Tap / click here for more than two dozen articles about the Gateway Code.
The “Greenways” section is a highly confusing portion of the the draft Gateway Code. The Code should include this as guidelines for what will happen (“Greenways are required in the approximate locations shown in Figure 2-56.”). But what is shown in the Code is clearly 100% overkill — and some of it is absolutely impossible.
Commissioner Joel Yodowitz brought the Greenways issue up at the April 23, 2024, Planning Commission meeting, where a “final” review of the Gateway Code was on the agenda.
Greenways are a walking and biking greenspace — a linear park, actually, although they are not called by that name. As shown in the Gateway Code, they require a 56-foot space between two buildings. They would be a public easement on private property — that is, a property owner would have to provide this space as a condition of being able have a new building on their property. The section on Greenways starts on page 48 in the current (1/31/2024) draft of the Gateway Code.
The notion of putting these greenways walking and biking paths throughout the Gateway area — mostly in the Barrel district — is a wonderful concept. It has been in the Code, unchanged, from Version 1 to the present. Unfortunately it has not been clearly thought through, and the wording of the Code is subject to interpretation and, ultimately, misuse.
Further, errors in the Greenways map and in the Greenways code have been in the documents since June 5, 2023 — 11 months ago — with no apparent effort on the part of the Community Development Director, David Loya, or the City’s form-based code consultant, Ben Noble, to correct these issues.
Contents
- What the problem is
- Who decides where the greenways should go?
- Transcription from the segment of the April 23, 2024, Planning Commission meeting
- Video from the April 23, 2024, meeting. 3 minutes 46 seconds.
- What is in the Gateway Code on Greenways
- Maps of the Greenways
The Greenways issue has been brought up on Arcata1.com also:
September 24, 2023
Gateway Code form-based code – September 22, 2023 version — What’s changed
April 20, 2024
Comments and Suggestions for the Gateway Code
Greenways – Requires discussion on locations and practicality
What the problem is
Anytime there is ambiguity or confusion generated from the Gateway Code, that indicates potential trouble ahead.
The Code should be clear.
Anytime there is ambiguity or confusion generated from the Gateway Code, that essentially indicates potential trouble ahead. Any time an explanation is required or we are told “Well, the intention is…” — it’s a problem. The Code should be clear. We are dealing with objective standards here. If there is not clarity, a developer may well interpret this Code in a way other than what was desired. And with by-right approval, if a developer’s project meets the Code standards as outlined, it must be approved.
The Planning Commission has already seen vague and open-to-interpretation sections of the code, and discussed some at their April 23, 2024, meeting. Noted was the provision for tenant and employee bike parking that would be 750 feet (2-1/2 blocks) away from their apartment. (See Another Loya fallacy: “Secured” bike parking within 750 feet.) Not yet discussed is that the Gateway Code does not require tenant and employee bike parking to be inside (as David Loya has told us it does) and does not even require the bike parking area to be behind a fence or in a locked area. (See David Loya’s Misunderstanding: Tenant Bicycle Storage doesn’t have to be Indoors.)
Why has it taken nearly eleven months for David Loya to acknowledge that this map of Greenway locations is impossibly incorrect?
When asked at the April 23, 2024, Planning Commission meeting to explain the Greenways section in the Gateway Code, Community Development Director told us:
“What this is trying to show you is that we want to make a connection between this point here, and this point here, with one of these Greenways. It could be that not all of these are developed. Definitely they’re not going to be developed exactly in the locations, you know. This one is shown as going through a building.” (Four are shown as going through buildings. In three instances the building will likely be torn down and the parcel redeveloped. The other building that has a greenway shown going through it is the current FedEx shipping location.)
“The intent here is not for the City to go and say, okay, property owner, we’re going to put a trail through your property here. The intention is that when this property owner comes forward and says, you know, I’d like to develop, we then look at the Code and say, well, these are the things you need to do to comply to develop.”
(Read the transcription below for more. This starts at 1:20:39.)
Here is what the Code section “9.29.080 – Mobility A. Greenways” includes:
“Greenways are required in the approximate locations shown in Figure 2-56.”
So which is it? Is the map just there to show the “intent” of where some of the greenways shown might go? Or are they indeed required.
One of the greenways shown is on 7th Street, between L and K Streets. This is a public street. Access on this street is needed for the four Devlin Cottages. It cannot possibly be the location of a Greenway. This has been in the Gateway Code since Version 1 in June 2023 — eleven months ago — and I’ve tried on many occasions to get the Community Development Director to acknowledge this.
On the morning of April 25, 2024, a day and a half after the April 23rd Planning Commission meeting at which the greenways were discussed, Director David Loya wrote to me. I had requested clarification on the woonerf, greenway, and L Street corridor linear park issues, and he had provided a partial response. He wrote, highlight added:
“You identified the woonerf in the mobility section on 6th. The woonerf is shown (in the incorrect location, now that I am looking at it) on the greenways map. The greenway arrow on 7th street is supposed to be shown on 6th Street.”
To this I will say:
- The greenways are not woonerfs.
- There are no mentions of woonerfs in the mobility section of the Gateway Code.
- Why has it taken nearly eleven months for David Loya to acknowledge that this map of Greenway locations is impossibly incorrect?
The greenways are depicted as a no-vehicle pathway and greenbelt. They are not a woonerf, which would allow some car traffic. As described, they may be set up for emergency vehicle access — but that is not a street or woonerf.
And… who decides where the greenways should go?
