Planning Commission meeting:  July 26, 2022

Obfuscation and Gobbledygook

Planning Commissioners:  Thank you.

I think you are doing a great job.  I mean this seriously. Given what the task is, and given the lack of necessary resources you’ve been provided with, the lack of input from the Committees, given the ever-shifting timetable, the lack of management focus, and, in particular, the lack of any clue when you might see a glimpse of the Form-Based Code — in these circumstances, you are doing a very good job indeed. From the questions that you ask, the topics you bring up, and your thoughtful discourse you show an understanding of the vastness and importance of the project ahead of you.

Thank you for your involvement and your dedication.

Some highlights

These are some highlights — not all of them.  Read through the article for more of what may interest you.
Click on any item to go directly there.  You may need to scroll up from the video box for the links to work properly.
To return to this highlight menu, use your browser’s “back” key.

1. Opinion
   1. New lows of misdirection and obfuscation
   2. A new word:  Gobbledygook
   3. Alice in Wonderland
2. How to watch this video and read the transcription
3. Public Comment section
4. Quotes from Commissioner Mayer, May 24th (two months earlier) on Form-Based Code and Design
5. Starting:  David Loya
6. Commissioner Tangney:  Where’s the Form-Based Code?
   1. David Loya moves the goalposts — again.  And changes the game.
   2. Opinion:  You’ve got to be kidding, right?  More Gobbledygook?
7. Commission Vice-Chair Davies:  Does conflict of interest prevent us from getting the documents we need?
8. Commissioner Barstow: Are we headed for minimum standards of how things will look?
   
9. Sorrel Place is affordable housing — and it’s poorly designed
10. Commissioner Mayer:  You can’t adopt a plan without having a Code!
11. Commissioner Mayer:  Why not take the time to get it right
12. Commissioner White:  Building Height is the elephant in the room
13. Commissioner Tangney:  Let’s set the bar high on design
14. Commission Chair Vaissade-Elcock:  Community Benefits and Development standards
15. Commissioner Mayer: The community benefits are a questionable trade
16. Commission Chair Vaissade-Elcock:  Is streamlining necessary
17. David Loya interrupts and mischaracterizes what the Chair was talking about.
    The Chair responds:  That’s not what we were saying.
18. Commission Chair Vaissade-Elcock: What if there’s nothing cohesive?
19. Commissioner Mayer:  Why not take the time to get it right
20. Commissioner Figueroa on Stormwater and Stream Daylighting
21. Chapter 9: Design and Architectural Standards.  From the draft Gateway Plan

Opinion

(The following is opinion, but is not displayed in red in this instance.)

Just when I think that the Community Development Director’s comments have hit a new low in terms of misdirection and obfuscation, some new mode of thinking or alteration of normal process is launched — and I am amazed once again.

At this meeting, the Community Development Director has announced that we may not be seeing the full Form-Based Code for another six months — whoops, sorry, that’s not what he said. He said we will see the Code develop over the next six months.  We still don’t know when we’ll see it.

And that he is proposing that the Gateway Plan be recommended, voted on, passed, and implemented — without the Zoning Code in place.  The proposal is that the existing propose draft policies, with modifications from the Committees and the Commission, would be sufficient for new projects to be brought to the City for approval. The codes by which all standards for building height, mass, location, density, design, sidewalks, street design, parks, traffic, parking, affordability, solar shadowing, respect for historic structures, nonconforming uses, approvals, community benefits, emphasis on student housing, re-housing displaced residents, bike paths, trails, the proposed L and K Street Couplet — shall I go on? — would be absent, yet the City Council could still pass the Gateway Plan?

I now have a new word: 

 

Gobbledygook.

When I first read the December 2021 draft Gateway plan, I wanted to come up with a “nice” or kind word to describe what I was seeing.  I came up with the word “disingenous” — coincidentally the same word that Dr. Andrea Tuttle came up with. (See her letter here.) As a definition, “A disingenuous remark might contain some superficial truth, but it is delivered with the intent to deceive or to serve some hidden purpose.”  

As I became more involved with researching and following the Gateway process, my choice of words evolved also. I then moved on to “misrepresentational” and “misleading.”  I tried out the phrase “that doesn’t answer the question” for a while, and also “that answers a question, but not the question that was asked.” Maybe “misstated” could work sometimes, though that’s not nearly strong enough for what I was reading and hearing.  Finally I ventured toward “falsehoods” knowing that ethically I would want to be very certain before using that word.

I now have a new word

David Loya:

 

“The way that we’ve got it scheduled, that the EIR for this work and General Plan amendments will be adopted first, then the policy will be adopted, and then we’ll initiate formal hearings.

 

So you’ll be seeing some of the work as we’re developing it over the course of the next six months, but you won’t formally see it in public hearing until after this is all adopted.”

I now have a new word:  Gobbledygook.
As in:  “Language that is meaningless or is made unintelligible by excessive use of abstruse technical terms; nonsense.”

From my point of view, when the Community Development Director told the Planning Commission at this meeting that the new process he’s proposing is:

“The way that we’ve got it scheduled, that the EIR for this work and General Plan amendments will be adopted first, then the policy will be adopted, and then we’ll initiate formal hearings. So you’ll be seeing some of the work as we’re developing it over the course of the next six months, but you won’t formally see it in public hearing until after this is all adopted.”

When it’s suggested that a policy is adopted, and the Code by which those policies are defined and made real are not yet established…
I call that Gobbledygook.  In my view, it’s nothing more than nonsense.

Am I the only one who is reminded of Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland?
In that book, everything seems to happen either just in time or suddenly. And we’re being asked to anticipate the effects of results — from decisive matters which have yet to even be scheduled.

‘It’s a poor sort of memory that only works backwards,’ the Queen remarked.

‘What sort of things do you remember best?’ Alice ventured to ask.

‘Oh, things that happened the week after next,’ the Queen replied in a careless tone. ‘For instance, now,’ she went on, sticking a large piece of plaster on her finger as she spoke, ‘there’s the King’s Messenger. He’s in prison now, being punished: and the trial doesn’t even begin till next Wednesday: and of course the crime comes last of all.’

‘Suppose he never commits the crime?’ said Alice.

‘That would be all the better, wouldn’t it?’ the Queen said.

And of course the more famous line about believing impossible things:

‘I can’t believe that!’ said Alice.

‘Can’t you?’ the Queen said in a pitying tone. ‘Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes.’

Alice laughed. ‘There’s no use trying,’ she said ‘one can’t believe impossible things.’

‘I daresay you haven’t had much practice,’ said the Queen. ‘When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.’

And just like Alice’s attempts to explain to the Queen:   ‘I can’t remember things before they happen.’ 

 

Commissioner Mayer:

 

“The policy of streamlined by-right approval of development projects that conform to architectural standards and meet other requirements from Page 11 today implies that we know what those requirements are.”

Commissioner Judith Mayer understood the significance of the Community Development Director’s words. She responded:

“So you’re basically saying that you’re hoping that the Gateway plan and presumably the General Plan Update would be adopted and the EIR Complete — before the Form-Based Code would be before the Planning Commission or the City Council?”

and later she spoke:

“However, without the details of the Form-Based Code that it envisions there is no way that either the Planning Commission or the City Council can responsibly rely on ministerial approval for specific projects, especially large projects or projects of a fairly unprecedented nature in Arcata.”

And just like Alice’s attempts to explain to the Queen:   ‘I can’t remember things before they happen.’ 

“The policy of streamlined by-right approval of development projects that conform to architectural standards and meet other requirements from Page 11 today implies that we know what those requirements are.”

and:

“And so if we do go ahead with this process, I would expect that neither the Planning Commission nor the City Council adopt any kind of streamlined or ministerial approval policy until we have specified the details of the codes that would be ministerially approved.”

And there’s more.  This attempted usurping of the Planning Commission members’ good sense has been a steady, regular theme.
You can watch or read the Planning Commission meetings of May 24 and June 14 for more disagreement and contention between the Commission and the Community Development Director.  

I enjoy and appreciate when the Commissioners ask questions. Sometimes the most simple and innocent question can open up a whole deep area that previously was murky or undisclosed. I’m aware that Commissioner Mayer may do most of the speaking among you, but the questions posed by Commissioners Tangney, White, Figueroa, Barstow, Chair Vaissade-Elcock and new Vice-Chair Davies have over these months opened many avenues by shining light in areas that otherwise might have been passed by. And you can be sure that if a Planning Commissioner has doubts about what’s going on, then we — the public –certainly can’t be sure about things either. Commissioners:  Your questions and your comments improve our understanding.

