Planning Commission meeting:  May 24, 2022

Confusion and Disagreement

My main concern is that what will be put before the Planning Commission for their “ultimate” recommendation — whether 6 months or 18 months  from now — will simply not be able to be recommended for approval. 

The final 45 minutes of the May 24, 2022, Planning Commission was marked with confusion and disagreement between members of the Planning Commission and Community Development Director David Loya.

For myself, what is presented here is disturbing.  We may want the Gateway plan to move forward, yet it appears to be stuck, in multiple ways.  My main concern is that what will be put before the Planning Commission for their “ultimate” recommendation — whether 6 months or 18 months  from now — will simply not be able to be recommended for approval.  And that will slow things down even more. 

The Planning Commission is flailing.  The Community Development Director is showing a lack of support.  The process of reviewing the December draft Gateway plan is stalled. Any “progress” is subject to challenge or review at a later date.

What is going on?
What suggestions do we have about fixing this process?

I have plenty to comment on from this meeting.  Some commentary is here.  More will appear in a separate article.

How to watch this video and read the transcription

The video is cued up and ready to start.  Just press the Start triangle and it will go.

This is a transcription of the part of the meeting.  The full meeting was a little over 3 hours.
The video can be viewed on YouTube, link here.

The video takes 45 minutes to watch, if played at normal speed.  The transcription can be read in less time.  You can change the playback speed on the video. 

By highlighting specific phrases and passages, the comments and opinions that are expressed by speakers at the meeting will stand out — and can be viewed here far more easily than by watching a three-hour video.

To change the speed of the video:  After starting the video, use the “Settings” tool button and change the speed to be 1.25x or 1.5x times faster. The video is displayed in a small screen that stays in the lower right corner.  If you want to watch the video on its own, you can enlarge the screen with the Square at the lower right of the YouTube screen.

This transcription is believed to be an accurate rendition of what was said.  Any discrepancies between what was spoken and what is written here are unintentional and are not believed to alter the intent or meaning of the speaker.  Many of the “uh” and “you know” and “um” words have been removed.  Some sub-headings have been added.

The transcript is in black text. Highlights have been added as bold highlights. Notes and comments have been added in RED.  The comments and opinions are those of the author and are not presented as fact, but as opinion.

Planning Commission meeting — May 24, 2022

To jump to Commission Vice-Chair Judith Mayer’s comments on when we might see the Form-Based Code, and Community Development Director David Loya’s response, click here.

Planning Commission Chair Julie Vaissade-Elcock

2:15:48
Okay.  So who wants to start.

Planning Commissioner Dan Tangney

2:15:59

I do. I think that it’s compelling that we address the question about procedure and sequencing of the — as they were referenced – chapters, topics, however we want to call them.  And it did strike me on that comment that we did talk about Mobility now. We’ve kind of tackled I guess three or four kind-of blended together topics.

2:16:22
If we’re going to come back and revisit each of these or if we’re going to try to give you — and hear from the public — specific guidance on each of these topics.

I guess I just need to be reminded where we’re at, with procedurally how to get through them.

Community Development Director David Loya

2:16:46

Yeah, that’s a really good question. And I think the other thing I wanted to reflect back on is that there were several questions that came up at the beginning of the meeting that we didn’t necessarily fully address either.

In terms of the process, certainly, this format is designed to give an opportunity for the public to make comments for the Planning Commission, to make recommendations.

David Loya:

 

[I’m] going to just acknowledge right now that certain things are definitely going to get lost in the shuffle. 

 

Some questions are going to get asked, we’re likely to not hit every single point.

2:17:10
We’re also going to the various Committees on these topics. If the Commission wants to hear an item, have that item come back, we can certainly bring the item back. There’s absolutely, you know.

2:17:29
[I’m] going to just acknowledge right now that certain things are definitely going to get lost in the shuffle. 

Some questions are going to get asked, we’re likely to not hit every single point. I think we’re going to hit the important points. 

The Planning Commission is a recommending body to the City Council who ultimately adopts the General Plan and would adopt any codes pursuant thereto in terms of where the Gateway area plan fits within that.

It’s always been the plan to have the Gateway area plan be an element of the General Plan and so that is still the plan that it would be part of the General Plan. The General Plan is being evaluated including the Gateway area plan as well as the zoning code amendments, proposed land use amendments, is all being evaluated under a single EIR.  It’s one project description, we can’t parse it out.  We have — that would be considered piecemealing under CEQA.  And so we’re taking one environmental analysis on all of the known proposed changes as they make their way through this this public hearing process.

2:18:47
And then I anticipate that the implementing zoning ordinances, the implementing regulations, will be adopted over time, over the course of the next year or so.  Once we’ve gone through the initial legwork to get the policy, the body of policy, in place.

2:19:06
And so what is the process.  The process is absolutely up to the Planning Commission, the City Council.  If you want to go back and review things policies that you’ve already reviewed that’s your prerogative. 

2:19:18
We haven’t addressed some of the timing questions and what I will say is that we’ll be discussing those in more detail at the upcoming City Council meeting.  I have a whole staff report that I’ll prepare for the City Council that talks about the timelines, the milestones, what we are required to meet and what we’re not required to meet.