Let’s say a property owner comes to the Zoning Administrator (in Arcata, this is David Loya) with a project. The project is at a place on this greenway map where there could be a greenway. The developer says “I don’t want to put that in there.”
Does the Zoning Administrator then say “Okay, we’ll skip that location. You don’t have to built that greenway path. We can put one in a few hundred feet away. I’ll make sure that next development over there has to include it.”
And who constructs, maintains, and cleans the greenway paths?
While the easement for the public right-of-way for the greenway paths must be deeded to the City, the property continues to remain legally owned by the developer or property owner. The property owner is responsible for constructing the greenway, for maintaining it, and for daily/regular cleaning. The property owner is legally the responsible party. The repercussions of a homeless encampment, for example, would be the responsibility of the property owner.
Do we think that developers are going to want to do this — in perpetuity ?
The draft Gateway Code has 3D images of the build-out. There are no greenways in those 3D images.
These 3D images are supposed to represent what the build-out of the Gateway Area plan might look like. But there are no greenways in these 3D images.
See: 3D images from the Gateway Code — and no Linear Park !
In other words, the images on the Gateway Code do not follow the Code.
The Urban Field Studio test site hypothetical building at 8th & L Streets showed no greenway in its plans. The building that was designed for that site by Urban Field Studio also did not follow the Gateway Code.
The Transcription
Joel Yodowitz – Planning Commissioner 1:19:28
Chair, I’m not sure how you want — I have another, just like Peter, I have a whole list of things. But I did have a comment, a question of staff of something I just did not really fully understand in the Code when I went back this last time. And that is the Greenways. I mean it when I read that. I’m just not sure what to make of that.
David Loya – Community Development Director 1:19:58
You’re not sure what the Greenways are or …?
Joel Yodowitz – Planning Commissioner 1:20:02
My question is, are they just intended to be conceptual right now, or I just don’t fully understand what the intent of the Code is and how the Code intends to implement the Greenways. Because some of them go through private property. And I don’t know how to do that. And it said something in there that these are in these general locations. And I just don’t know how somebody can be that vague and be provision in the zoning Code.
David Loya – Community Development Director 1:20:39
Yeah, so the Greenways map is intended to — many of these locations are on rail corridors or, you know, are on sort of the margins of properties.
[Note: Just a few are. Not “many.” The greenway on N Street from 11th to 16th Streets is on a rail corridor — but that greenway is already designated in the Code as becoming a linear park. It does not need to be called out as a greenway here. The greenway in the Barrel district that curves from 8th & N to Q Street is in a rail corridor. The greenway located at the far western border of the Gateway area, on Q Street between where 6th to 9th Streets would be — that is on a border of a property. That is three that are on rail corridors or on a property “margin” (border). Three out of the thirteen greenways shown – not many. One is on a City right-of-way. The remaining nine are on private property.]
Some of them, we, you know, for instance, on the map shown here. You know, we don’t know, what this is trying to show you is that we want to make a connection between this point here, and this point here, with one of these Greenways. It could be that not all of these are developed. You know, it could be that the, you know, and definitely, you know, they’re not going to be developed exactly in the locations, you know. This one is shown as going through a building.
The idea is that we want to get from this point to this point. And the way that we would implement that is that as a project comes forward, we would say, hey, look, you know, you need to be consistent with the Code. The Code shows that there’s a Greenway going through your property — Show us where on your property, you’re going to, you know, reserve land for that Greenway, where you’re going to install this Greenway. [Note: This is False – Including the Tom Perrett Tomas / Open Door property that has had the test site buildings on.]
And this is one of the ways where those projects that are coming forward that are, you know, getting this principally-permitted pathway for review are able to comply with the Code. Recognizing that we don’t know all the bits and pieces right now, we haven’t gone through a very detailed plan to know exactly where those trails are going to be, how many of them are actually going to be needed? You know, we’ve got two Greenways, this one and this one that are about 300 feet apart? You know, do we need both of those, it may be that as the development comes forward, you know, we don’t and there’s something else that that is equally applicable.
And so these would be, for the most part, these are going to be, you know, public easements, so publicly accessible private open space, that we’re securing through the permitting process. The intent here is not for the City to go and say, okay, property owner, we’re going to put a trail through your property here. The intention is that when this property owner comes forward and says, you know, I’d like to develop, we then look at the Code and say, well, these are the things you need to do to comply to develop.
Joel Yodowitz – Planning Commissioner
Thank you.
[NOTE: The Code says these locations are required. It says: “Greenways are required in the approximate locations shown in Figure 2-56.”]
The Video
From the April 23, 2024, Arcata Planning Commission meeting.
3 minutes 46 seconds.
What is in the Gateway Code on Greenways
Here’s the section in the Gateway Code on the greenways:
Maps of the Greenways
For the image below, I overlaid a color aerial image of the area on top of the black & white image that’s in the Gateway Code. We can see that the N Street greenway goes right through the building (coincidently called The Greenway Building). The greenway that’s an extension of 7th Street goes on private property across the Tomas Building parcel (the green roof building) and across the Greenway Building parcel. The greenway that’s along where M Street might be also goes on private property.
The greenway shown on 7th Street doesn’t allow residents there vehicle access to their homes.
In the larger image of the greenways, we see there are five or six greenway routes shown in the Barrel district on what is private property. We want the master plan for the Barrel district property to include some trails and greenway routes — but it would need to be coordinated with the proposed vehicle roads and other open space in those parcels.
Closer looks at the image above.
Tap / click here for more than two dozen articles about the Gateway Code.