I believe that the wisdom of the Planning Commissioners will prevail. Both the actual experiential and academic wisdom and also the intuitive and need-for-fairness wisdom and just good sense — all of who you are come into play here.

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 two-and-a-half hours long.
The video can be viewed here, or if you want can be seen on YouTube, link here.

The transcription can be read in less time.  You can change the playback speed on the video. 

By skimming for highlights, 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 the full 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. (Occasionally there is a highlight in red.) The comments and opinions are those of the author and are not presented as fact, but as opinion.

Planning Commission meeting — July 26, 2022

The “Consider the Gateway Area Plan with Emphasis on the Design Chapter” starts with the Staff Report, at 33:29 on the video. 
The Commissioners’ discussion following the Staff report is bellow, after the Public comment section — it did occur prior to the Public Comment, but in this article I chose to include the Public Comment first.  What Jane Woodward and Colin Fiske are referring to will become clear after you read Community Director David Loya’s comments, at about 38:13 on the video, with the transcription below.

The Public Comments section of this agenda item starts at 42:33.  The speakers were:

• Jim Becker: 42:40  Solar shadowing, bulk and massing.  Requests a clear timeline for the solar shadowing and 3D representation. “Unfortunately, on July 18 at the Energy Committee meeting, their Gateway plan template included language at the bottom that the Committee will not wait for the solar shadowing studies to make recommendations on solar shadowing. Solar shadowing studies were promised to be have been done in this. And this has now been dismissed by Staff by one of the most qualified committees to interpret them.”
• Chris Richards:  44:53  Recommends GA-9p which covers minimizing the impact of buildings on adjacent single-family homes. Notes that GA-9s, which specifies that there be minimal vehicle parking, requires more find tuning if it is going to work.
• Fred Weis: 47:53  Relative to the Design and Form-Based Code process: “I think that you’re at the beginning of a long path.” Pointed out the 6-story building design on Arcata1.com.  Dstricts: Currently there are 4 districts, suggestion for 2 or 3 others, including one for the Creamery District.  Quoted Commissioner Judith Mayer from the May 24th meeting. (Full quote below.) “I spent hours a day reading this stuff, and I really don’t understand what you’re doing.”
• Patricia Cambianica: 50:36 The community is requesting three or four story maximum height.  Upper-floor setbacks should start at three stories. She said she expected there to be some single-family construction in the Gateway area infill, but that is not the case. Buildings set back from the street and with upper-story setbacks can help with solar shadowing.
• Gregory Daggett: 52:54  “Why wasn’t an architect brought in right off the bat that would support this project? What will give you some rough ideas of what it might look like, not in any detail. And that didn’t seem to be done. I also talked to the architects in the community and they felt similar thoughts to me, that it was a little bit of a strange process.” “This notion of the cars are going to be parked on the street is is really a crazy one. From the standpoint of — you ask anyone that lives in any of those buildings, they would basically say they want parking below their building. They want it because some people are disabled, some people are elderly, the weather… it’s going to be a disaster if you’re going to tell me that for all this high density, the people are going to park on the streets. They’re going to be unhappy.” “The way I look at it, if something can’t be done about the traffic, [Staff] are saying that people are not going to have cars. I disagree with that. They’re going to have cars — we’re in an isolated area. So there’s some big problems that are revolving around that that really need to be explained.”
• Jane Woodard:  56:14  “I have to admit, I was rather appalled by what David just said. Because I think it’s totally inappropriate. I don’t understand. I mean, I do understand what the conflict of interests are. That means the two of the City Council members can’t vote on this project, and that only leaves three. But three is enough. And to have to withhold this zoning code until you already vote on it [the Gateway Plan] is a huge problem. The minute you vote on this plan, it goes into effect. If you don’t have those standards in place, then a developer can come in and you can’t stop them because you don’t have your objective standards in place. They certainly haven’t been published, they haven’t been approved, you had better not approve these proposals, these plans. Stick with the Gateway Plan until you have those code standards in front of you and approved.”
• Colin Fiske:  59:39  “I think that it’s rational and, in fact, fairly standard to review and approve the General Plan of which this will be a part before reviewing and approving the zoning code which implements it. That makes sense to me. And I’m not really sure what the objection to that is.  You need to sort of have your guiding principles before you have your implementing plan.”
• Matt Simmons:  1:01:40  “I’ve talked to some of my fellow renters about this plan. And they’re excited to have more options to live and especially options that are walkable and within, you know, that they can walk to restaurants and shopping and sort of enjoy it. And a lot of them are getting priced out of their apartments right now. And I think they would love to see this plan come to fruition as soon as possible.”

Quotes from Commissioner Mayer on Form-Based Code and Design

Read by Fred Weis as part of the public comment.

49:40
I’m going to read from the Planning Commission meeting of May 24th, two months ago.  

[Note:  The full text of Commissioner Mayer and Director Loya’s interchange can be found in the article on the May 24th Planning Commission meeting – click here and you’ll be placed at the start of where Commissioner Mayer speaks.]

Vice-Chair Judith Mayer said:

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.

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.

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?

[Note:  We did not know then on May 24th, as we do know now, that the at that time long-awaited Form-Based Code had not even been started.  There is no date at all when this absolutely necessary component of the Gateway plan will be available for inspection, comment, and review by the Planning Commission.]

[Note:  At the May 24th Planning Commission meeting, the quote from Commission Vice-Chair Judith Mayer (2:33:36 in the video) was followed with “What was your vision for what those Design sessions would be?”

To which David Loya responded – this is a direct quote:
“I cannot commit at this point to having a form-based code or having any components of that.”

He went on with what I regard as fabricated excuses.

“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.”

I haven’t heard anything about us not wanting a Form-Based Code, or that our community “doesn’t want one…”  There has been NO public discourse or comments against having at Form-Based Code. Not at all — and quite the contrary. I have heard only that we are looking forward to seeing a Form-Based Code.]  

Planning Commission meeting — July 26, 2022

David Loya 

35:01
And turning to the subject matter proper, you know, draw your attention to the excerpted design and architectural standards chapter starting on packet page 10. And this document goes through these different sorts of high-level areas of basic principles — block length and layout in case there are subdivisions, building placement, setbacks, bulk and massing, vehicle access and parking, façade and roof design. Now, these are obviously as policies a lot higher level than I think people are interested in digging into detail around — you know, what is the future of Arcata going to look like? This gives sort of a broad vision for what those design standards that would be incorporated into any Form-Based Code would look like. And so that’s the level that we can focus at. At this point, I do want to let the Commission and the community know that we are also getting ready to roll out the second piece of the Form-Based Code design work that we’ll be doing with the community, and we’ve got planned in the next couple of weeks, I will be rolling out. Date to be determined yet. The second engagement piece to that where we’ll be digging into a lot of these concepts — massing, scale, setback, orientation on the parcel, all of those kinds of issues that were discussed in the first Form-Based Code presentation that Ben Noble, our consultant provided for us.

[Note:  These issues were “discussed” at the June 29 Ben Noble presentation in the sense that Ben Noble spoke to these issues.  They were not “discussed” in the sense that these issues were discussed with the community.]

Commissioner Dan Tangney 

36:31
David may ask, you say roll those out, does that mean in this setting? [i.e. at a Planning Commission meeting]  Or is there community engagement or both?

David Loya 

36:39
Yeah, thanks for that. There will be both. It’ll be, again, community engagement, that’s about a two hour long virtual meeting, we’ll have those recorded on our website. And the hope is that the Planning Commission will either you know be able to attend those meetings so that they can hear firsthand or be able to watch those meetings afterwards and come in armed with the knowledge that comes from those meetings. And then we’ll have a scaled-down conversation around that in this forum. [i.e. at a Planning Commission meeting]  

In addition, I believe that at least one of the topics for the joint study session is going to be around these design topics as well. And you’ll be getting a lot of design over the next couple of months, both in this setting and other settings, as well as the public. And with that I’d be happy to answer any questions that you may have about the specific policies. And then I suggest you open it to public comment, and then come back for deliberations. I’d be happy to take any recommendations.

Commission Chair Julie Vaissade-Elcock 

37:47
Do we have any quick questions before we open this to the public? And then we’ll come back and get deep into it.

