See also: State Density Bonus Laws / Inclusionary Zoning /
Community Benefits — David Loya presentation

To skip to these sections: 

• Introduction and Overview
• Criticisms of the existing Community Benefits Program
• Owner-occupied and affordable housing
• How it can be improved
• The actual Community Benefit Program document
• State Density Bonus laws

.

For all the work that the Planning Commission put into the Community Benefits Program, there’s a strong possibility that it will never (or rarely) be used. What is the program, how are the points assigned, what are the benefits, what are the problems, and how can it be improved? 

The Gateway Community Benefits Program

Included in the 164 pages of the June 13, 2023, Planning Commission agenda packet — where we saw the Form-Based Code draft for the first time — are eight pages of the proposed Gateway Community Benefits Program.

The Gateway Community Benefits Program is simple in concept. In order to construct a building higher than three stories — and have it go through the streamlined “ministerial review” process — a developer has to provide something for the community. 

Important note:  The entire Gateway Community Benefits Program may be bypassed by the State Density Bonus laws. Keep reading, or click here to skip to that section. It is possible that the Gateway Community Benefits Program won’t really be used — particularly in cases where it would make a difference, as an improvement to Arcata.

What are “Community Benefits” ?

These community benefits can take many forms. Some are clear and obvious in their value to the community: 

• Public open space that’s provided by — and maintained by — the property owner
• Extra landscaping
• Greater than required energy efficiency
• Use of green building materials
• Affordable housing
• Owner-occupied affordable housing / Home Ownership
• Public art
• Children’s Day Care and Senior Services on the premises

Some community benefits have great apparent value to Arcata, and others are iffy. Some can be easily measured and others are more vague.

Each listed community benefit has a number of points assigned to it — in the current proposal, from 1 to 9 points. If a developer needed, say, 25 points to get the rights for a streamlined five-story building, those points would have to be assembled by adding up an assortment of individual community benefits.

The current proposed list of community benefits and their point values is shown below.

.

Criticisms of the benefits program

The concept of a Community Benefit Program may be admirable, but how this is presented and how it might work in the real world are, in my view, not well thought-through and unlikely to provide real community benefits.

Specific criticism of the Community Benefits Program and of some of the listed community benefits include:

• Some items listed as “benefits” should really be requirements here in Arcata. For example, the California Energy Code requires a certain minimum building energy efficiency. If this minimum is exceeded by as little as 5%, the developer gets points. That’s not a very big “benefit” — and why not have Arcata be above the minimum anyway?
• Some items are beneficial for the tenants of that apartment building, and are not accessible to the public. These benefit the developer, in the sense that a higher rent can be charged when the apartments have these features. Examples:  Free Wi-Fi, an exercise room for the tenants, a computer room for the tenants, rooftop patio or garden for the tenants only.
• Many obvious community benefits are missing from this proposal. Examples include public bicycle charging stations on the property, and putting the building enough farther back from the street property line to make a pull-out for a bus stop.
• Some benefits are quantified — that is, can be measured — and others are not quantified. “Must exceed” or “Beyond minimum” and “Beyond those required” are phrases used. Better to have actual numbers or percentages.
• Some benefits have time-spans associated with them, which is good. “Establish and maintain for a minimum of 30 years a project-based electric carshare program…” is an example. Other benefits do not have longevity specified and should. As an example, a space that is “intended for occupancy by a children’s day care or senior service center” should stay that way — and not be converted to a private office space after the building is completed and the permitting is finished.
• There is no after-the-fact follow up, for after the building is occupied. What happens if a developers promises a benefit, and then some time later it is removed. Does the developer then lose the points, or have to exchange the lost points for another benefit? What happens if a developer starts out with “beyond minimum” landscaping, and then replaces it with gravel? Or sets up electric vehicle charging, or Wi-Fi, or a block-size solar micro-grid — and the shuts it down?

  What keeps an “owner-occupied” apartment as occupied by the owner — and not rented out?

