Note:  What is shown below is a copy of the original letter, made for this website.  It is included here only so that the contents of the original letter can be searchable.  (The PDF received from the City is in the form of an image, and so is not a searchable document.)

What is below is not the letter sent by the letter-writer. It may contain typographical errors and other departures from the original.  The PDF displayed above is accurate.  The text below is not accurate.  It is printed here for indexing purposes, so that each word can be indexed and included in the search.

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 s.f. and building height <40’
Zoning Administrator Hearing for Properties < 20,000 s.f. and building height < 50’
Planning Commission Hearing for Properties >20,000 or Buildings >50’
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 Commision) 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: https://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.
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 — is 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.
=============================================