Commissioner Dan Tangney 

37:54
Yeah. Can I ask quick one? There’s reference in here to the design concepts described in this chapter are implemented through the Gateway Zoning Code. Sorry, is that in process? Is that something that we’re going to see long before the Gateway is through? Or?

David Loya 

38:13
Yeah, so again, the Zoning Code that’s associated with this for a couple of different reasons has been broken apart from the policy work. And so there’s a number of reasons that we’ve cited, including potential conflicts of interest and trying to sort through those, whereas the higher-level document may be able to resolve some of those conflicts instead of the zoning. There’s the fact that because of the public discourse around the Form-Based Code, the need to ensure that we’ve got enough input on that. And then also the work-product that we were anticipating seeing earlier in this process just wasn’t available and ready. And it was decided that it was much better to get it right than to get it fast. And so for all of those reasons, we’ll be bringing that back based on these principles that we adopt, we’ll be bringing back the zoning code, and that will have its own independent public engagement process as well.

Commissioner Dan Tangney on when we might see the Form-Based Code:

 

Do you have any time sense of that?

 

 

 

David Loya:

 

Yeah, my hope is that we’re going to start seeing the beginnings of it.

 

Again, this design work that we’re doing with the community is the first phase of that, and then we’ll see that develop over the course of the next six or so months.

Commissioner Dan Tangney 

39:23
Do you have any time sense of that?

David Loya 

39:26
Yeah, my hope is that we’re going to start seeing the beginnings of it. Again, this design work that we’re doing with the community is the first phase of that, and then we’ll see that develop over the course of the next six or so months.

The way that we’ve got it scheduled, that the EIR for this work and General Plan amendments will be adopted first, then the policy will be adopted, and then we’ll initiate formal hearings. So you’ll be seeing some of the work as we’re developing it over the course of the next six months, but you won’t formally see it in public hearing until after this is all adopted.

Commissioner Dan Tangney

40:05
Okay, thank you.

Commission Vice-Chair Judith Mayer :

 

So you’re basically saying that you’re hoping that the Gateway plan and presumably the General Plan Update would be adopted and the EIR Complete — before the Form-Based Code would be before the Planning Commission or the City Council?

 

 

 

David Loya:

 

Before you see it as a formal approval, like public hearings on it, you’re going to see bits and pieces of it coming to you along the way as they’re ready, as we go through the public process.

 

But the specific detail combined in one complete document — noticed as a public hearing for the Planning Commission to be deliberating, making recommendations to the City Council for adoption — yeah, I don’t I don’t think we’ll be doing that, again, because of some of the concerns around conflicts of interest and trying to separate those in time, those decisions in time that you won’t see those until after. 

 

It’ll be shortly after, we’re not going to have a long period of lag between these two phases, but we want to make sure that they’re clearly distinct in time.

Commission Vice-Chair Judith Mayer 

40:09
So you’re basically saying that you’re hoping that the Gateway plan and presumably the General Plan Update would be adopted and the EIR complete — before the Form-Based Code would be before the Planning Commission or the City Council?

David Loya 

40:33
Before you see it as a formal approval, like public hearings on it, you’re going to see bits and pieces of it coming to you along the way as they’re ready, as we go through the public process. But the specific detail combined in one complete document — noticed as a public hearing for the Planning Commission to be deliberating, making recommendations to the City Council for adoption — yeah, I don’t I don’t think we’ll be doing that, again, because of some of the concerns around conflicts of interest and trying to separate those in time, those decisions in time that you won’t see those until after.  It’ll be shortly after, we’re not going to have a long period of lag between these two phases, but we want to make sure that they’re clearly distinct in time.

Commission Vice-Chair Judith Mayer 

41:23
Okay, and in effect if there’s material that appears in the Gateway zoning code that would require or could require a change in the plan, the plan could at that point be amended — is that correct?

David Loya 

41:46
Yeah, I guess you could say, yes, the simple answer is yes. I think the process answer is that we’re going to base the Code on consistency with this body of policy. I guess if we find something that just is not workable, from the body of policy that we’ve just adopted, then, yeah, we’ll come back and recommend amendments. But theoretically, if we’re on target with the conceptual level — the policy level — that will make sure that the implementation level document is consistent with that.

[Start of this opinion]

There’s too much here to let this pass.

Let’s comment on this.

1. What in the world does a conflict of interest at the City Council level have to do with work that the Community Development Department, the City’s Consultant Planwest, and the Form-Based Code consultant Ben Noble either is doing or is supposed to be doing on the Form-Based Code? 

   “And so there’s a number of reasons that we’ve cited, including potential conflicts of interest and trying to sort through those, whereas the higher-level document may be able to resolve some of those conflicts instead of the zoning.”

   What possible conflicts of interest must Staff “sort through” and how could “the higher-level document” — meaning the design principles, as outlined in the draft plan here, in any way “be able to resolve some of those conflicts” — and resolve it “instead of the zoning.”  Resolve the supposed conflicts of interest, i.e. of Alex Stillman?  

   If by “conflicts of interest” David Loya is referring to whether the new City Councilmember Alex Stillman will will not be able to participate and potentially vote on Gateway plan matters — meaning whether there would be only three City Councilmembers who’d be voting on the Gateway plan. Are there some other conflicts of interest that we do not know about? What on earth does that have to do with the process of when the Zoning Code (the Form-Based Code) is delivered to the Planning Commission?  How can a Gateway Plan possibly be approved without the Zoning Code that it takes to implement it?

2. “And then also the work-product that we’re anticipating seeing earlier in this process just wasn’t available and ready.”
   What work-product is that — that was not ready, and thus is delaying the Form-Based Code development.
3. “There’s the fact that because of the public discourse around the Form-Based Code, the need to ensure that we’ve got enough input on that.”  What public discourse around the Form-Based Code.  Have you heard any public discourse?  I haven’t heard any. David Loya has stated this in the past, and, frankly, I simply do not accept it.
   1. 1. June 14: “The community has been asking the question, do we need a Form-Based Code.” 
      2. May 24: “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….” 
      3. At the City Council, June 22:  “Pretty shortly after the the reports were released, there were significant questions in the community, significant questions by the Planning Commission, whether we were doing a Specific Plan, are we really doing a Form-Based Code”

         Is this true?  Has the community indeed been asking do we need a Form-Based Code? I don’t think I’ve heard of a single person who isn’t excited about the prospect of a Form-Based Code.  Unless I am very much mistaken, there’s been no public discourse with the Planning Commission about any doubt for the desire of a Form-Based Code. There has never been any question about whether or not we’re doing a Form-Based Code. 

4. “And it was decided that it was much better to get it right than to get it fast.”
   At the June 22nd City Council meeting, the Community Development Director told the Council about the situation — as it was expressed then — about the Form-Based Code.  I spoke to this at the June 28th Planning Commission meeting.

   “And so I asked our consultant, I said this in many public settings, we asked our consultant to tap the brakes on some of these work products. If they produce a draft Form-Based Code, that’s money that I can’t spend on some other document, if ultimately, the Planning Commission and City Council direct staff to not do a Form-Based Code. I don’t want to have already spent that money. So instead of bringing the Form-Base Code and the Gateway Plan out at the same time, as was originally envisioned, you know, we were re-tooling the approach to try and be responsive and sensitive to public engagement that we were experiencing.”

   The trouble with this attitude is that it doesn’t make any logical sense.  Seeing as the Form-Based Code was contracted to come out with the December 2021 draft plan — and did not — it seems that the consultant was asked to “tap the brakes” some time PRIOR to November 2021.  So what we are hearing is that the consultant was asked to halt the Form-Based Code in anticipation of the Planning Commission and/or the City Council possibly making the decision to not want a Form-Based Code… at some point in July, August, September of 2022?  And the Planning Commission or City Council would decide that it wasn’t wanted … before even seeing it?
   

5. On when we might see the Form-Based Code, Commissioner Dan Tangney asked: “Do you have any time sense of that?”
   The response from the Community Development Director:  “Yeah, my hope is that we’re going to start seeing the beginnings of it.”
   Um — is that considered to be an answer?

   Please be aware that the June 29th Ben Noble presentation on Form-Based Code (read and hear it here) is spoken of as the first piece of the Form-Based design work, and planned “in the next couple of weeks” is “the second piece of Form-Based Code design work” — a community engagement, a two-hour-long virtual meeting.
   I do not consider either of these to be pieces of design work.  