2:19:46
I can give you a thumbnail sketch of it right now — which probably will not be verysatisfying — but I will do so anyway because the question was asked and this is one of the things that we were saying we would address in general.

There’s a couple of different things that are motivating this work right now and motivating the timeline.

It’s true we do have some grant resources. The question was raised – [can] we extend these.  And I committed to going back and speaking with our funders to find out what their requirements were.  And it’s a mixed bag. The Department of Conservation which gave a SALC grant — sustainable agricultural lands conservation grant — said that they would be flexible with us. If we were far enough along in the planning process they would look at that as sufficient progress to have met their requirements. 

2:20:37
There are other funding sources that are funding this like the SB2 funds that we applied for through the State which are not so flexible. In fact it’s rather complex. I’m not going to get into the detail now but there are pieces that are that are regulated according to HCD [California Department of Housing and Community Development] and there are pieces that are regulated according to the Department of Finance and so I don’t have a clear answer from the Department of Finance whether or not they’re going to extend those or not.  But those funds need to be spent by the end of this fiscal year. So we’re working diligently to spend those funds by the rest of the fiscal year and the performance date was extended out to the end of this year.

And so my hope is that we will have made sufficient progress by the end of this year that we can say with a straight face that, yes, we’ve accomplished the goals of this grant — That’s uncertain to me now. 

2:21:31
The goals of the grant and the various grants include the EIR, the Gateway area plan, and the General Plan updates, and the Form-Based Code.

So that’s the funding piece of it.  Some funders are looking at this and saying, “Yes, we can probably extend.”  Some funders are saying “No, it’s a hard and fast deadline.”

2:22:01
We don’t have clarity yet on whether or not we would have to pay those funds back but typically if you don’t meet performance standards you have to pay those funds.

2:22:07
The other thing that’s motivating this is more tied to State law and Housing Element law.  The Housing Element was certified by the State — the only element of the General Plan that’s required to be certified.  If you don’t have certification there are other penalties that I’ll go into again in in more detail when I provide the full staff report [to the City Council, June 1, 2022].

2:22:30
But our timeline for meeting these re-zone objectives that were included in our certified Housing Element were through 2023, so we had to have the re-zones complete by 2023.

And so that’s another thing that’s motivating this timeline.

2:22:49
And then lastly…

Commissioner Dan Tangney

Sorry, is that end of 2023 or beginning of 2023

David Loya

End of 2022

2:22:55
The last thing that is motivating this timeline is the fact that we have been working on it for five years.  I recognize that not everyone has tuned into it for the entire five-year period that we’ve been talking about this but this has literally been the topic of every City Council – Planning Commission joint study session that you’ve had for the last five years. It’s been the topic.  Occasionally we’ve sprinkled in the Local Coastal Program and Sea Level Rise — but this this has been discussed at every single one of those meetings.  We’ve had consistent direction from the Planning Commission, the City Council, to continue on this pathway since that time frame.

[This website disputes David Loya’s assessment of the level of both time and importance of this topic at the City Council – Planning Commission joint study sessions.  This will be the subject of a future article.]

2:23:37
The interim milestones that we’ve met prosecuting this work has been the info market study which was adopted in early 2020 and the Housing Element was which was adopted end of 2019.  And so we are on a long-range planning pathway which has many elements to it, all of which fall underneath this term the Strategic Infill Redevelopment Program which we’ve been discussing for years.

It’s certainly the Planning Commission and the City Council’s prerogative as to the speed with which we execute this work, the level of detail that you wish to go into in order to ensure that you feel like you’ve got robust public engagement.

[I] strongly encourage folks to look through the staff reports that document the public engagement that we’ve done to date not only on the Gateway plan but on this overall effort, because it’s been hundreds of hours, it’s been hundreds of thousands of dollars, it’s been tens of meetings, it’s been thousands of points of contact. 

[Note:  The staff reports do not document the public engagement.  The staff reports list the meetings that have taken place.  To this point we have seen very little of the results of the public engagement.  A new staff report was expected to be presented at the City Council meeting on June 15, 2022.  That meeting was cancelled, so perhaps this report will be presented at the City Council Special Meeting on June 22.  This website will report more on the public engagement in a future article.]

2:24:54
And so I understand in particular if you learned about this December last year when we released this document, that there’s something going on. I understand your hesitancy to think that something pretty dramatic has happened and staff has pulled this out from nowhere.  But the reality is that we have been working on this for five years with consistent direction. 

I challenge City staff to tell us:  When was the first public mention 8 stories? Was it spoken of to the group at the walking tours, prior to December, 2021? 

 

I request that the Community Development Director restrain from referring to this plan as though it has been in existence for five years. 

 

This plan was not in existence to the public until December 2021.

For five years staff has been working on a plan for infill and redevelopment.  And, yes, there were many public engagement meetings.  What I want to know is:  When was the first mention of 8-story buildings?  Prior to the release of the draft plan December 1, 2021, when was there a mention of 8-story buildings? 

