Tap / click here for more than two dozen articles about the Gateway Code.
 

The number of feet from a bike parking space is a small matter.

 

But this level of sloppiness is seen throughout the Gateway Code.

 

The policies simply have not been carefully thought through, with the idea of implementing what the City of Arcata really wants to see built in the Gateway area.

Arcata’s Planning Commission, at their April 23, 2024 meeting, took up what was stated as their “final” review of the Gateway Code. It was set to be their only review of this all-important document. There was Planning Commission discussion after the 1st draft, but no discussion after the 2nd draft or after the almost-identical 3rd draft.

Among what the Planning Commissioners, City Councilmembers, and the public might have seen and learned from watching or participating in these meeting is that Arcata’s Community Development Director, David Loya, will say just about anything in order to move the process along with inadequate discussion, without proper consideration, and, essentially, to get his way.

Contents

• In the draft Gateway Code, a tenant’s bike parking can be 750 feet from their apartment — 2-1/2 blocks away.
• The Commissioners know how the Gateway Plan should be written
• The actual purpose was not achieved in the draft Gateway Code
• Let’s be ridiculous, and see what that looks like
• Video and Transcription

See also:
Another David Loya Misunderstanding: Bicycle Storage in the Gateway Area
The Gateway Code: What has been discussed, and what has been forgotten?

.

In the draft Gateway Code, a tenant’s bike parking can be 750 feet from their apartment — 2-1/2 blocks away.

The Commissioners’ discussion was on the draft Gateway Code section that says “Long‐term bicycle parking shall be located within 750 feet of the use that it is intended to serve.” This was brought up in my comments and suggestions here, under typographical errors.

It it such an absurd concept that I thought certainly it was a typographical error. I wrote “We assume this is a typo. Should be 75 feet? Surely the long-term bicycle parking cannot be located 750 feet – that’s 2-1/2 Arcata blocks — from a person’s apartment.”

Commissioner Peter Lehman brought this up at the April 23, 2024, meeting.

The Community Development Director told the Planning Commissioners that if a tenant is on the 7th floor of a building, that person might have to walk 750 feet to get to a secured bicycle parking area.

This is ridiculous. Arcata City blocks are 250 feet long. The Gateway Code allows 300-foot-long buildings. (And some people disagree with that size — building length should be limited to 250 feet maximum.)

“The bike parking might be diagonal to your unit. And so you might have to walk 750 feet to get to your bike,” the Director said. What kind of convoluted maze of hallways is going to require a 750-foot walk? 

The Director went on to say that if this 750-foot figure were to be reduced, the building might have to include more (that is, more than one or two rooms) of smaller bike parking spaces. 

And then there’s the question of the cost to the developer. Will putting in bicycle parking at a shorter distance from the tenant make things be so that the project becomes economically unfeasible? The Community Development Directors suggests that this is the case. “I think we’re going to have someone come in and pencil out a project and say there’s no way I can put long-term bike storage every 250 feet, or they’re going to say there’s no way I can put it over 750 feet.” he said.

Well, there’s a good reason why a developer couldn’t put a bike storage space that’s over 750 feet away. There will be no buildings in the Gateway area that are that large.

.
The Commissioners know how the Gateway Plan should be written

Fortunately, the Planning Commissioners accomplished in five minutes what David Loya and Ben Noble could not provide clarity for in a year.

Commissioner Joel Yodowitz quickly figured out a simple means of achieving the intention. “Just eliminate the distance requirement and say it’s within the perimeter of the use — So we know it’s on site,” he said.

Brand-new Planning Commissioner Millissa Smith (this was her second meeting) had the clarity to make it simpler still. “Or just the words ‘On site’,” she said. “Just take out ‘within 750 feet of the use that’s intended’ and just say ‘Shall be located on site.'”

This is very, very simple. But the authors behind the Gateway Code — presumably the consultant Ben Noble and the Community Development Director David Loya — could not write this most simple policy in a clear and unambiguous way. This level of failure is seen in many other places in the Gateway Code document.

.
The actual purpose was not achieved in the draft Gateway Code

It is clear that whatever the authors had in mind was not achieved by what they wrote.

 

This is a major issue.