6. “In addition, I believe that at least one of the topics for the joint study session is going to be around these design topics as well.”
   I doubt it.  There will be plenty on the agenda at that joint study session. A discussion about building height — yes.  Discussion about other design topics?  I don’t think so.
7. Crucially important:
   Back to the line from the Community Development Director:
   “Yeah, my hope is that we’re going to start seeing the beginnings of it. Again, this design work that we’re doing with the community is the first phase of that, and then we’ll see that develop over the course of the next six or so months.”

   We will note that he does not say that we will SEE the code in the next six months or so.  He says that we will see it DEVELOP over the next six months or so. 

There is no indication whatsoever when this “development” process will end,
or what results we might get.  None.

End of this opinion.

“And so I asked our consultant, I said this in many public settings, we asked our consultant to tap the brakes on some of these work products.

If they produce a draft Form-Based Code, that’s money that I can’t spend on some other document, if ultimately, the Planning Commission and City Council direct staff to not do a Form-Based Code.

I don’t want to have already spent that money.”

[Next: Commissioner Davies apparently recognizes that City Council conflicts of interest should not affect the Planning Commissioners’ ability to receive documents.]

Commissioner Scott Davies

How does conflict of interest affect us from getting the documents we need?
1:03:23
David, I would just like to echo some of the concerns expressed in the comments. And I’m wondering if there’s a process route so that the Planning Commission and our deliberations don’t end up feeling hamstrung by the conflict of interest issues with the City Council?

David Loya 

1:03:43
Yeah, I don’t know why your deliberations should should feel hamstrung at all. I think at this point you should all participate freely. The city attorney is working on a memo to all the decision makers that may be affected by conflicts of interest, with some guidance for for each of you to assess your your own situations.  . . .  And so, you know, without going into a lot of detail and getting way over my head in terms of the legal thresholds for different types of conflicts of interest, what I will tell you is that we’ve internally as a staff, developed this process for bringing the documents to you that you all can participate in. . . . And then we’re going to have to navigate the zoning implementation, you know, to to make sure that we don’t have to make sure we don’t have a conflict that negates a quorum or a majority of the body from from participating.

Commissioner Scott Davies 

1:06:15
But, but is it so in that world, it’s not a situation where we are not going to get all the documents we need to make a decision because there are people who are conflicted in some fashion?

David Loya 

1:06:31
No, absolutely not. If if any member is conflicted on a particular item, they would then have to recuse himself from that part of the discussion. But all of the documents will be seen by at least a majority of the body.

Commissioner John Barstow

Are we headed for minimum standards of how things will look?
We’re really going to have to be very careful when we develop the Form-Based Codes.

1:11:55
I’m all for complementary diversity and creativity and project design, which is one of the weaknesses of the form based code process is that? Well, in general, when you set a minimum standard for how something should be, what you typically get is the minimum standard. So project developers look at the minimum standard, and say, Oh, I have to do this, I don’t have to do anything more. And, and that’s what you wind up with, I noticed that the examples that we see of form based codes, the buildings are very nice. But there’s a certain uniformity not just in the given area, but there’s a uniformity of the way the buildings look. And I guess that’s, that’s pretty natural. I mean, if you go all over California and look at, look at buildings, you’ll notice that there’s a lot of the same looks, building the same way. But this is how things have always happened historically, people design in a certain way. And just because that’s what everybody else is doing, and also sometimes required by the available building technologies, materials and techniques of building. So anyhow, when when we get to the point where we actually are working on the the gateway area codes, to implement these policies, and that’s where we have to, we’ll have to be really, really careful about making sure that it’s what we want. My past experience on design review is you can write you know, make a list of design criteria that sound very good. And the builders look at it, and pare it down to the bare minimum. And you don’t get what you what you thought you were talking about. And, you know, that’s aside from not expressing it correctly in the first place. So this, what we’re doing now, I think, is the easy part. And when we get to down to the nitty gritty of doing the actual Form-Based Codes, that’s when we’re really going to have to be very careful about what we what we specify.

David Loya 

1:15:06
Yeah, I think you’ve made some really important points around the difficulties of creating design guidelines. And I do think that the form that you provide a framework within which you’re hoping that, at least, many of the buildings that the architects that are working on them will have a sense of creativity to fill in that form, with a design that really reflects their imagination and that we’ll get some really high-quality designs. But to the point that was made earlier about by one of the public members in open communications, or early oral communications, you can also out-price your buildings by requiring that they have every amenity and the most fantastic design. Unfortunately to the people who are living in Sorrel Place, that that project has been used as a foil, you know, by people making different points of view. And I’m going to admit, I’m about to use it as a foil again. You know, I personally think that the design of that building is fine. There are some elements of it that I really like, in fact, I can understand why other people don’t like that design. It’s kind of a no-frills building. It just is. It’s plain, and I can see the critique that, hey, that building could be anywhere, you know, it could be anywhere, California doesn’t reflect Arcata. It certainly is not a Victorian. The plain design, the simple construction method has afforded 44 housing units in our community, two and three bedroom housing units for low income families. Many of those families would be homeless if not for that project, because the project targets 30% area median income. And so I do think that it’s going to be important for us to, as we develop this Form-Based Code — not only think about how the buildings look and what are aesthetics, whether they’re pleased or not — nut where it’s important to highlight important design features that are really appealing to our aesthetics. And where it’s important to emphasize the affordability of the buildings that are being built there and accept designs that are maybe less frilly, less well-amenitied, and still accomplish one of our core goals, which is you know, housing people. So that is going to be a challenge.

Sorrel Place is affordable housing — and it’s also poorly designed

[Opinion:  Let’s get a few things straight.  I was the public member who brought up the Santa Cruz design that would likely be over-priced by Arcata rental standards. As I stated, I put it on the Arcata1.com website (here) so we can see its design features. As all the Planning Commissioners know, a building can be built economically and have good design, and an expensive building can conversely have have bad design. Just because a building is intended for low-income residents does not mean that those people should not have good design and human-oriented amenities.

You can like or dislike the exterior styling of Sorrel Place.  Putting exterior aesthetics aside, it is a poorly designed building. The cost of the building are not an excuse for the lower standard of design.

Santa Cruz Front Street design:  170 units 185 bedrooms. 172 parking spaces with the car stacker — if no stacker, then ~90-100, or about 1 car for 2 bedrooms.  (Apartments likely to be occupied by driver-age persons.) 21,000 sq.ft. of private open space — over 110 sq.ft. per bedroom, including 5,000 sq.ft. of roof deck and roof garden.

Sorrel Place design:  44 units, 83 bedrooms. Minimal-by-code parking of one-third the number of units, 15 spaces, or 1 car space for each 3 apartments. (More likely to have non-driver residents in a family-oriented apartments.) The private open space consists of each apartments balconies, which measure out to be a minimal 5 feet by 8 feet for a 1-bedroom apartment, a pleasant 12′ x 12′ for two-bedroom units, and a hard-to-believe-how-tiny 6-1/2 x 10 feet outside balcony for all the residents of a three-bedroom unit. That is their private open space. The bicycle storage for the whole building consists of 24 bike stalls located on the 4th floor. What good architect would ever put bicycle storage on the FOURTH FLOOR, except as an afterthought? (The elevator is down 50 feet of hallway and passes the doors to two apartments.)  To walk into the en suite master bedroom, the passage door opens to face what looks to be a door-less 4-1/2 x 7 walk-in closet, and then the resident turns to enter a 9 foot x 9 foot master bedroom, with a window at the far end.  Let’s face it —  a nine-foot-square bedroom is pretty minimal. Can you put a queen bed in a 9 x 9 bedroom. Sure you can!  See the image below. The other two bedrooms are a more reasonable 10 or 11 feet x 13 feet. There’s no hall closet, no place to store shoes, coats, boots — perhaps right on the left when a person walks in the door, though that’s kind of in the way.  The three-bedroom apartments are over 1100 square feet, the size of a smaller house, yet the feel — based on the design — is of a constricted apartment.

Look at the Kitchen and the Living Room.  Where does the couch go?  Where does the eating table go?  The placement of windows and doors breaks up the space and necessitates open walking paths. Where would the television be?  Where do people (of all ages) relax, or do homework, or play?  What’s usable about that patio when a person has some potted plants and a chair or two? It is bad design.

This is bad design that no person should have to live with, absolutely regardless of income.  The architect is DG Group in Eagle, Idaho.  They should be banned from our city.  The builder, Danco, needs a strong slap (somewhere) and an admonition to never again build something as poor as this in Arcata again. 

