What is “Ministerial Review” ?
From the start of the discussion about “Ministerial Review” the Community Development Director, David Loya, insisted on referring to ministerial review as though it meant single-person Zoning Administrator review. That is, there would be one person who would review all incoming projects. In Arcata, the “Zoning Administrator” tasks are the province of the Community Development Directory. In other words, David Loya was promoting the notion that he would be the sole reviewer for all Gateway projects, and there would be no public input.
That was an incorrect definition of what Ministerial Review really is.
The Planning Commission, as might be expected, was in favor of what was then termed “Discretionary Review” — a process of public input and Planning Commission review. There are articles on this website that speak to this difference of viewpoint.
The problem was that, based on descriptions supplied by the Community Development Directory, none of us were using the phrases “ministerial review” and “discretionary review” correctly — not David Loya, not the Planning Commission members, and not myself.
After this article was written, the Ben Noble presentation on Form-Based Code on June 29, 2022, introduced the notion that there are THREE options of “ministerial review” — one of which is indeed Planning Commission and public input review in according to the direction of the Form-Based Code. In other words “Ministerial Review” does not necessarily mean review by a single person.
Ben Noble presented three options for ministerial review. And “Option Three” does include public input and Planning Commission review.
For more, see the Form-Based Code and Ministerial Review overview page on Arcata1.com.
Contents:
- Comment
- Redwood City’s Flow Chart
- The approval process — in words
- The original pages of their Code about the approval process
A blend of Discretionary Review and Ministerial Review
Redwood City’s Downtown Precise Plan was adopted in 2011, after three or four years of development. It is helpful to us because it incorporates a well-designed Form-Based Code — and has a blend of Discretionary Review and Ministerial Review.
Can we learn from Redwood City’s wisdom and experience?
Of course we can.
A project is evaluated as to whether it complies with the Standards and the Principles of their Form-Based Code. If it does, then it’s “easy sailing,” to quote a Redwood City Principal Planner. If not, then the project becomes subject to what is a discretionary review process.
Ministerial versus Discretionary (Planning Commission and public input) Review is a big topic with regard to how we’re going to move forward on the Gateway plan.
[Note: Since the above was written, the Ben Noble presentation on Form-Based Code introduced the notion that there are THREE options of “ministerial review” — one of which is indeed Planning Commission and public input review in according to the direction of the Form-Based Code. In other words “Ministerial Review” does not necessarily mean review by a single person.]
There are four articles (including this one) about Redwood City’s Downtown Precise Plan (DTTP) on this website, here. There are two articles (including this one) about Ministerial Review in Redwood City, here.
Redwood City’s plan shows a lot of thoughtful consideration and work. We cannot really compare what goes on in Redwood City to how Arcata is. Redwood City is of course far wealthier than Arcata, with a greater amount of money devoted to public services.
Can we learn from Redwood City’s wisdom and experience? Of course we can.
Their review process has three avenues for all development:
• Large projects
• Small projects
• Historic projects
Their review process has three avenues for all development: Large projects, small projects, and historic projects.
For them, a “large project” is defined as being over 3 stories or over 30,000 square feet. Their maximum building height is 12 stories, so adjusting the criteria for us here in Arcata might be anything above 2 stories or, say, 10,000 square feet.
[Note: As a means of understanding what 10,000 sq.ft. would represent in terms of apartment units, the recently-completed (2022) “Sorrel Place” building on F Street between J & K has 4 stories with a total of 44 units. The area of the building is a little over 36,000 square feet of apartments, and a gross floor area of about 56,000 square feet, or 14,000 per floor.]
Opinion: On the other hand, Ministerial Review was what allowed the “edgeconnex Data Center” to be built, at 11th & L Streets. I don’t think that there is any building in Arcata that is worse for the town and the community than this one. Situated in what is a thriving retail and pedestrian-friendly area, it is a visual disgrace to the neighborhood and adds little for employment or vitality to our town. In my regard, it was a huge mistake to have a building code in place that allowed the construction of this building. Nearby is: Brio Bread, Little Learners Preschool, Country Living Florist, Renaissance Computing, Northern Humboldt Employment Services (a division of the Northern Humboldt Union High School District), and across the street is the historic Portuguese Hall.
Redwood City Flow chart for project approval
From Page 27 of the Downtown Precise Plan (Page 33 in the PDF file. For the full Redwood City Downtown Precise Plan, link here.)
Small project review process
Large project review process.
Note the Planning Commission review.
Historical Projects Review
The project review process, in words:
