Estimated reading time:  15-30 minutes.

Without fanfare or announcement, the second draft of the Gateway Code (form-based code) was released on Friday afternoon, September 22, 2023.

This second draft and the June 5, 2023 draft can both be viewed at The Gateway Code (Form-Based Code) – 2nd draft from Ben Noble, September 22, 2023.

Looking at the changes and updates in the 2nd Draft

We’ll go through the changes and updates in page order. Where there is an update which I consider to be more important, I’ll highlight that in red. You can scan this article for items in red to identify what may be more important.

Many of the changes are administrative details — and can still be important. The more crucial changes in terms of the form-based code are the specifications and determinations that affect planning and building.

What’s disappointing to me is that there are not more changes. The first draft was, in my view, deficient in how Ben Noble viewed Arcata and how that draft of the form-based code might allow us to achieve our goals in the Gateway area. What was missing from that first draft is, essentially, still missing.

This listing may not include all of the changes and updates. If you see other issues or wish to point out specific parts of this code, please contact me.

The L Street Linear Park

With the City Council’s decision that L Street will become a linear park, all references to L Street must be revisited. References to L Street can be found on pages 14, 17, and 50, and added to page 55 as a required Linear Park. In addition — and this is very important — new height, setback, and step-back, and massing considerations need to be looked at for all parcels that abut L Street and the L Street corridor.

The Gateway Code updates and changes 

To skip to some important sections:

• Greenways, pages 46-47
• Parking, page 49

Page 1

1. In the fashion that is typical with documents that come out of Arcata’s Community Development Department, the title page of the June 5 draft had no title, no author, no date, no version number, and no context of what the document is.

   The September 22 draft improves a little here, with “Gateway Code Public Version 2.” Still no date, version number, author, or context. We’ll note also that the document does not say DRAFT although we clearly know this as a draft.

2. The September 22 draft shows: “- Planning Commission recommendations
   incorporated through August 8 2023 meeting date.” But I do not believe that it contains all of the Planning Commission’s recommendations. That can be determined as we carefully look at this document. It is up to the Planning Commission to decide.

Page 2

1. 9.29.010 – Introduction. Paragraph F has been added.
   This requires the Planning Commission to have a review of the Gateway Code at least every two years, at a minimum.  This is not a limitation: The Commission can review the Code or any part of it at any time, as it sees fit.

   F. Periodic Planning Commission Review. Two years after the effective date of this chapter,  or six months after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first project approved pursuant to this chapter, whichever comes last, and then every two years thereafter, the Planning Commission shall undertake a review of this chapter and determine whether to recommend that the City Council amend, modify or delete, in whole or in part, any of its provisions.

2. 9.29.020 – Permits and Approvals, B. Gateway Ministerial Permit, 3. Eligibility.

   3.a.2.  Be built to a density of at least 32 units per acre.
   In the June 2023 draft, this was specified as:  at least 25 units per acre.

Page 3

1. The table for the tiers for ministerial review has not been changed from the June 5 draft.
2. c. Environmental Review. Paragraph 3 has been added.

   3. If the project site is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code, or is on a local or regional list of hazardous sites and has not received a clearance letter or land use covenant, it is not eligible for a Gateway Ministerial Permit.

Page 4

1. d. Public Notice. Item 2, Notice of application for a Gateway Ministerial Permit.
   In the June 5 draft, item 2(d) had been: 
   “The date the Zoning Administrator will render a decision on the application, which shall be not less than 10 days from the date of notice.”

   Item 2(d) is now (bold added):
   “The date the application’s compliance with objective standards required for Ministerial approval may first be considered for Planning Commission public administrative hearing, as required and shown in Table 2.19.”

   Table 2-19 does not have dates or times on the table.
   Table 2-19 is incorrectly referenced.

2. d. Public Notice.  Item 3, Notice of administrative decision. In the June 5 draft, this referred to Section 9.74.020.B.2. In the September 22 draft, the requirements are listed as a to f.

   We can note that 3(d) uses the “10-day”language that was removed in 2(d), where 2(d) referred to Table 2-19.