Even in the draft plan’s “The People’s Summary” (also printed as a press release in the Mad River Union, December 21, 2021) there is no mention of 8 stories.  Instead, the phrase “multi-story” is used, and that same phase — “multi-story” – is the term seen on signboards used at public engagement meetings.

I challenge City staff to tell us:  When was the first public mention 8 stories?  Was it spoken of to the group at the walking tours, prior to December, 2021?  When was it first in a press release, or in the media at all ?

I propose that an amorphous notion of infill and redevelopment – as has been discussed for five years or more – is NOT the same as the December 2021 draft Gateway plan.  And to have diverse and prominent members of our community express shock at not hearing about this plan – until December 2021 – should indicate something.  The Gateway plan, as it is being discussed now, did not exist prior to that in anything like its current form.

I request that the Community Development Director restrain from referring to this plan as though it has been in existence for five years.  This plan was not in existence to the public until December 2021.  Discussion of the desire for infill has existed for five years.  But not this plan, or anything close to it.

2:25:07
And so why are we planning on wrapping it up by the end of 2022?
Because that’s been the direction to date. And so the Planning Commission, the City Council, will make those decisions based on understanding of the potential repercussions and the consequences of not acting quicker.

But it’s certainly within your prerogative.

As to the timeline that I’m working off of, this is the timeline that was established for me.  

 

I’m not pushing this process.  My department is not pushing this process.

 

We’re operating on the timeline that’s been set by you, the decision makers. And I think it’s important to recognize that. 

2:25:36
As to the timeline that I’m working off of, this is the timeline that was established for me.  I’m not pushing this process.  My department is not pushing this process. We’re operating on the timeline that’s been set by you, the decision makers. And I think it’s important to recognize that. 

2:25:55
So, in terms of process, you as a recommending body are moving through this material.

We have Committees that are moving through this material. Each of the Committees is taking up different sections that are relevant to the work that they do.  They’re making recommendations, we’re getting recommendations from the public, or getting recommendations from agencies and organizations that are interested in specific elements of the work that we’re doing. 

We’re compiling all that information together in an engagement report and ultimately we’ll provide that to the Council with a final set of recommendations as to what staff believes should be included in the plan — identifying specifically recommendations that may have come through this process that were excluded from that recommendation the reasons why — and then ultimately the planning Commission will make its final recommendation up to the City Council, who will then take all that into consideration before they make their decisions.

2:26:55
It is a lot of work.  It’s, there’s a lot of energy that’s gone into it, there’s a lot of energy that still needs to go into it.

2:27:07
And really appreciate the input that folks who are taking such a close look at it are providing.

2:27:13
There are a couple of other questions. If you had specific ones you wanted me to answer that came up early on but I think I’ve hit most of the higher level ones.

Commission Chair Julie Vaissade-Elcock
2:27:20

Well, David, I would like to make a recommendation.  First off, we need to finish what we’re doing, but I would like it if we could change our schedule a little bit and perhaps at the next meeting — if you’re able to — maybe you could bring back the Mobility and these two sections that we just went over along with our recommendations, so we can give them a once-over at our next meeting.  Make sure they’re what we talked about before moving on.

2:27:54
And then we need to look at them one more time.  Because the Mobility just sort of just stopped all of a sudden.  And I would like to look at it again.

2:28:05
And then we also need to really plan out our next meetings.  Summer’s coming up.  The housing issue, the Housing Element, is the one I think is the hot-button issue.  And Design. And we need I think we need to make sure that we’re all here for those meetings.

So maybe that’s something else we could do. But if you’re able to come back next at our next meeting — I don’t know how everybody else feels about that — and we can just go over those three elements, and this one that we’re going to finish tonight, I hope.  And just look them over one more time.

[To the other Commissioners:]  What do you think?

Commissioner Tangney

2:28:35
Well, I would — If we go back to Mobility it feels like it should be a brief once over to remind us where we’re [at].  I don’t know that we got closure but maybe I’m just forgetting, pardon me. 

But the main — actually the bigger part — of what I wanted to say there was:  Streetscape feels like it’s a giant thing that none of us quite can conceptualize yet. That graphic despite its challenges was even helpful like, “Oh, oh, okay, we could step it back.”  The sooner we start to get into that I think that we’re all going to feel a little bit more comfortable with how we are included in this process of design.

Yeah, I think streetscape is, like, I mean, we just barely, barely began that conversation.

 

I’m sure we all agree.

2:29:25
And I see that we have three meetings on Design. I don’t know how they’re different from Streetscape. It feels like this is really a looming, very big … [Commissioner Vaissade-Elcock, aside:  Do you need to continue it?]

Yeah, I think streetscape is, like, I mean, we just barely, barely began that conversation. I’m sure we all agree.

2:29:43
Anyway, this is going to take a lot of meetings and a lot of time, I mean that’s what we’re getting at.  And a lot of just back and forth and hearing from the public and hopefully architects and resources of our community.