Sunny Brae is chock-full of 850- to 990-square-foot three-bedroom, one-bath homes built as part of the post-WWII housing boom in Arcata, built around 1952-1956, I think. They have typical post-war design benefits and issues, and are decidedly “non-modern” in features — a single wall heater, no dishwasher, a single tiny (5 x 7) bathroom.  In their under 1000 square feet they accomplish more than Sorrel Place’s 1100, and far more human-friendly.

This building does not benefit the people of Arcata. It could have been designed and built far better.  Good design does not necessarily cost more — or not much more — to build.

Commission Vice-Chair Judith Mayer 

1:17:58
Okay, thank you. First, I guess some general comments and some responses also to some of the members of the public who have spoken up online and in person.

I see that the policies of this section of the draft Gateway Area Plan for the most part actually represent best planning practices in America today. 

Commissioner Judith Mayer:

 

And so if we do go ahead with this process, I would expect that neither the Planning Commission nor the City Council adopt any kind of streamlined or ministerial approval policy until we have specified the details of the codes that would be ministerially approved.

[Note:  Page 11 of the Planning Commission agenda packet is Page 95 of the December draft Gateway plan. This is the chapter “Policy Chapter 9: Design and Architectural Standards – Regulatory Framework for Design Standards.”]

And so if we do go ahead with this process, I would expect that neither the Planning Commission nor the City Council adopt any kind of streamlined or ministerial approval policy until we have specified the details of the codes that would be ministerially approved.

And legally there’s, you know, some rationale behind that too. Because until the new codes are duly adopted, the existing zoning policies would apply in that area — I think.  And in some cases those zoning policies would be diametrically opposed to the policies that the Gateway plan is expressing relative, particularly, to land use density and those things.

So I think that there’s a danger in adopting a set of policies that relies on specific design criteria with a huge long gap between them.

Commission Vice-Chair Judith Mayer 

1:20:48 (continued)
Nevertheless, the policies themselves, for the most part are pretty sound.
That said, I do have a few details. I do have a few details.

Okay. First, I wanted to address not necessarily the policies and the principles, but some of the background material in the Overview. And I know that oftentimes that’s something that we just expect consultants and staff will just work on and the Planning Commission will kind of ignore it. But in this case there are a couple of features which I think really deserve to be mentioned in that Background and Overview section.

The first has to do with the styles of construction and the building technologies that have been used in the Gateway area in the past, and issues that design would have to address in the future. The first of those has to do with the high groundwater table in the area. Something that in the southern-most portion of the Gateway is not going to get better over time — it’s going to get worse with Sea Level Rise.

The second is that I think there needs to be some mention of the possibility that some of these sites may actually still have some industrial contamination with them. And if the City does wish to in any way streamline approval for especially residential structures, I think there needs to be some mention of that in the Background and some policy indicating that the City will do what it takes to make those sites developable in the ways that it hopes private developers will take them up on. So that stuff from the Background, but I think that it’s also going to affect Architecture and Design in that area going forward.

Let’s see, you mentioned the basic principles. I feel strongly that if we’re creating a plan that’s going to take us through, possibly 2045 (when I will be a very, very old person, if I’m here at all) that we need to expect that planning standards — what we expect of a good building, a good neighborhood, a livable community — are actually going to improve in the broader scene over time. And so I would caution us against providing rewards for any developer or any property owner that designs a building or a development to standards that we really ought to expect all buildings and all developments to adopt. And so any standard with regard to bargaining for a community amenity in return for things that will profit the developer or increase density I think has to be written in a way that can be easily upgraded as our general expectations are improved. And I think that that should actually be written into policy in this section, in our basic principles, and that that should be added as a specific basic principle in the GA-9 policy list. [Note: “GA-9 Policy list” are the Design and Architectural “Design Standards Policies” in Chapter 9 of the December draft plan.] 

I think that all of those policies about block length layout setbacks are good. I think that it’s really important that any issues with regard to block length and passages between recognize that some developments may actually encompass an entire block, and that those passageways must be public, and, frankly, ideally dedicated to the city rather than controlled solely by the developer.

As far as the placement of buildings goes, I think that a focus on greenscaping is very much missing from this set of policies in that GA section. It’s really important to ensure that the area between the street and a building is not entirely paved over all up and down, for example, K or L Street, and to incorporate greenscaping within that streetscape. Not as a community amenity for which you can bargain for something the developer wants, but as a set of basic design and landscaping standards. And that we actually do better in that area than we have in the rest of the city rather than simply overlook that. And, I don’t know, maybe Dan has some words to say that it’s — you’re the one with the street trees, usually.

I really appreciated the comment from the public about the bulk and massing and shading. And I would hope that whatever we do here will benefit from the recommendations of the Committees that have a very close focus on solar shading, not just for photovoltaics but also so that people can see the sky and see long vistas.

Okay, many Form-Based Codes actually specified down to the street corner level where long vistas are to be preserved and where visual continuity is to be required. And I don’t think we should do any less in the Form-Based Code. And I think that that has to be expressed as one of the GA-9 policies, probably in the bulk and massing and rooflines section.

Parking. I agree with everyone that parking lots on the street in this area would be a bad thing. But shoving all the parking to the middle of the block will require visual screening for residents in those buildings as well. Half of the residents in those buildings are going to be looking at that parking rather than at the other side of the street. And it seems that regardless of what income level they’re expected to come from, they deserve not to have a view of cars and cars and cars. And so some standards for screening not just from the public street, but from residents’ views as well could appear as both a policy and part of a later Form-Based Code.

And the 360-degree orientation for design is terrific. Why would we want anything less?

And finally, I think cycle parking is something that the City should take care of. And should designate locations for cycle parking and preferably build it itself rather than relying only on private developers to provide it.

Later in the meeting:

Commission Vice-Chair Judith Mayer 

Commissioner Judith Mayer:

 

Why can’t we just say what we want, which would take a little more time, it would take more resources at the planning stage, and put it out there.

 

And if then we’re going to expect to have to stick by what we put in our thoughtful code, we’ll at least know what the code is when we adopt it.

1:54:27
You mentioned that you don’t think we have the capacity, the resources, to do a block-by-block specific type of design guideline. What resources would it take to do it that way? And the reason I’m asking is because the Form-Based Codes and development plans that you’ve brought forth yourself is exemplary — and have done it that way.

[Note:  Commissioner Mayer is likely referring the Form-Based Code of Redwood City, available on the Arcata1.com here and here.]

And 138 acres is not an enormous area. It does seem as though in that area, in a small town like ours, that we can say explicitly what we’d like to see. Obviously we have to base that on what someone might be willing to build and what the property owners might want to have happen. And put that out there without then having to trade off another story here for a piece of publicly-accessible land there.

Why can’t we just say what we want, which would take a little more time, it would take more resources at the planning stage, and put it out there. And if then we’re going to expect to have to stick by what we put in our thoughtful code, we’ll at least know what the code is when we adopt it.

David Loya

1:56:12
Yeah, I guess I would answer that start by reflecting by starting on reflecting on the land use code. Right now we have zoning districts, each of those zoning districts have real broad parameters for design, basic setbacks, building height, floor area ratio, and this sort of thing. You know, scaling up from that, you know, and get moving into Form-Based Code territory, I think we’re going to have a lot more definition. I don’t think it’s going to be parcel by parcel design standards. I think that we’ll have a lot more definition, we’ll have, you know, categories, for example, you know, treatment within the corridor, you know, in the corridor along K Street, the intent is that that’s more of a commercial corridor. And so you’ll have treatments that could happen midblock and treatments that you’d want to see on corners, for example, so you can get into a level of detail that I think is going to get us far enough along to really understanding how things will develop.

[Note:  Corner and mid-block design specifications are a very standard part of generic Form-Based Code.  The trouble, as Commissioner Mayer knows, is that a corner treatment that might work well on one parcel might be very inappropriate on a different parcel.  She is asking about having much finer distinctions, from one block to another.]

Will every parcel have a shading analysis based on the maximum build out allowed on that parcel? I don’t think that’s reasonable to expect. But I think we can get a good sense for how, existing buildings would be impacted and future buildings would be impacted by those design guidelines. So I think we’re going to get a long way with what we’ve got. And I guess this is a little esoteric of a conversation at this point.

But I wouldn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good, I guess, is my suggestion here.