3. e. Administrative Hearing.   Important
   Opinion:  This change enables a developer to “game” the system, by purposefully omitting a necessary bit of information at the first meeting with the Zoning Administrator. The developer then supplies this at the second meeting, at which point the Administrator is required to render a decision.

   In the June 5 draft, Item 3 had been: (highlighting added)
   “The hearing may be continued only if additional information is needed to determine project conformance with objective standards. A hearing may only be continued a maximum of three times after which the review authority must render a decision.”

   In the new draft, the number of times has been changed. (highlighting added)
   “The hearing may be continued only if additional information is needed to determine project conformance with objective standards. A hearing may be continued one time after which the review authority must render a decision.”

Page 7

1. Table 2-20: Gateway Use Permit Requirements has not been changed.

   Should be changed to be consistent with “9.29.020 – Permits and Approval, B. Gateway Ministerial Permit, 3.a.2.” on Page 2:
   “To be eligible for a Gateway Ministerial Permit, a proposed project must satisfy all of the following requirements: 2. Be built to a density of at least 32 units per acre.“

   We can note that, by this table, a new use of more than 2,500 square feet has the Planning Commission as the review authority, while a residential project that is under 30,000 square feet can go the Zoning Administrator.

Page 9

1. C. Prohibited Uses.
   June 5 draft, Item 11: “Other similar and compatible uses. See Section 9.29.030.D (Similar and Compatible Uses)” has been removed. Item 11 is implicit in Item D as “Similar and Compatible Uses.” 
2. Table 2-21: G-B District Building Placement
   No changes from the June 5 draft.
   

Page 11

1. Table 2-22: G-B District Building Massing
   In first grouping “Height,” Tier 1, “Stories, Min.” has been changed from 2 to 3 minimum stories.
   In the notes, the June 5 draft had “[1] Minimum height applies only to residential uses.” This has been removed.
   
   

Page 12

1. The image “Figure 2-28: G-B District Building Massing” shows no change from the June 5 draft. It shows a step-back on the 7th story (Tier 4). In the form-based code, there is no step-back specified for the 7th story.
   

   These drawings, as simple as they are, are not as clear as they should be. One of the advantageous features of a form-based code is that it uses images to convey information. Therefore the images should be accurate and convey the information appropriately.

   I believe these drawings should be improved. As an isometric drawing that is intended to convey information, it rates a B-, or C+. This is what’s wrong:

1– The width of dimension “D” does not match the width of the step-back that it’s intended to illustrate.
2– It is showing a second upper-story step-back, with the 7th story (Tier 4). In the form-based code, there is no step-back specified for the 7th story.
3– It shows the maximum height as “B” stacked over the minimum height “C” — It’s not clear whether B is the added height. B should instead be placed in the same height-line as A.
4– In the isometric drawing, the lines showing the depth of the step-back exactly match the lines that show the height of each floor. The coincidence of the step-back width matching the floor height lines makes for a drawing that cannot easily be understood — it’s like an optical illusion. This is a poor choice on the part of the person who made the drawing, and one that is very easily corrected. A closeup is below.

Here is an improved drawing. It is not perfect, but is far easier to read and obtain information from than the original drawing. First, the original. The left side of the building looks as though it could be floating.
The improved drawing. In this drawing the step-back depth is increased, and the street setback is decreased — so the drawing is not accurate. It was derived from the existing drawing, to show what an improved isometric drawing could look like. Measurement depictions for B, C, and D are improved also.

Page 14

1. Table 2-23: G-H District Building Placement has changed.
   The September 22 draft shows — from property lines abutting 8th, 9th and L Streets — the minimum setback at 10 feet (was 15), the maximum setback at 20 feet (was 25). For other property lines, the minimum non-active setback is changed to 10 feet (was 20) and non-active maximum setback is unchanged.

   With L Street becoming a linear park, all references to L Street must be revisited.
   

Page 15

1. Table 2-22: G-B District Building Massing
   In first grouping “Height,” Tier 1, “Stories, Min.” has been changed from 2 to 3 minimum stories.
   In the notes, the June 5 draft had “[1] Minimum height applies only to residential uses.” This has been removed.
   