2:30:01
And then I guess what we all need to get clear on — and I feel remiss for not recalling where we ended Mobility – but did we do a straw poll?  Did we all agree to something? I just don’t know.  And if that’s the way we need to finish each topic, then let’s come up with some format and decide as a group what is it we’re doing each time — before we move on.

David Loya

2:30:24
The Mobility section did end kind of abruptly. I think it was getting late, and as I recall the Chair decided the meeting was over. And we can certainly bring any of the elements back.  And I think we’re in this review process.  Generally it’s sort of — the umbrella is the Gateway plan.  We’re covering these different topics but there’s no reason why you can’t —  if you find something during the intervening period between meetings that you wanted to mention about the last meeting — you know, bring that forward. I mean we’re in the review process now.

Commission Chair Julie Vaissade-Elcock

2:30:53
So maybe we should have Streetscape come back next meeting, along with — if you’re able to I know your shows — I don’t know how you’re getting all this work done.

David Loya

2:31:06
I can bring the Mobility section back, absolutely we’re planning on bringing Infrastructure forward at the next meeting, okay and then I think that between the Streetscape and the Mobility section, wrapping those up, I think there’ll still be time for Infrastructure. 

2:31:24
And we’ve got Nedra and Emily, I believe, are planning on attending that meeting as well.  So there’ll be additional technical detail available to you as well as the policy level. 

Commission Chair Julie Vaissade-Elcock

2:31:36
So you think we’ll have time to do all of that in one meeting?

David Loya

2:31:42
I don’t have anything to present on the Mobility. I mean I’ve gone through the Mobility section over to the course of two meetings. If you have specific questions about it I’d be happy to answer.

Commission Chair Julie Vaissade-Elcock

2:31:47
We’re also going to bring back — which we haven’t finished yet — these two elements that we’re talking about.  [To Vice-Chair Judith Mayer:]  Go ahead –

Commission Vice-Chair Judith Mayer

2:31:55
Okay. I’m listening to what Ann King Smith was saying and I agree with that and with Dan.  That figuring out a format for how we’re going to consider each of these elements is really important. That we can’t go forward without it.

2:32:15
There are some really basic format things that I think the Commission should decide.  This might be the evening when we decide those things, or options that we can propose for next time.

The fact that we’re not receiving messages from the public as they’re being submitted to staff, it complicates things a little bit. 

 

And I appreciate all the messages that we’ve gotten this time.

I do think that one of the purposes of having scheduled specific topics with specific meetings is so that we could discuss the details and if there are questions about things that should change from the draft that we’re reviewing.

2:32:51
That’s the time when we should identify those things, discuss them, and if not actually vote on a decision certainly highlight the things that we’re concerned about.  And that we should do those in a way that the public can anticipate, so that they can have input on them at that moment.

The fact that we’re not receiving messages from the public as they’re being submitted to staff, it complicates things a little bit.  And I appreciate all the messages that we’ve gotten this time.

[She is saying that they are not receiving message from the public in a timely manner.]

Commission Vice-Chair Judith Mayer:  Form-Based Code

2:33:36

Some other timing clarifications that I’d really appreciate is that there are a number of sections that we simply can’t make sense of without at least some discussion and proposals for the Form-Based Code associated with them.

Streetscape is one of those. And I think that if we are going to commit to reviewing in detail the draft plan elements that are before us — to do that without proposals about the Form-Based Code that would implement them would not mean a whole lot.

2:34:26
And perhaps it’s an opportunity for us to suggest what that Code should contain — if staff doesn’t have a draft of Code language to present to us.

And I think that suggesting what we would like to see, asking the public to suggest what they would like to see at that time could be the only way that we can really address this issue without having draft code language before us.

2:34:49
There was one member of the public who said that she had received some notification that the Gateway EIR and the General Plan EIR had been split.  Is that correct? Because I didn’t receive anything advocating…

David Loya

2:35:08
I’m not familiar with the comment that you’re referring to, but, no, they’re being covered under the same EIR.

Commission Vice-Chair Judith Mayer – continued

2:35:15
Okay that was my impression. 

…. if that is the time when the details of the Form-Based Code would be available for us to discuss?

But I am wondering if at the time when — the schedule on our packet today indicates Design for three sessions — if that is the time when the details of the Form-Based Code would be available for us to discuss?

What was your vision for what those Design sessions would be?

David Loya  

2:35:49
Yeah, my hope is that at that point we will be in the middle of doing some community Design work outside of the Planning Commission and so through stakeholder engagements and a couple of other sort of dispersed format – you know, YouTube with survey — that we’re hoping to work on that. We’d be able to bring that in in connection with the Design element within the Gateway, start to bring some of that information back.

I feel like the Design — which includes building height — is one of the topics that’s generated the most interest out there in the community.

2:36:35
And so I think that we’re going to need to take several meetings to work through that material.  And I think we could link that back to Streetscape.

I cannot commit at this point to having a Form-Based Code or having any components of that.

And I fully recognize I ran out of time to present a staff report and we ran out of time to discuss it so this this absolutely needs to come back probably, in partnership with that, Design.