[Opinion:  She is not asking for “perfect.”  What she is asking for is “good”… or very good. What she is asking for is what other cities have in their Form-Based Code.  They have it because they feel it results in better results.  They took the time to include it. Why can’t we?]

We do not have grant resources. Right now, we don’t have general fund resources right now committed to that work. If we adopt this plan, it’s going to be pretty darn good, it’s going to be a heck of a lot better than the [current] Land Use Code in terms of conveying our design criteria. And if we decide we need to come back and amend it in the future, to make it more refined to give more detail to those sites that didn’t have that level of detail, and we can find the resources to do that. I think that’s what my suggestion would be. But certainly the, you know, Planning Commission and the City Council can have that discussion on the 23rd.  [At the joint study session, on August 23rd, 2022.]

Commissioner Kimberly White 

And I’m wondering, we keep talking about the elephant in the room, it’s still there.

 

Nobody’s put a cap on what we want to see for building heights.

 

And I felt like that’s been a point of dissension.

 

And they feel like — it’s breaking my heart because I see the community being divided.

1:29:58
For me, I’m wondering why — I feel like we need to go back or have a special session for the Community Benefits and Chapter Two. Because I’m feeling like we kind of skipped over that. I mean, I remember we did it, about a year ago, maybe was even longer. And so I personally feel like if we could maybe circle back around and talk a little bit more about these Community Benefits and Development Standards, so that we can better talk about what we’re doing right now, which is the base basic principles and design standards, if that makes any sense.

And I’m wondering, we keep talking about the elephant in the room, it’s still there. Nobody’s put a cap on what we want to see for building heights. And I felt like that’s been a point of dissension. And they feel like — it’s breaking my heart because I see the community being divided. And I think we all want the same thing. And I feel like until we address that it’s really difficult to have that conversation. So I don’t know if that’s something that is feasible, like, yeah. I don’t know, I’m learning.

Commissioner Dan Tangney 

1:31:25
Thank you all for such thoughtful comments. I am a little daunted by this process, I have to say, particularly this phase of this process with Design. And I’m recognizing, I think we all are, that the Gateway is not going to look like Arcata, it’s really going to be different. And thinking about the building — the Sorrel Building or Plaza Point. And I see those types of buildings down South and in different parts of the area that as infill projects, and sometimes they look very similar. I look and think, Well, it’s so much like Plaza Point or something. And I think that we are going to be slightly restricted by some realities of development standards and style and costs, and all these kinds of things.

I super-appreciate Judith’s point about setting the bar high. And I appreciate what David said about the Sorel Project, housing 44 families as a low-income project. And if we over-design it sometimes those projects won’t happen. So anyway, here’s the pickle that we’re all in, or part of it.

There’s the other reality that I’m getting this evening that I didn’t quite recognize is that we’re really looking at just some high-level principles, you know, setbacks and things, and they’re all wonderful. You know, pedestrian designed and human-scaled and things, stuff that’s really easy to be very supportive of. And the photos I see in the packet are places I want to walk and I want to sit and have coffee and such. How do we get from here to there, and as has been described, it’s going to be when we actually start developing code, Form-Based Code or whatever code process unfolds through this. How do we get those details into this project? So that it really does look like some of these very attractive situations.

 And you know, I’m a little confused. And I see that we have Design yet again on our agenda in a couple of weeks, I think and a couple of gaps where we could do some infill meetings on Design, or whatever other topics. And I’m wondering if David, it’s possible that perhaps we do something with one of your planners, you know, walk us through what Form-Based design looks like in the city of Santa Cruz or something if that’s if they have that kind of code? Or some other you know, so we all just go “Oh, I see.” And then that’s the product they got. That’s the building based on those standards. I think we all need to watch something together. Or see some something like that area could look like this if we set the standards. Because I still really don’t know what it’s going to look like. I know what our recent four story building looks like. Like Plaza Point, those are the really the only two big infill projects that we’ve had, aside from the old, kind of two story apartments that are all over town, and we’re sure not going that direction.

So I’m thinking about those two buildings and then some taller versions and I love all the pedestrian access and everything. But if we’re trying to put it in Arcata streamlined, or trying to make it affordable, I just don’t have any sense of where the boundaries lie. What the broad view of what is available to us, over there. Almost everybody in town says that they are excited about infill and think the Gateway project has a lot of merit. Almost every speaker tonight has said something along those lines. But what’s it going to look like?

And as Kimberly said, we still haven’t really addressed the height thing. And that’s a huge part of design, I would think. I don’t know when that discussion is going to get flushed out. So anyway, I guess I’m starting to get repetitive. But if we could have a collective experience about what some other towns have done, or saw some visuals about maybe a walking tour, on some kind of visual of what some other towns are doing. I know that a lot of places, and perhaps there’s some place with a similar economy to ours, perhaps with a little bit of a similar environment. I don’t know if that exists.

I think we have a long ways to go from these very broad principles to coming up with code and we have to do that. I mean, we will be part of that. And that’s what the community wants to know, what’s this going to look like? How big is it going to be? How’s it going to feel? Is it going to stair-step back? I don’t know. And I don’t know how we get from here to there. I mean, we’re touching on it tonight. And a lot of great stuff has been said. But we still have a long ways to go. And it’s a little daunting. And I fully support having those extra meetings, if they can be super-targeted. And take us to a next step of how we get towards this overwhelming kind of design process. I like the idea of Form-Based Code, I don’t think we all understand it very well. And I don’t know how a group like a Planning Commission gets from point A to point B on that. How do we?  Staff support, we have to react to it — but what is it? What’s it look like? Anyway, that’s where I’m at a little doubtful. [word?]

Commission Chair Julie Vaissade-Elcock 

1:37:58
I really think — I really wished that we would have done this Design and Architectural standard chapter with the Community Benefits and Development standard. Because in the Community Benefit and Development standards it really talks about community benefits and what options are in each district. And I just, I almost feel like I couldn’t even really critique this Design and Architecture standard chapter until I did the community benefit standard. So it would be nice if we could come back and have a special meeting or a meeting and do these two together. A lot of people said what I wanted to ask, the streamlining by-right approval will really only work if we have a really solid defined requirements. And I would like to see a minimum and a maximum.  Right now we have it where there’s no maximum, that anybody can build anything they want as long as they have these community benefit and development standards, and I don’t I don’t think that’s what the community wants. I think they do want maximum. I don’t think they just want a free for all.

David Loya 

1:39:18
Are you referring to density?

Commission Chair Julie Vaissade-Elcock 

1:39:24
Yes.

And then I don’t know who came up with these community benefits because some of them are not benefits. I don’t think they’re community benefits. I don’t see how the community will benefit by some of these. That’s why I wish we could go over it all together. Do you want to interrupt me?

Commission Vice-Chair Judith Mayer 

1:39:39
No. I want to make a suggestion for how we could do that. Yeah, perhaps we can put that on the agenda for our next Planning Commission meeting which is still on Design. Do both and to focus on community benefits in a fair amount of detail. There’s only so much detail we can go into without the details of a draft Form-Based Code, but perhaps we can start actually addressing what we want to see in that code in that session and dig deep into that whole concept of community benefits in trade for things like density. That’s a whole print set of principles, which is pretty trendy, but which sits on some fairly questionable values.

[Opinion:  I agree! The notion of exchanging favors to the developer for items of “community benefit” – which they really should be offering anyway – is something I am very skeptical of.  David Loya has said multiple times: If the developer can save hundreds of thousands of dollars in development costs, then the developer can put that money back into the community, in the form of amenities that benefit the community.  Really?  I’d say it’s a very rare developer who does much more than just what’s required. To put it another way: Yes, let’s actively look for and locate those developers who go out of their way for the community.  Look at what happened with the 320-unit McKay subdivision in Cutten, approved in March 2022.  Third District Supervisor Mike Wilson asked only for underground conduits be put in for future electric-vehicle charging stations – and that simple request was refused by the developer, Kurt Kramer.]

And I think that as a Commission, we need to get into that. So yeah, so doing the Design, which is already on our schedule, in conjunction with talking clearly about the community benefits — proposals as proposals, rather than as a draft that we say yes or no to — I think needs to happen, and ideally before the study session with City Council.