   

Page 17

1. Table 2-25: G-C District Building Placement
   The September 22 draft shows — from property lines abutting 8th, 9th and L Streets — the minimum setback at 10 feet (was 15), the maximum setback at 20 feet (was 25). For other property lines, the minimum non-active setback is changed to 10 feet (was 20) and non-active maximum setback is unchanged.

   With L Street becoming a linear park, all references to L Street must be revisited.

Page 18

1. TABLE 2-26: G-C District Building Massing
   In first grouping “Height,” Tier 1, “Stories, Min.” has been changed from 2 to 3 minimum stories.
   In the notes, the June 5 draft had “[1] Minimum height applies only to residential uses.” This has been removed.

   References to 300 foot long buildings should be removed. This would be applicable in the Barrel district only.
   
   

Page 20

1. Table 2-27: G-N District Building Placement
   The September 22 draft shows the minimum setback at 10 feet (was 10), the maximum setback at 10 feet (was 20).

   

Page 21

1. TABLE 2-28: G-N District Building Massing
   No changes on minimum or maximum heights.
   In the notes, the June 5 draft had “[1] Minimum height applies only to residential uses.” This has been removed.

   References to 300 foot long buildings should be removed. This would be applicable in the Barrel district only.
   

Page 22

1. 9.29.050 – Supplemental to Districts  –  A. Active Building Frontage Types – 
   1. Active Building Frontage Types Defined.
   Added ti e paragraph: 

   “An active frontage type may be occupied by residential uses if the frontage complies with applicable design standards in this chapter and building code requirements.”

Page 22

1. 3. Active Building Frontage Type Standards
   Maximum setbacks were 25 feet and 50 feet. Changed to 20 and 40 feet.

   Maximum Setback. A building wall with an active building frontage type may be
   setback no more than:
   1. 20 feet from the property line; or
   2. 40 feet from the property line if the space between the building wall and sidewalk is occupied by a courtyard, plaza, or other form of publicly accessible open space.
   
   

Page 22

1. E. Landscaping. Item 4 added. 

   4. Planting of new invasive plant species is prohibited. “Invasive plant species” means
   any plant species with a “High” rating in the California Invasive Plan Council’s Cal-IPC
   inventory of invasive plants.

Page 23

1. F. Projections Above Height Limit.      Important
   A “tower” (not defined) could raise the height by 8 feet. The Planning Commission should define “tower.”

   This section has had no changes. The section is:
   1. Building features may project above maximum height limit in accordance with
   9.30.040.D.1 (Exceptions to Height Limits).
   2. Rooftop solar energy facilities may project above the maximum building height by up
   to five feet.

Having rooftop solar facilities for 5 feet above the maximum building height could affect the solar shading onto buildings. There is no requirement that solar facilities be stepped-back from the edge of a building. If they are near an edge, the possibility exists that the solar facilities will cast shadows. If they are set back from the edge, that can lessen the solar shading.

It is important to look at the City code for 9.30.040.D.1 (Exceptions to Height Limits). By this, there can be mechanical equipment on the roof to raise its height by 3 feet. There an be a “tower” (not defined) that would raise the height by 8 feet. Shown below (highlighting added). Taken from:  https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Arcata/LUC/ArcataLUC0930/ArcataLUC0930.html#9.30.040

Putting telecommunications equipment on the roof of a building is, to a large degree, a judgment call that the Zoning Administrator makes. (In Arcata, the Community Development Director.) There is a balance between what is considered part of the public good and what is appropriate for visual or skyline purposes.

D. Exceptions to height limits. The following structures and structural features may exceed the height limits of this Land Use Code as noted:

1. Architectural features. A chimney, cupola, monument, mechanical equipment, or vent may exceed the height limits by a maximum of three feet. A spire, tower, or roof-mounted water tank may exceed the height limits by eight feet.

2. Telecommunications facilities. The height of communications facilities, including antennas, poles, towers, and necessary mechanical appurtenances shall comply with Chapter 9.44 (Telecommunications Facilities).
Chapter 9.44 (Telecommunications Facilities) is available here:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Arcata/LUC/ArcataLUC0940/ArcataLUC0944.html#9.44

Page 29

This is changed from the June 5 draft. Highlights added.