It is clear that whatever the authors had in mind was not achieved by what they wrote.

This is a major issue. The Form-Based Code is supposed to be objective. The goal is that the words cannot be interpreted in two different ways. If it  can be interpreted in a way other than what the authors and the City intended, then we’ll see trouble down the road.

If a developer comes in with a project, and the project meets the letter of the Code, then the project must be approved. The approving party — Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission — cannot use “discretionary review” to accept or deny a project.

Because of this, it is critical that the Gateway Code be as clear, unambiguous, and well-written as possible. Otherwise, a developer may seek to “game the system” — to exploit loopholes, poorly-worded policies, or intentions that were not expressed correctly.

The number of feet from a bike parking space is a small matter, in the overall scheme of having 4, 5, 6, and 7-story buildings built in the Gateway area. But this level of sloppiness is seen throughout the Gateway Code. The policies simply have not been carefully thought through, with the idea of implementing what the City of Arcata really wants to see built in the Gateway area.

A larger example is how, until it was pointed out by me to the Commission and they took action on it at the April 23, 2024, meeting, the Gateway Code allowed up to 25% of the street frontage to be garage openings. That is, on a 250-foot block, there could be as a many as six 10-foot-wide garage doors. The Planning Commission had said that they don’t want any garage doors facing the street. Yet this policy was in the 1st, the 2nd, and then the 3rd “final” Gateway Code documents.

.
Let’s be ridiculous, and see what that looks like

Until it was repaired at the April 23, 2024, Planning Commission meeting, the Gateway Code in the “final” draft said:

a. Location.
(i) Long‐term bicycle parking shall be located within 750 feet of the use that it
is intended to serve.

• “Within 750 feet” means an “as the crow flies” distance. It does not mean the distance that a person would walk. This is the meaning as used in other sections of the Gateway Area Plan and Gateway Code.
• There is no requirement that the long-term bicycle parking be inside. It could be located outside. It would need to be in a “weather-protected place” but that is not defined either. According to the Gateway Code, it does not even need to be behind a fence. See Another David Loya Deception: Bicycle Storage in the Gateway Area for more on this.

According the strict wording of the Gateway Code, developers could rent space at Bud’s mini-storage and tell their tenants to park their bikes there.

The radius shown in this image is 700 feet —  less than the 750′ that’s in the Gateway Code, to allow for some leeway. According to the Gateway Code, apartment buildings could be constructed without any on-side bike parking on the AmeriGas site, most of the Tomas site, most of the Trailer Court site, about 50% of the master-plan portion of the Barrel district, at the St. Vinnie’s site, at the site of the metal industrial buildings at K-L and Samoa Boulevard, and other spots in the Corridor district.

And with the same silly logic of reading the Gateway Code literally, some awnings could be installed for “weather-protected” bike storage at North Bay Auto, at 10th and K, and another 1400-foot-circle (almost 5 blocks) be drawn there. This would, according to the Gate Code, provide bike parking for apartments built on the car-wash site, the Ag Sales site, the Clothing Dock site, the 10th and N site, and more.

Fortunately, the Planning Commissioners accomplished in five minutes what David Loya and Ben Noble could not provide clarity for in a year.

.

Video and Transcription

Peter Lehman, Planning Commissioner  1:49:24
Okay, last one. Let’s see. Oh, I didn’t write that page. Bicycle parking, 4-a.

It talks about having bike secure bike parking, a 750 or a maximum of 750 fee from its use. That seems way too far to me. Maybe change that to 250? There it is. Yeah, thanks.

David Loya – Community Development Director  1:50:11
Yeah, we can, we can change this, I think the intention here was envisioning, like, a seven-story building. And your bicycle parking has to be within 750 feet of your unit. It’s, you know, on on the same site. It’s a strange concept to try and encompass. And so, you know, if you had a large enough project you’d have to have multiple long-term bike parking on site, because you couldn’t be 750 feet. And I think that’s what we were trying to do with this Code, but you, know, the idea is that you have ready access on your site to long-term bicycle Park.

Peter Lehman, Planning Commissioner  1:51:02
Okay, but I’m envisioning getting out on a rainy day and walking 750 feet to my bike. And I don’t think I should have to. I think the bike parking should be in the basement, so I can just walk down and get my bike.