Commission Chair Julie Vaissade-Elcock 

1:41:01
Yes, let’s do that. And then also some other things that I just wrote down. I was reading this 15 times, I actually don’t understand everything in here, it seems. Because on one hand, in this chapter it talks about design, diversity and cohesive identity. And then on the next page, it talks, basically, about fast-tracking and kind of a free for all for developers. And I don’t understand how we won’t end up with two developers who do buildings — two exact same things across the street from each other, and both are going to be allowed, there just needs to be some safeguards in here, I just don’t understand how in reality, it will work the way we want it to. So there needs to be some safeguards. And then again, it talks about pedestrian-friendly, being pedestrian-friendly, and then the next page is allowing massive buildings, you know, built right up to the property line. And that’s not pedestrian-friendly. So it’s, there’s some conflicts in here that I think need to be worked out. And then I also found it sad, that we’re being asked to streamline developers to come in and build these huge, massive buildings. But, you know, the couple down the street who want to convert their garage, they’re put through the wringer. And I don’t see the equity in that. I just don’t understand. There’s too many conflicts in there.

David Loya 

1:42:36
Chair, if I might — You had referenced several policies like the section where it says something like there’s a developer free for all? I’m not, I’m not sure where these policies are located. And maybe you could help orient me to, specifically what your concerns are in the language, because there might be saying, right,

Commission Chair Julie Vaissade-Elcock 

1:42:57
Well, you know, we’re talking about, it’s a free for all, you streamline by right, it’s not a free for all, that’s, that’s pushing it, but streamlining by right, you know, approval. And that they can do. I mean, they can build right up to the property line, they can build eight stories, they can do all these kinds of things. And then –

[David Loya interrupts her.]

David Loya 

1:43:17
Can I address a few of the comments, because I think there’s some real misconceptions. And, you know, I apologize for those in advance. But there are several things that the Commissioners have said tonight that sort of tie into a theme.

First, I want to go back to the next Design meeting that is scheduled. The idea is that that Design meeting will happen after, ideally, after the second phase of the community design work that we’re initiating. And so we would bring that back, because we mentioned at the beginning of this meeting, when Dan asked what’s going on with the community design? What exactly is that? So you will have had the benefit of being able to watch the two-hour or participate in the two-hour meeting. And then we’ll come together at the Commission level.

And if we can wrangle our consultant that’s helping us with Form-Base Code, he’ll be available to answer questions and I think we can incorporate some of the ideas that we’ve talked about here tonight, you know, looking at how Form-Based Codes have been implemented in other jurisdictions and tying those to the community amenities. I also want to acknowledge that there’s about as many different varieties of Form-Based Codes as there are jurisdictions. Each one adopts its own, and so you’re going to find good examples and bad examples for sure. And just like with any law or regulation that we publish around design, you’re going to have good representations, good reflections of that and bad reflections of that. I have no doubt so we’ll have you know, hits and misses.

But to take the list of community amenities that is listed as categories. These are categories of community amenities in the code here on page 48, I think you’re referencing Table 6.

And to say that none of these are amenities, I think misses the point a little bit.

 If you read this section, what it’s saying, actually, is that here’s some categories. These are the values that we have that we’re implementing through this Gateway plan, this area plan that takes advantage of the opportunities within the specific area. We have things like rapid production of new housing, high density housing, small units, multi bedroom units for families. Now, if you’re reading this list, and you’re saying to yourself, you know that we can we can get that out of any project. Why are we suggesting that this is an amenity, is because this is just the policy level. And then again, this is just a draft. And so if rapid production of new housing is not an amenity?  If you don’t think that developer who says, Hey, Craig, there’s a crisis in Arcata with housing, and I want to come and develop it –

Commission Chair Julie Vaissade-Elcock 

1:45:59
That’s not what we were saying.

David Loya 

1:46:00
No, I’m just I’m trying to explain the how these community amenities would work. You know, and because I have had some people reflect on me that the list in this table, these are just normal things that come with development. So why are you giving this as an incentive? This is a list of values and ideas around which those amenities could be developed. Those amenities would be included in the Form-Based Code, and they would be above and beyond what you get out of a normal development. There’s nothing that’s going to be in the building code, for example any Title 24 target, that would then qualify as amenity as well. The amenities have to actually go above and beyond.

 The concept here, the way that the streamlining permitting works, is that instead of having a Planning Commission meeting, where the Commission is able to give Nollan-Dolan, you know, nexus and proportionality types of conditions of approval, which limit you to just those things that have nexus and proportionality, you would actually be able to set higher thresholds for these amenities.

And the projects would, because they’re being streamlined instead of going through multiple design changes — Those of you who have been on the Planning Commission long enough have seen this happen multiple times where, you know, we request a design change, the developer comes back multiple times, they would take that those funds instead — I’ll wrap up, Chair.

[David Loya spoke for over 4 minutes.  He stops only when motioned by the Chair to end it.]

[Opinion:  I believe David Loya is misspeaking on this:  “The amenities have to actually go above and beyond the concept here.”  Table 6 is the concept: LEED construction, creek daylighting, community gardens – pick any of them.  There is no above and beyond.]

David is correct:
It’s not true that “none” of them are amenities. Because some are, and some, as the Chair pointed out, are not.

 

But that is not what the Chair said. She said “because some of them are not benefits.”

 

Would it be possible for David Loya to address what the Chair actually said? 

[Opinion:  Once again, as he has done again and again and again, David Loya is mischaracterizing – that is, misrepresenting and speaking to something other than what Commission Chair Julie Vaissade-Elcock said. 

Here’s what she said:  “And then I don’t know who came up with these community benefits because some of them are not benefits.”  
And here’s how David Loya apparently heard it: “And to say that none of these are amenities, I think misses the point a little bit.”

She said “some of them are not benefits” and he repeated “And to say that none of these are amenities”

Logically, of course he is correct in what is presenting. David Loya is correct:  It’s not true that “none” of them are amenities. Because some are, and some, as the Chair pointed out, are not.  But that is not what the Chair said. She said “because some of them are not benefits.”

Would it be possible for David Loya to address what the Chair actually said?  That some of them are not benefits.  I think lots of people would strongly agree – and they have said this in the public record — that many of these “benefits” are not benefits at all. They are or should be viewed as requirements.  And that is what the Commission Chair is also saying.]

[Opinion:  Does anyone other than Dr. Judith Mayer and David Loya know what “Nollan-Dolan, you know, nexus and proportionality” are referring to? 
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court decision (vote:  5-4) involving how a “taking” of property or value is defined – there has to be a “nexus” or connection between what is taken and conditions that the taking is meant to resolve. Dolan, 1994, determined that the conditions imposed by a government on a landowner for a specific development must be proportional and related to the impact of that development. 

As to why David Loya is bringing this up at this time, it’s hard to say.

Reader, would you call this “gobbledygook”? That is: “Language that is meaningless or is made unintelligible by excessive use of abstruse technical terms; nonsense.”]

Commission Chair Julie Vaissade-Elcock 

1:47:25
Okay, so regarding that very thing. So if you have two developers that come in, and they submit something that fits in the criteria, and they have by-right approval — but what if they’re not cohesive with each other? What did they — what if they don’t fit any of these things, to give two totally different developers coming in? And what if there’s no design diversity? What if there’s nothing cohesive in anything? What if it doesn’t fit into the neighborhood? How do you — one of them is going to get rejected? Or they both get approved? That’s was my [question] – I was trying to explain that earlier.

David Loya 

1:48:02
Yeah, I think that’s a really good question. I mean, basically, the streamlining process, you know, can have multiple tiers, depending on the size of the project or the importance of the location. The streamlining is, you know, as we’re steadily marching at the State level to more and more streamlining, more and more ministerial review. And so really what this process is acknowledging that at some point in the near future almost all projects are going to be ministerial review. And we’re taking the time as a community now to state what we want to see in terms of what those projects will look like. As one of the speakers had mentioned the Housing Accountability Act requires that projects not be disapproved and that they have no more than five meetings for approval and cannot reduce the density of them — if they’re compatible with the code, for example. And so with our current standards, or with standards that are vague, you really do have the risk, you run the risk of having exactly what you’re talking about happen where we have just no control whatsoever in the regulating design.

With this process, we’re going to have a process in place that we’ve done our best — and I’m not going to say there aren’t going to be, there’s never going to be a bad-looking building that happens again (a bad-looking building is very subjective anyway) but that we’ll do our best to convey — to the community, to developers, to ourselves, to the staff that are operating the program, to the decision-makers who are operating the program — what we mean by good design, what we mean by form.