G. Inclusionary Zoning. 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.

Page 34-35    E. Roof Forms – Standards      Important

This section is not changed from the June 5 draft. But it needs to be looked at.

Here is the code as it is written, for Roofline Articulation. As it is written, see if you can imagine just what that would look like in real life. The developer must choose at least one of the design criteria in the list. Highlights added.

a. Roofline Articulation. Projects must provide for roofline articulation by selecting
one or more of the following techniques for each building frontage that faces a
public street, right-of-way, or publicly accessible path:

(1) At least one change in roof pitch or form for every 30 feet of street-facing
building frontage.
(2) A change in façade or roof height of at least 5 feet for a minimum of 25
percent of the building frontage.
(3) At least one horizontal change in the street-facing building plane every 30
feet. Change in plane must be at least 4 feet deep, 6 feet wide, and open to
the sky.
(4) Green roof or roof landscaping along a minimum of 75 percent of the
building frontage. Landscaping must be designed to be visible from the
adjacent public sidewalk, street, pathway, or right-of-way.
(5) A roof deck along a minimum of 75 percent of the building frontage. The
roof deck railing must be within 5 feet of the street-facing parapet. At least
one amenity structure for the use and enjoyment of the roof deck (e.g.,
pergola, wind barrier) permanently affixed to the roof deck must be visible
from the adjacent public sidewalk, street, pathway, or right-of-way.
(6) Varied roof types where at least two different roof types each occupy at
least 25 percent of the building frontage. Roof types include gable, hipped,
shed, and flat roof forms.
(7) Overhanging eaves extending at least 2 feet beyond the building face for the
full length of the building
(8) Gables that break the horizontal eave at intervals of no more than 40 feet
along the building façade.
(9) Dormer windows, integrated into a sloped roof, occupying a minimum of 25
percent of the street-facing roof length as measured at the eave.
(10) Decorative cornice and parapet treatments for the full length of the topmost roof line.

Page 35-36    Building Entries

Some changes here from the June 5 draft. 

1. c. Functionality.
   Previously:  Entrances required by Paragraphs (a) and (b) above must remain functional and available for use by occupants.

   Changed to:  Functionality. Entrances required by Paragraphs (a) and (b) above must remain functional for entry as well exit and available for use by occupants.

2. d. Entrances to Individual Units (1)
   Previously:  For units adjacent to a public street that are accessed through ground level  individual entrances (e.g., townhomes), the primary entrances must face the street. 

   Changed to:  For units adjacent to a public street that are accessed through ground level
   individual entrances (e.g., townhomes), the primary entrances must face the
   street or publicly accessible courtyard or plaza.

3. d. Entrances to Individual Units (2) iv
   Previously: A patio with minimum dimensions of 5 feet by 5 feet. A patio must
   include a row of shrubs, a fence, or a wall not to exceed 42 inches in height between the sidewalk and the patio to define the transition between public and private space.
   
   Changed to:  A patio with minimum dimensions of 5 feet by 5 feet. A patio may
   include a partition not to exceed 42 inches in height between the sidewalk and the patio to define the transition between public and private space.

Page 44     Pedestrian Realm Dimensions

Frontage zone and Landscape zone are decreased. 

Page 44     Street Trees

Previously:  Spacing between trees: minimum 30 feet on center

Changed to:  Spacing between trees: maximum 30 feet on center

.

Page 47-48     Greenways           Important

This section of the Gateway Code requires that certain greenways be built. To my memory, the Planning Commission has never talked about this.

I am very much in favor of greenways. But  it looks that these configurations are not well thought through, and require some discussion before they are included in the Gateway Code.

Here is what 9.29.080 – Mobility A. Greenways includes:

Greenways are required in the approximate locations shown in Figure 2-56.
Greenways shall comply with standards shown in Table 2-31 and illustrated in Figure 2-57.

For the image below, I overlaid a color satellite image of the area on top of the black & white image that’s in the Gateway Code. We can see that the N Street greenway goes right through the building (coincidently called The Greenway Building). The greenway that’s an extension of 7th Street goes on private property across the Tomas Building parcel (the green roof building) and across the Greenway Building parcel. The greenway that’s along where M Street might be also goes on private property.