2:36:55
I cannot commit at this point to having a Form-Based Code or having any components of that.

2:37:01
Frankly, the direction that we’ve received to date is to create a Form-Based Code. But due to the public discourse and some of the comments that are being made, I think it’s wise for us to ensure that we — the Planning Commission — has a strong recommendation that we, you know, move forward with the Form-Based Code, understanding exactly what those elements are.

And that we have the backing of the City Council.  The City Council wants to move forward with the Form-Based Code, understanding what the parameters are, before throwing good money after bad.  Perhaps going down the route of a Form-Based Code and then realizing, well, actually this this jurisdiction isn’t really ready for one or doesn’t want one or whatever the case may be.

It seems that David Loya is blaming “this jurisdiction” – meaning Arcata — as perhaps “isn’t really ready” for a Form-Based Code.  David Loya is the Community Development Director.  He can tell us his views, based on his professional opinions, and his beliefs. That does not mean that the Planning Commission will agree.

And – this is important – I haven’t heard anything about us not wanting a Form-Based Code, or that our community “doesn’t want one…”  Not at all — and quite the contrary. I have heard that we are looking forward to seeing a Form-Based Code.   

It seems, once again, that David Loya is confusing the aspects of Ministerial Review versus Discretionary (i.e. Planning Commission) Review with whether or not we want to have a Form-Based Code.  They are separate entities, and require separate decisions.  

If Redwood City can have a Form-Based Code with Discretionary (Planning Commission) Review, then so can we.  They have 12 years of FBC with Discretionary Review under their belt – successfully.

However, David Loya may be correct about this “jurisdiction” not being ready for — or wanting — Ministerial Review.  Fortunately for us, the success of a Form-Based Code is not dependent on Ministerial Review.  The success of a Form-Based Code is based on having an excellent Code.  And an excellent Code takes time to prepare and review.

2:37:49
But I do think that many of the policies that would inform that Form-Based Code are still valuable to talk about.  There are many elements, or there are many policies that we talked about today, that we don’t have real site-specific detail on — how we would implement them — but it’s still a valuable conversation.

It is a valuable conversation, yes.  But the conversation cannot result in valid decision-making without the Planning Commission having a at least a draft of the Form-Based Code.

In the same way the elements around the Form-Based Code and whether we want setbacks from the street, from the property line, rather — how we want to have, you know, the parking arranged, whether we want to emphasize parking or if we want to emphasize the bulb-outs that create pedestrian safety — all of those things are very relevant at the policy level even if we don’t have a Form-Based Code which would get down into more detail about how to actually implement that.

2:38:43
So I would encourage the Planning Commission to continue to have that conversation even despite the fact that you don’t have the Form-Based Code before you.

Commission Vice-Chair Judith Mayer

2:38:50
If we have that discussion I would strongly suggest that it be in the form of suggesting what the Form-Base Code must include — because without that we’re having a pretty meaningful [Does she mean to say “meaningless”?] discussion.

2:39:07
I don’t quite understand why this “community-based design” [the video shows ‘air quotes’ being enacted] needs to take place separately from what the Planning Commission is doing.  There needs to be a way to bring the Planning Commission process and whatever community-based design process is going on together — rather than to separate them.

And if that means reformatting how we’re considering the design aspects of this proposed plan, I think that we’ll need to do that.

2:39:44
And the idea that an informal process outside of this formal process would somehow come up with proposals that we would simply then be responsible for reviewing I think is unrealistic.

And I think that all of us would appreciate being involved in the process of formulating design principles and whatever else is going in there.

2:40:20
We probably should also be involved in explaining what we would like to see in a community-based design process, so that it would be meaningful to the Planning Commission and the City Council later on going forward, especially if this is going to be an implementing plan that would have legal force and that we would then be responsible for helping to apply.

Commission Vice-Chair Judith Mayer:  Discretionary Review

2:41:06

Without that I’m not willing to say that we should give up any of the responsibility for case-by-case review of projects.

I do understand that the ideal Form-Based Code might be one in which little Planning Commission discretion would be involved. But to the extent that any Ministerial approvals would come out of that Form-Based Code I think that the Planning Commission needs to be heavily involved in making the policies which we will then entrust to staff to implement.

2:41:30
Without that I’m not willing to say that we should give up any of the responsibility for case-by-case review of projects.

[Meaning:  Unless the Planning Commission is thoroughly involved in the creation and review of the Form-Based Code, the Planning Commission should not give up case-by-case review of projects.]

Commission Chair Julie Vaissade-Elcock

2:41:50

I agree.  So how do we want to proceed on this?  Do we feel like we can at least finish looking at making our recommendations for Arts and Culture, Open Space, and Conservation tonight?

Commissioner Dan Tangney

2:42:11
Is the Open Space Committee drilling down on the Gateway project?

David Loya

2:42:17
Yeah, they’ve seen it twice and I believe they’re they’ve asked to see it one more time.

Commissioner Dan Tangney

2:42:23
And might some of their ideas come forward to us?

