized parcel does very much change the design of the building(s) for that parcel, of course.

    As a form-based code, this Gateway Code can be as specific as anyone wants. For example, the Commission could determine that an alley parallel to K Street is required for the AmeriGas site and the Bud’s mini-storage site.

.

I will cover this situation separately.
In correspondence with Director Loya, he has presented the view that the Gateway Code does not actually need to address the linear park and woonerf, as they are public rather than private projects. That is not the issue. What is noticeably missing from the Gateway Code are standards for buildings that are constructed on parcels adjacent to the  linear park and the woonerf.

The L Street corridor linear park and the woonerfs is going to happen. Not planning for this is, to me, a real head-in-the-sand attitude of denial.

From my point of view, for buildings adjacent to the southern section of the woonerf section of the L Street corridor (7th to 11th Streets, most likely), there should be a requirement for ground-floor commercial spaces facing the woonerf. As the code is written now, the back side of an apartment building could be adjacent to the woonerf, with parking, trash sheds, etc. This is very poor planning. The woonerf can be a jewel. 
See my article here for suggestions on this.
“A successful woonerf and linear park in the L Street corridor needs Gateway Code policies”
https://arcata1.com/a-successful-woonerf-and-linear-park-in-the-l-street-corridor-needs-gateway-code-policies/

Commissioner Peter Lehman asked:
“There is no provision for electric vehicle charging in parking spaces. Do we want to require some? It seems to me that going forward, it’s going to be important to the way we want transportation to evolve in Arcata.”

Community Development Director David Loya’s response:
“The minimum number of electric vehicle chargers is set in Building Code. And I think that the Building Code is going to be more adaptable and change more quickly than our zoning ordinance likely will. So I would offer that you can defer to building Code for that.”

Fact Check:  The Director’s statement is false. There is nothing in the Building Code remotely related to the “minimum number of electric vehicle chargers.” There is a section on streamlining the permitting of EV chargers, and standards related to the wiring meeting the provisions of the California Electrical Code. 

Further, this type of standards — the minimum number of EV chargers — is not something that would even be in the Building Code. For the Gateway area, this would be in the Gateway Code — just as Commissioner Lehman proposed.

UPDATE — Scroll down for more information on EV Chargers in the Gateway area.

Message to Commissioner Lehman:  Please continue to pursue this.

1. Let’s say we’ve got a “neighborhood‐serving commercial use” – a restaurant. The space is 1,000 square feet – about 25 feet by 40 feet, the size of a Sunny Brae three-bedroom house. It’s got tables that will hold about 30 diners at a time, and there’s a staff of five people. The diners stay for less than two hours, and the staff stays for 6 or 8 or 10 hours.

   By this chart, the required number of bicycle spaces for staff is shown as a required minimum of 1 per 2,500 square feet. So those 5 staffers get one space.

   For the short-term bike spaces, the chart shows 1 per 500 sq. ft. for first 5,000 sq. ft, then 1 per 1,000 square feet. We’ve got 1,000 sq.ft., so the required minimum number of bike parking spaces is 2. Our 30 diners have two bike parking spaces – total.

1. Maximum building length is unchanged at 300 feet. A building length of 300 feet is theoretically possible in the Barrel district. A building length of 300 feet is theoretically possible in  the Neighborhood district, in the Reid & Wright parcels (far north). In the Hub district, it’s theoretically possible if two parcels west of N Street merged. In the Corridor district I do not see how it is possible.
2. Height for the Base Tier in the Barrel, Hub, Corridor, and Neighborhood districts is unchanged at 2 stories.
3. For the Corridor and Hub Districts, for properties  abutting 8th, 9th, and L Street between 8th
   Street and 9th Street, for Non-Active setbacks, the maximum was changed from “N/A” to 20 feet. 
   Since the Code specifies that those areas must be Active Frontage Required (Figure 2-36, page 25) it is unclear why this was changed. As I read it, there are no non-active uses there, so the original “N/A” was appropriate.
4. Non-Active Maximum setbacks had been “No Maximum” and now is 20 feet.
5. The Code’s misuse of the term “podium parking” has been changed. (Page 54)
6. Property Line location. Added to Figure 2‐54: Pedestrian Realm Dimensions:
   “Note: The property line in Figure 2-54 is shown for illustrative purposes only. The actual location of the property line will depend on
   the street design, required setbacks and private frontage design.”
7. Removed from the previous version, from the Greenways section. This sentence had been under “1. Conceptual Configuration.”
        “Note: The contents of this figure will be incorporated into the Gateway Plan and removed from the code.”
   This sentence has been removed. In the current version, if it were there it would have appeared at the bottom of page 48.
8. [Edited: This was added.]
   The word “Barrel” is now spelled correctly.

.