• Many benefits are simply too easy to get or are otherwise not logical. Examples:
  • A developer can build student housing — or, for that matter, a regular apartment — and get six points. This is defined as “Group living accommodations provide shared living quarters without separate kitchen or bathroom facilities for each room or unit.” In other words, a regular three- or four-bedroom apartment can be construed to be “group living accommodations.”
  • Community gardens are good; we can agree.  Three points are awarded for a garden of 500 square feet or more. And 2 points are awarded for a garden that’s less than 500 square feet.
    Well, a single “community garden” that is 2 feet by 5 feet — 10 square feet total — fits into the “less than 500 sq. ft.” category and gets the 2 points. If you think I’m joking about a 2 x 5 foot “community garden” then go look at the gardens at Sorrel Place in Arcata.
  • A property owner can give up 5 feet (or more) of depth on the street for a wider sidewalk, for open space, for transit facilities — all good things. The way the proposal is written, 6 points are awarded if it is 100 feet long or more. And 4 points for less than 100 feet.
    Well, much like the community gardens example, a property owner can give up 5 feet deep and only, say, 5 or 10 feet along on the property frontage — and still get the 4 points. That is just plain silly. The way this item is worded would allow this to occur.
  • Construction with a minimum of 15 percent of building materials from renewable
    resources gets two points. Wood is a renewable resource. Most buildings here will have more than 15 percent of wood in them. So these 2 points are automatically granted.
  • As mentioned above, if the minimum required energy efficiency is exceeded by just 5%, the developer gets three points. If exceeded by 15%, the developer gets 5 points.
• Some benefits are extremely valuable to the community, and the points awarded to them are not commensurate to their value. Examples include:
  • Owner-occupied housing that’s 100% of the building only gets 4 points. For owner-occupied housing that is 20% to 80% of the building, that gets only 2 points. This is not a sufficient encouragement to the developer to create home ownership.
• As they are written, some benefits are disingenuous and provide little or no benefit to the community.
  • Adding 10% extra “inclusionary zoning” apartments is awarded 3 points. Well, adding just 10% is a hollow and worthless benefit. Believe it or not, a development can have above-market rental prices and still qualify as “inclusionary zoning.” See the article on Arcata1.com about this false Inclusionary Zoning here.
    NOTE: New take on this. This benefit is poorly worded and needs to be re-worded for clarity. It is not an extra 10% on top of the inclusionary zoning amount — that would be just 9.9% (rounded up) if the inclusionary zoning amount was 9%.  The benefit is actually an extra 10% on top of the inclusionary zoning figure.  If the inclusionary zoning amount was 9%, this would result in 19%. This makes it a valuable benefit — but with too few points.
  • Similarly, giving 6 points for “100% Affordable Projects” when the definition of “affordable” is higher than market-rate rents  — that doesn’t help the community.

This point system needs to be looked at 

The points that are shown were created by staff (David Loya). The point assignments were not made by the Planning Commission.

As it is implemented, this point system just does not work as intended. It needs to be revisited.

Going through the process and seeing what was included and what was left out did show us what is seen to be of benefit to our community. And how the items were worded and the points awarded — both of which are products of David Loya and not of the Planning Commission — has shown us the deficiencies of Mr. Loya’s thinking.

As it stands, the Gateway Community Benefits Program is not a very well-crafted program. But that may not matter, because it’s possible that it won’t really be used at all in those cases where it would make a difference.

.

How it could be improved

• Have the assignment of points better correlate to the value to Arcata and the community. The creation of truly affordable workforce housing should get lots of points. Creation of home-ownership opportunities should get lots of points.
• The 1 to 9 point spread is too small for meaningful distinctions among the benefits. Most are in the 2 to 6 point spread. There are “two” and “three” point assignments that are vastly different in the actual value of benefit to the community. A suggestion is to increase the range from 1 to 100 so the assigned points will have a wider spread to select from.
• With the new 1 to 100 point spread, then re-assign the points. Using wood to build with gets two points, and having 20% to 80% of the building be market-rate ownership also get two points is absurd. 

.

The State “Density Bonus” laws will over-ride the Gateway Community Benefits Program

It is likely that developers will use the State “Density Bonus Laws” to obtain the building height and density that they want — rather than fussing around with this proposed Gateway Community Benefits Program.

Community Development Director has spoken of this possibility — or likelihood — many times. It’s not a secret. 

For a developer to use the State Density Bonus Laws to get building height and density, rather than using the Gateway Community Benefits Program, pretty much makes this whole program to be moot. For all the work that went into — five meetings of the Planning Commission, I think it was — it’s entirely possible that it will never be used.

For more on the State “Density Bonus Laws”

In his Staff Report for the March 14, 2023, Planning Commission meeting (and then repeated for the March 27, 2023, meeting), Community Development Director David Loya provided a concise and well-written explanation of California’s myriad Density Bonus housing laws.

Rather than have this buried in the middle of a staff report, to be unseen or forgotten about by future Planning Commissioners, City Councilmembers, and the public, it is included here on Arcata1.com so it can be referred to at any time.

Density Bonus Laws explained — David Loya to the Planning Commission

See also:

State Density Bonus Laws / Inclusionary Zoning / Community Benefits — David Loya presentation

.

The Community Benefits Program

As of June 13, 2023

The full 8 pages in one document — if it’s easier for you to ready this way or if you want to download it.