David Loya

2:42:28
Yeah, absolutely. I think that I’ve conveyed at a high level some of the things that came out the process.  There’s a lot of different things, a lot of different meetings,  happening sort of simultaneously.  And so there’s just there’s going to be no way for us to convey all of the information while we’re in the process.

2:42:42
Ultimately we’re taking all of the information and compiling it into an engagement report that’ll be available before you make your ultimate recommendation to the City Council and so certainly you’ll see in that engagement report and the accompanying staff report.

“Here’s a recommendation that came from this source.  City Staff recommends you don’t do it because of this reason. Here’s a recommendation that came from this source. City staff recommends you do do it because of this reason.”

Ultimately the Planning Commission will make a recommendation this to the City Council based on all of that information. The City Council will then be able to make the final decision.

2:43:29
So, yeah, yeah, and we can absolutely bring Mobility back. You can formalize on some of your recommendations.  Now, I mean, I feel like we covered the Growth Management Element, we covered, I mean if there’s anything more to say on Employment?

Commissioner Dan Tangney

2:43:41

So, for example, if we’re going to go back to Mobility at the next meeting, might we decide as a group that when we’re done with Mobility there’s some kind of recognizable, distinct “Done” ?

What are we forwarding as a group or suggesting to the City Council to the City staff? I don’t know — this is, I know, we’re having a circular conversation here but….

David Loya

2:44:12
Yeah, and I think the circular conversation could go on and on, but I think what we can continue to do is to continue to incorporate thoughts and ideas, and we’ll come back and formally look at Mobility, for example, next time, to close out that topic. You’ll make some recommendations, you’ll do the straw poll vote so that we’ll know that there’s general support there. Ultimately that’ll go into a list, you’ll see the modifications, those modification, go into a list of, like, look we recommend that you make these changes.

2:44:40
Or maybe not, maybe we’ll have more conversation about it. Maybe there’ll be some recommendations; additional conversation.  But ultimately there’ll be a recommendation that you will see with all of those changes before you make your final actual vote recommendation to the City Council “Hey, we think you should adopt this thing in this current format based on what you see in this engagement report.”

It may benefit the Planning Commission and all of us here in Arcata to find and hire an outside consultant who specializes in Form-Based Code. 

 

That person could analyze and evaluate the Code and make suggestions and revisions. 

 

For as much headache as missing or poorly-written details of a Form-Based Code could cause in the future, spending some money now on a 3rd-party unconnected specialist would seem desirable — and a very smart thing to do.

The Form-Based Code is a complex document potentially containing thousands of lines of details.  It is unrealistic to believe that the Planning Commission will go over this document line-by-line, either as individuals or during a 2- or 3-hour session.

It may benefit the Planning Commission and all of us here in Arcata to find and hire an outside consultant who specializes in Form-Based Code.  That person could analyze and evaluate the Code and make suggestions and revisions.  For as much headache as missing or poorly-written details of a Form-Based Code could cause in the future, spending some money now on a 3rd-party unconnected specialist would seem desirable — and a very smart thing to do.

It would be helpful at this point to see a sample of some kind of just what Planwest Partners is preparing as its draft Form-Based Code.  Only by seeing a sample of the Form-Based Code can the Planning Commission determine just what the task before them is.  It could be the case that a sample of the draft Form-Based Code would show that it is a thoughtful, well-constructed Code.  Or it could be the case that the approach taken by Planwest in creating a Code for the Gateway plan would be considered entirely inadequate.

We don’t know.  We haven’t seen the Form-Based Code, and we haven’t even seen a sample of it.

Commissioner Dan Tangney

2:45:04
Okay, thank you.

Commission Chair Julie Vaissade-Elcock

2:45:11
So do you have any comments about the Arts and Culture and Open Space and Conservation?

Commission Vice-Chair Judith Mayer

2:45:17
Are we starting with the Employment?

Commission Chair Julie Vaissade-Elcock

2:45:22
I’m sorry, yes, we’re starting with employment.

Commission Vice-Chair Judith Mayer

2:45:28
I have some comments as usual.  Does someone else want to start this?

Commissioner Dan Tangney

2:45:40
Well, I just don’t know how far we can go tonight — so consider that.

Commission Vice-Chair Judith Mayer

2:45:45
Do we want to table specific comments on Employment, Art and Culture, and Open Space, as well as Mobility? Until our next meeting.  It’s 20 minutes to 9.

Commissioner Dan Tangney

I know we’re feeling very incomplete and like we didn’t get enough done or something.

2:46:06
I feel like we need to, yes. I know we’re feeling very incomplete and like we didn’t get enough done or something.  And I have very little to say about some of these topics. But maybe we just need to come back and at least touch on each of them and decide — are we moving on or not, as a group.  Are we done, have we heard from the public, have the right people from the public come forward on each of these topics so that we know we heard them, they had their opportunity – right? 

2:46:41
And then we straw poll or whatever we’re going to do to suggest something to staff or not. I don’t know

2:46:47
I don’t have a lot to say about the Arts.  I imagine they’re going to happen. I think great things will happen. I don’t know that I need to talk about it as a separate Planning Commission meeting item.  But, I don’t know, if others do, if I’m missing something.