Back to the example of the Plaza: The Plaza is a very consistent form that has a huge diversity of individual projects, and they all are cohesive together in part because that’s what we’re used to, that’s what we’ve seen. If one of those buildings were to come on the scene — as a matter of fact, the Hone-Wolf — I wanted to point out to you, Commissioner Tangney, that the Hone-Wolf is another four-story building that’s been built in the last, you know, 5-10 years, Hone-Wolf over on the, next to the NEC property on Ninth Street. You know, and that’s a very fine-looking building by a local, designed by a local architect.

[This building is a 3-story building, well-designed to fit into the streetscape. It was designed by local architect Julian Berg, and was completed in 2016, about six years ago. From both the front and the rear it appears as two stories, with an open patio for the residents on the 3rd story. The restaurant “Campground” has been in the ground-floor space. This structure is about 10,000 square feet in size. Sorrel Place, by comparison, is a full 4 stories, 45 feet high, and is approximately 56,000 square feet.]

So we have, you know, kind of opposite ends of the spectrum, both those buildings, the Plaza Point and the Hone-Wolfe building would likely be approvable under these design standards, that they fit within the form. And so we’re going to have checklists that go through the different form requirements. And I think at this point with the the size of these buildings, it’s completely legitimate to require that they be developed by or designed by architects. And I know, we’ve had this discussion before, John, you made some good points when we were looking at Design Review, and transitioning that to a tiered system, that not all architects design good buildings, we have to recognize that. But you have a lot better opportunity for having a more thoughtful design from an architect, and when you’re having buildings of this stature it’s really important to ensure that those considerations are made. So when it gets down to approving these, yeah, there’s going to be still some subjectivity that people can look at those buildings and say, I think they meet these criteria, or I think they don’t meet these criteria. For the review process, ministerial doesn’t necessarily mean that you don’t have public notice, maybe even the decision is made at a public hearing, it just means that you don’t have discretionary authority over it. So you’re not going to come in here and say I want you to change those windows to this shape, unless that’s what’s in the form. If that’s what it specifies in the Form-Based Code, then it’s clear, you can say this doesn’t meet the form, you’d have to comply with the form.

So, you know, I can’t guarantee you that there won’t be differences of opinions about buildings in the future. But the process is designed not just as a giveaway to developers, this isn’t designed to streamline things for developers so that they get filthy rich and we get stuck with ugly buildings. The process is designed so that we know up-front through this process that we’re going through now, we know up-front that we’re going to have decent buildings, that we’re going to get good amenities, and that the projects that are coming forward of the projects that we’ve set as a community, we will accept these into our community to meet these objectives.

When someone brings that forward, it begs the question, do we have to go through a discretionary review process? Which leads back to the difference between a Form-Based Code and simple design guidelines. You know, if at the end of this, the Planning Commission, the City Council says, hey, look, you know, we just we can’t get behind this ministerial review.  For whatever period of time is left in this State that jurisdictions have the ability to conduct discretionary review over housing projects, we can say we’re going to retain discretion, we’re going to put all these projects through an extensive design review process, we’re going to use these design guidelines that we’ve developed through this process to evaluate them, and then you all will get to decide: Does it or does it not meet those codes.

[This is misleading.  There is an option for Ministerial Review that includes public input and Planning Commission review.  But David Loya keeps referring to Ministerial review as if the only other option were to be Zoning Administrator review.  As we’ve learned, there are three options of Ministerial review.

The difference is that with the Form-Based Code the standards by which a project is approved are more clear to both the Planning Commission and to the developer.  This will provide greater certainty to the developer that the project will be approved.  But it still has to be a good project. Within the outlines of the Form-Based Code, there is plenty of room to determine if the project meets the design standards.]

I also want to point out that the Hone-Wolfe Building, the Plaza Point Building, and the Sorrel Place Building were all reviewed and approved through design guide, design review process — all of those were reviewed and approved through a discretionary review process. And so we get different qualities of design through our decisions over time as we meet with these codes. And they are there even through that discretionary review process. It’s been a one-off decision over and over and over again, do these or don’t these meet our design guidelines. This is a comprehensive view. And yes, some design, some Form-Based Codes get down to the block level, the street level, the corner level, the individual property level. I don’t think we have the resources to be able to get to that specificity. But I do think we have the resources to convey real clearly what our design requirements are for this community.

So that’s how these are connected. It’s not it’s not just a random giveaway. These, the list in the table aren’t just the limits are just categories. And then the incentives would be specific categories or specific incentives that fall under those categories.

[David Loya spoke for over 6 minutes.]

[The following was introduced in the Judith Mayer section at the beginning.  It is included here as this is now in chronological sequence.]

Commission Vice-Chair Judith Mayer 

1:54:27
You mentioned that you don’t think we have the capacity, the resources, to do a block-by-block specific type of design guideline. What resources would it take to do it that way? And the reason I’m asking is because the Form-Based Codes and development plans that you’ve brought forth yourself is exemplary — and have done it that way. [Note:  Commissioner Mayer is likely referring the Form-Based Code of Redwood City, available on the Arcata1.com here.]

And 138 acres is not an enormous area. It does seem as though in that area, in a small town like ours, that we can say explicitly what we’d like to see. Obviously we have to base that on what someone might be willing to build and what the property owners might want to have happen. And put that out there without then having to trade off another story here for a piece of publicly-accessible land there.

Why can’t we just say what we want, which would take a little more time, it would take more resources at the planning stage, and put it out there. And if then we’re going to expect to have to stick by what we put in our thoughtful code, we’ll at least know what the code is when we adopt it.

David Loya 

1:56:12
Yeah, I guess I would answer that start by reflecting by starting on reflecting on the land use code. Right now we have zoning districts, each of those zoning districts have real broad parameters for, you know, for design, you know, basic setbacks, building height, floor area ratio, and this sort of thing. You know, scaling up from that, you know, and get moving into Form-Based Code territory, I think we’re going to have a lot more definition. I don’t think it’s going to be parcel by parcel design standards. I think that we’ll have a lot more definition, we’ll have, you know, categories, for example, you know, treatment within the corridor, you know, in the corridor along K Street, the intent is that that’s more of a commercial corridor. And so you’ll have treatments that could happen midblock and treatments that you’d want to see on corners, for example, so you can get into a level of detail that I think is going to get us far enough along to really understanding how things will develop.

[Note:  Corner and mid-block design specifications are a very standard part of generic Form-Based Code.  The trouble, as Commissioner Mayer knows, is that a corner treatment that might work well on one parcel might be very inappropriate on a different parcel.  She is asking about having much finer distinctions, from one block to another.]

Will every parcel have a shading analysis based on the maximum build out allowed on that parcel? I don’t think that’s reasonable to expect. But I think we can get a good sense for how, existing buildings would be impacted and future buildings would be impacted by those design guidelines. So I think we’re going to get a long way with what we’ve got. And I guess this is a little esoteric of a conversation at this point.

But I wouldn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good, I guess, is my suggestion here.

[Opinion:  She is not asking for “perfect.”  What she is asking for is “good”… or very good. What she is asking for is what other cities have in their Form-Based Code.  They have it because they feel it results in better results.  They took the time to include it. Why can’t we?]

We do not have grant resources. Right now, we don’t have general fund resources right now committed to that work. If we adopt this plan, it’s going to be pretty darn good, it’s going to be a heck of a lot better than the [current] Land Use Code in terms of conveying our design criteria. And if we decide we need to come back and amend it in the future, to make it more refined to give more detail to those sites that didn’t have that level of detail, and we can find the resources to do that. I think that’s what my suggestion would be. But certainly the, you know, Planning Commission and the City Council can have that discussion on the 23rd.  [At the joint study session, on August 23rd, 2022.]

Commissioner Christian Figueroa 

2:09:18
Yes. I’m really pleased to see the inclusion of Policy RC-7 in regard to the inclusion of the necessity for post-construction stormwater treatment. With intensity and increased frequency of storm events that we’re having here, not only here in California, but also worldwide, the importance of treating stormwater is even more of the utmost importance in regard to the preservation of water quality and ecological environments. So I’m really glad to see that in there. And also I just wanted to echo the previous public speaker and respect to encouraging daylighting of stream courses and watercourses within our community, as they are the conduit of not only stormwater and waters that come from the forests and also in our urban areas, but also for corridors for wildlife, which is also a benefit within our community — all the things that we’re talking about today. So I just wanted to give a shout-out and respect to that. Thank you.