David Loya – Community Development Director  1:51:20
Yeah. And I, you know, I could have this wrong, but imagine you’re on the seventh floor of a seven-story building. Okay, and then, within that building, you have to have 750 feet from that location, you have to be able to access your bike. So we’re not saying that every floor is going to have long-term bike storage, we’re not saying that you’re going to be able to bring your bike into your house and have long-term bike storage there.

But we’re saying that there’s going to be a place in that project — the intent is that this is on the same site — that’s within 750 feet maximum, within 750 feet. So you’d be walking inside your building to get to that bike access. We’re not sending you out across the street in the rain, to get to your bike.

[Note: That may be his intent, but that is not what this policy of the Gateway Code form-based code says. The idea is to create objective standards. What this policy does is to remove objectivity, and replace it with “this is our intent.”]
[Note: There are no houses in the Gateway area.]

Peter Lehman, Planning Commissioner  1:52:02
If you’re on the seventh floor, you’re only 70 feet from the bottom.

David Loya – Community Development Director  1:52:06
Yeah, and the bike parking might be diagonal to your unit. And so you might have to walk 750 feet to get to your bike.

Peter Lehman, Planning Commissioner  1:52:14
I don’t think so.

David Loya – Community Development Director  1:52:17
I mean, you can make it whatever you want to make it I’m just I’m trying to, you know, describe you why I think that the number was selected.

If you make it a smaller number, that’s going to mean more smaller bike parking areas.

[Note: This is not true. The Community Development Director simply made up this statement.  There is no factual basis to this statement. It is imaginary.]

Again, this is something that I don’t think we’re going to be able to discover by talking about it. I think we’re going to have someone come in and pencil out a project and say there’s no way I can put long-term bike storage every 250 feet, or they’re going to say there’s no way I can put it over 750 feet. [Note: Silly statement. The building won’t be 750 feet in size.] We don’t know that. And I don’t think we’re going to discover it by talking about it. So pick a number, put it in there. Other Commissioners want to weigh on this?

Joel Yodowitz – Planning Commissioner  1:52:54
Yeah, just eliminate the distance requirement and say it’s within the perimeter of the use. That is something like some vague language. So we know it’s on site.

Millissa Smith – Planning Commissioner
Or just the words “On site.”

Scott Davies (Chair)  1:53:12
I mean, I would feel better about that. I agree with Peter that 750 feet does seem a long way. And I could imagine a lot of buildings that would not require a 750-foot walk to get to a charger if it was on site. [Note:  Whoops – Chair Davies does not mean “charger.” That was the previous discussion. He means “secured bicycle parking.”]

David Loya – Community Development Director  1:53:26
True. I mean, that’s two blocks. [Note: Two and a half blocks, actually.] It’s a lot. That’s a big building.

Scott Davies (Chair)  1:53:34
Yeah. I like the on-site suggestion from Melissa. I think that makes more sense. I think it gets to what the City is trying to say, but does it in a slightly more flexible, elegant way.

David Loya – Community Development Director  1:53:45
Okay, so just saying “on site.”

Millissa Smith – Planning Commissioner   1:53:46
My suggestion would be long-term bicycle parking shall be located on site within 750 feet of the use that it’s intended. Or you just take out “within 750 feet of the use that’s intended” and just say shall be located on site. I have a third suggestion, where you say located on site within X number of feet of the building’s primary entrance, something like that. But adding “on site” into 4-a-(i) — somewhere in that sentence.

Peter Lehman, Planning Commissioner  1:54:16
Yeah, let’s not say 750.

Joel Yodowitz – Planning Commissioner  1:54:19
I agree with Peter, let’s say “on site” and eliminate the distance.

Scott Davies (Chair)  1:54:24
Yeah. I think if we’re going to go with on site, let’s eliminate the distance. Let’s go with “on site.“ Just make that swap, please. Okay, is that the end of what you brought to us this evening?

Peter Lehman, Planning Commissioner
I am done.

Scott Davies (Chair)
Perfect. Thank you very much for that, Joel, I know you have some items. So fire away.

Tap / click here for more than two dozen articles about the Gateway Code.