I just want us to be as efficient and, you know, kind of mechanical through this process. I think we all want it, right? 

Sorry I don’t have the right suggestions.

Commission Chair Julie Vaissade-Elcock

2:47:12
Are there any other comments?  Do we want to table this until next meeting?

Commission Vice-Chair Judith Mayer

2:47:20
I’d like either to go systematically through the things that were on our agenda for today now — which probably means we’ll be here till about 10 — or table it for the next meeting and address Infrastructure in possibly the next meeting and the subsequent meeting. Because there’s no way we’re going to get done with Infrastructure and this stuff in one meeting.

2:47:53
And it might make sense to have some sustained discussion about our process as well in our next meeting, including the idea of addressing specific topics and actually getting “yes / no / maybe” or work on that from the Planning Commission on those where we have concerns above and beyond the draft that staff has presented us.

2:48:23
I don’t know that we want to have even that discussion tonight.  At this point just starting out without having prepared suggestions.

Commission Chair Julie Vaissade-Elcock

I agree. I’ll work with Director Loya on getting more organized for these meetings so we can get through this.

2:48:43
All right — so we’re tabling that.  So we’re done. We’re going to move on to correspondence and communications.  What?

Commission Vice-Chair Judith Mayer

If we do have specific comments that we want to bring back to our meeting next time, is that something that we can submit in the meantime…?

2:48:54
Just one question.  If we do have specific comments that we want to bring back to our meeting next time, is that something that we can submit in the meantime so that we can all look at them before we come to sit down here — or is that something we should just bring back verbally?

David Loya

2:49:17
Are you asking me or are you asking the chair?

Commission Vice-Chair Judith Mayer

2:49:22
I’m asking you and other Commissioners.

Commission Chair Julie Vaissade-Elcock

2:49:26
They wouldn’t be in public so we wouldn’t…

Commission Vice-Chair Judith Mayer

They would be in public because they would be submitted to staff and staff would include them in our packet for next time.

David Loya

Yeah, if you have specific recommendations. And there are a couple things that we talked about tonight — there are, clearly, there’s some typos in the document, for example.

2:49:39
Yeah, go ahead and do that.  Yeah, if you have specific recommendations. And there are a couple things that we talked about tonight — there are, clearly, there’s some typos in the document, for example.  If you want to tell me about a typo, we’ll — okay okay.  Yeah, we’ve got a very skilled technical editor working through some of those things but, yeah, send them to me. There may be things that, I’ll just bring back a draft, some draft language. 

2:50:10
Commissioner Barstow pointed out that in the Growth Management Element, for example, one of the sentences was very long and convoluted — great government-speak.  So I’m working on a re-draft of that.  And so they’re simple little things that we don’t need to take a whole lot of time to cover that. We can just make quick amendments and then verify, like okay, that looks like a good change.  But, yeah, if you submit them to me I will put them in the packet going forward.

Once again, Mr. Loya is either misunderstanding a Planning Commissioner’s request or else is trivializing it.  Commission Vice-Chair Judith Mayer spoke to adding comments into the packet —  “something that we can submit in the meantime so that we can all look at them before we come to sit down here” at the next meeting.  That is, comments that are to be discussed among the Planning Commission, and in the packet so that the public can also be a part of the discussion.  Mr. Loya is talking about typos and sentence structure.  “If you want to tell me about a typo, we’ll — okay okay.  Yeah, we’ve got a very skilled technical editor working through some of those things but, yeah, send them to me.”

He did NOT respond to Commission Vice-Chair Judith Mayer’s intent.

2:50:38
And, again, a reminder to the public.  If you submit your comments on the Thursday before the meeting or earlier you’ll see those comments included in the packet.  If you submit them after that point we’ll forward them on and then incorporate them after into the packet.

I have been forwarding on comments that are clearly addressed to the Commission to each of your e-mails.

And we are still just a report out on the e-mail tasks, we’re still trying to get that together at the staff level, and I hope to  have a conclusion for you soon by next meeting, let’s say is my target date.

David Loya seems to be referring to a request from the Planning Commission – 6 weeks earlier – to figure out how the Commissioners can receive and send messages to the public and have all the messages be archived properly by the City.  If the report is indeed presented at the June 14th meeting, and then implemented some time after that, it will be two months – at a minimum and possibly more, depending on its implementation — since the request was made. 

The Commissioners want to exchange e-mails with the public, in a way that is documented, archived, secure, doesn’t disclose their personal e-mail address to the public, and is not yet another place or system they have to use to check their e-mail.  Such a system is in place and is used by the City Council members.  What is the hold-up?  I guess we’ll find out at the June 14th meeting.

Commissioner Dan Tangney

2:51:06
Sorry, brief comment, I just wanted to clarify that what I heard is that our Chair is going to meet with Mr. Loya to resolve how we’re going to chew through each of these topics and feel complete. Can we begin our next meeting — as soon as we talk Gateway — with that report, with what you guys came up with? 

[Commission Chair Julie Vaissade-Elcock nods her head “Yes.”]
Okay. 