The greenways are depicted as a no-car park — not as a woonerf, which would allow some car traffic. The greenway shown on 7th Street doesn’t allow residents there vehicle access to their homes.

In the larger image of the greenways, we see there are five or six greenway routes shown in the Barrel district on what is private property. We want the master plan for the Barrel district property to include some trails and greenway routes — but it would need to be coordinated with the proposed vehicle roads and other open space in those parcels.

Here’s the section in the Gateway Code on the greenways:

Closer looks at the image above.

.

Page 49    Maximum Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces      Important

The minimum number of parking spaces for Gateway area buildings has been removed. There is no minimum number of spaces required. There is a maximum number, and those figures are shown in the table below.

In my opinion, having no minimum amount of parking allows the developer to do what that developer wants. If developers think that there is a market for apartments with no parking, then they are welcome to try that. In theory, there’d be a reduction in rent for all of the units in that apartment building of, say $50 a month — as the saved cost of paving and maintaining and providing the land for a parking lot.

But to say that there is a a maximum allowable amount of parking is telling the developers what they have to do in order to build in Arcata. And I propose that they are not going to like this, and they are not going to use the Gateway Code, opting instead to use the State Density Bonus law and then take a waiver on the parking maximum.

The Gateway Area Plan promotes the creation of commercial units in the ground floors of residential buildings. If a storefront or a restaurant has a total maximum number of parking spaces allocated to a, say, 1,000 square foot commercial unit of ONE parking space — is that commercial unit going to have a difficult time attracting a tenant? If you were running a professional business, with six or eight employees plus clients, would you want to rent a space with parking for ONE car?

Here is what is in the Gateway Code:

Page 49  Transportation Demand Management

Added:  The TDM Plan must include measures that exceed minimum standards otherwise required by this code.

Page 50    Parking Location and Design

Item F2 was added:
K, L, and N Street access. Site designs for commercial or residential projects that
qualify for ministerial approval may not have primary access for motor vehicles to
parking from K Street, L Street, or N Street if access from an east-west street or from
an alley is possible, with exceptions for emergency access.

Page 52    Bicycle Facilities

Many changes — see the Gateway Code for details.

1. Bicycle Parking required. The June 5 draft tied the number of bike spaces to the number of parking spaces, based on Land Use Code in the Arcata. Clearly that was not is wanted for the Gateway area. With a very small number of parking spaces required, we don’t want to have a correlation be number of car spaces and number of bike spaces.
2. There is an expanded distinction and definitions of short-term and long-term bike parking.
3. There is nothing in the new code regarding charging stations for electric bikes.

Page 54-60    Open Space

1. “The Barrel District Master Plan must include a community square….”  The phrase “community square” is found 12 times in this Open Space section. There was a request to have this future designate public open space be called by something other than a “square” — since it may not be a square. Indeed, the image shown in “Figure 2-59: Community Square” is not that of a square.
2. Barrel District Master Plan, b: “The minimum size of the Barrel District community square is 1.0 acres.” The June 5 draft showed this as 0.50 acres.
3. c. The community square design in the Master Plan must include the following:
   Removed:  Street frontage on at least two sides.
   Added:  Limit motorized vehicle traffic to no more than two sides of the square.

4. Linear Parks
   No changes shown from the June 5 draft.
5. Privately Owned Publicly Accessible Open Space
   No changes shown from the June 5 draft.

   For a further discussion on how this open space program might or might not work, see The Myth of “Privately-Owned Publicly-Accessible” Open Spaces on Arcata1.com

   Item 3 Minimum directions — requires a small change.
   Currently:  Open space shall have a minimum average dimension of 30 ft. in two opposing directions.
   Rephrase to:  Open space shall have a minimum average dimension of 30 ft. in two perpendicular directions.
   Or other wording. The dimensions of a line taken from two opposing directions is the same distance.

6. Passive Open Space.
   No changes shown from the June 5 draft.

Page 60-61  Community Benefits

No changes shown from the June 5 draft.