Commission Chair Julie Vaissade-Elcock

2:51:44
Any other comments before we move on?  

[Aside to Commission Vice-Chair Judith Mayer, jokingly]
You’re not allowed any more.

Okay. So correspondence and communications, do we have any?  Go ahead, Joe.

Community Development Department Senior Planner Joe Mateer

2:52:021
just want to announce, of course, that if you haven’t heard that’s a Kinetic Weekend — after a little bit of a pause.  [Referring to no in-person race in 2020 and 2021 because of Covid pandemic.] 

So come out and support all those artisans and people putting together some great engineering products and stuff like that.  It’ll be at the Arcata Plaza, at Noon will be when they take off. So you can come see all the pageantry before.  

Commission Chair Julie Vaissade-Elcock

2:52:31
Great!  Also don’t forget that some of these questions we want to agenda – agendize — I can’t even say it now, I’m so tired – like in the beginning of the meeting under, um…  Chris Richards had some questions and Patricia, I forget her last name [Cambianica], she had some questions too.  They were really important questions. And I think that maybe we could address those at our next meeting if we have time.

David Loya

2:53:07
Yeah, sure. And I’ll update our frequently asked questions with the answers to those as well.  And I did address some of some of what came up in in the course… um, but yeah. 

Commission Chair Julie Vaissade-Elcock

2:53:20 
And then also we really need to know everyone’s vacation schedule.  We don’t want to be talking about any really really important things when half the people are not here.  So maybe you could send an e-mail — you won’t have to do that in public — actually we don’t want to do that in public — send an e-mail and ask us what our plans are for the summer and so that we can schedule. 

Commissioner Dan Tangney

2:53:43
And that’s considering a zoom option, true?  I mean if you’re zoomable,

Commission Chair Julie Vaissade-Elcock

2:53:49
Of course, yeah.

Commissioner Dan Tangney

Join right in, right?

Commission Vice-Chair Judith Mayer

2:53:57
And we’re going to have the Cal Poly off-campus discussion at some point?

David Loya

2:54:05
Yeah, my hope is either the first or second meeting in July. It’s kind of dependent on the schedules my colleagues over at Cal Poly. I want to make sure that we can present together, that you can hear from them directly, and that I give my presentation as well.

2:54:24
I did want to point out too that the City Council has set a joint study session for this topic, for the Gateway, for July 14th. Let me just double-check that.

Commission Chair Julie Vaissade-Elcock

2:53:40
Is that going to be televised and the public’s going to be able to come in?  Or is it just….

David Loya

2:54:43
It will be, I mean unless things change drastically, it’ll be a mixed meeting format like this one is.  [Mixed meeting format = In-person and Zoom simultaneously.]

Okay, the 12th, I’m sorry — it’s Tuesday the 12th.  [Tuesday, July 12th.] Okay, we’re going to double-check. I’m getting some information from the IT guy that maybe that isn’t set 100%.

So we will be having a study session coming up soon, hopefully in July.

And then the City Council — I mentioned this earlier but I just wanted to bring it home — the City Council is going to be evaluating the timeline of milestones. We’ll be talking about the work that you all are doing, as well as other things that we’re doing in the community, at the meeting on June 1st.

Commissioner Kimberley White

Could I ask a quick question? I guess maybe I missed it, but I was just trying to find out. What did we find out about the HCOG grant for developing the Form-Based Codes?  The 25,000 — what is what’s happening with that?

David Loya

2:55:57
Um, that is, that, so okay, so the HCOG is managing some State money [Commissioner Kimberley White: “Right.”]  that the jurisdictions have in part have been able to request funds to help support planning work that will advance development of housing. And so there was a, you know, range of different projects.  If you look at the last City Council meeting right now [Commissioner Kimberley White: “I was there.”]  

Okay, yeah, and I’m providing a little bit of context for the public who may not necessarily know as much as you do.  So if they go back to the last City Council meeting, they’ll be able to see a broader description of what those funds are being used for. The City did ask for access to twenty-five thousand dollars to continue the Gateway and General Plan like — just the whole package, the Strategic Infill Redevelopment Plan.  Those haven’t been awarded yet, it’s still on the table, they’re still in discussions with ultimately, what, you know, what those awards are going to be. 

But it looks likely the funds aren’t over-allocated.  The jurisdictions have been very tentative about what they’ve requested, so those refunds are probably going to come through.

Commissioner Kimberley White

2:57:16
Thank you. And just one more quick question. I know it’s not germane to what we’re talking about.  But did we ever find any updates about the homeless-supported housing in Valley West and what they’re doing with regards to trying to prioritize the folks that live in Arcata and Valley West?

David Loya

2:57:36
Yeah, again I don’t have an update for you on that at this point.

Commissioner Kimberley White

Okay, thanks.

Commission Chair Julie Vaissade-Elcock

2:57:43
Are there any other comments or shall I adjourn the meeting?

Commissioner Dan Tagney

Please.

Commission Chair Julie Vaissade-Elcock

2:57:48
Okay. This meeting is adjourned.