This document discusses tools for implementing community benefits programs in California. It provides an overview of the legal authority for such programs, key considerations in designing them, and examples from Santa Monica, Berkeley, San Diego, and Mammoth Lakes. The document recommends distinguishing baseline requirements from community benefits, using economic analysis to demonstrate reasonable relationships, establishing clear procedures, and monitoring programs over time.

1. TOOLS FOR EQUITABLE
URBAN INVESTMENTS: THE
CALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE
Vivian Kahn, FAICP
Dyett & Bhatia, San Francisco
Crafting the New Normal
San Diego, CA
December 7, 2012

2. OVERVIEW
 Authority
 Key issues to keep in mind
 Policies and purposes
 Approaches
 Identifying benefits and incentives
 Examples
 Recommendations

3. AUTHORITY FOR COMMUNITY
BENEFITS
 Rooted in police power to regulate development
to:
 Protect health, safety, and welfare
 Mitigate potential development impacts, and
 Achieve community objectives
 A legitimate exercise of police power imposing
land use restrictions that enhance community
welfare
 Distinguished from mitigation fees but subject
to demonstration of “reasonable relationship”

4. KEY ISSUES
 Distinguishing benefits from basic requirements
 Eligibility thresholds (e.g. minimum size, benefit
threshold, etc.)
 Defining “extraordinary” public benefits
 Identifying the right bonuses to be offered (e.g.
height, FAR, expedited processing, etc.)
 Valuation of benefits to show reasonable
relationship
 Public participation
 Ease of administration
 Post-approval monitoring for compliance and
confirmation of benefit

5. ESTABLISHING OBJECTIVES AND
PURPOSES
 Santa Monica LUCE
 Meet the community’s values and expectations by defining
how new projects will contribute to the city
 Require community benefits subject to CUP or development
agreement to exceed base heights and FAR
 Berkeley DAP
 All new development under DAP must deliver significant
public benefits with many “proportionate to building height”
 Mammoth Lakes Resolution 09-55
 Provide amenities beyond those ordinarily achievable
“commensurate with financial incentive conferred to an
applicant in the form of additional land value or development
profit”

6. IMPLEMENTATION APPROACHES
 Development agreement—discretionary
legislative
 Conditional Use Permit—discretionary
adjudicative
 Negotiated benefits
 Menu of benefits
 Ministerial entitlement based on compliance
determination

7. IDENTIFYING BENEFITS AND
INCENTIVES
 To achieve benefits the community desires:
 Amenities must reflect community priorities
 Incentives must be grounded in local real estate
economics
 Distinguishing benefits from basic standards
 Different priorities in different districts and/or
neighborhoods
 Recognize that priorities change over time
 Who decides and how?

8. CALCULATING VALUE OF
BENEFITS AND INCENTIVES
 How will relative value of benefits be calculated?
 Point system
 Development value/pro forma basis
 Pass/fail thresholds
 Assign values based on monetary value, physical size,
or percent of site area
 Economic studies:
 Establish value;
 Assess feasibility;
 Demonstrate reasonable relationship; and
 Show how basis for calculating points is reasonably related to
benefits obtained and project impacts

9. EXAMPLE OF BONUS VALUE TABLE
Type of Benefit Maximum Points Basis for Calculation
Publicly Accessible Open Space 50 50 pts: 15 percent+ of site area (min. 2,000 sf) as privately owned open
exceeding park-dedication space
standards 35 pts: 10 percent+ of site area (min. 1,600 sf) as privately owned open
space.
20 pts: 5 percent+ of site area (min. 1,000 sf) as privately owned open
space.
10 pts: Contribution to citywide parks fund
Sustainable Design 30 20 pts: If 75 percent of total building roof as accessible eco roof, provided
eco roof and “eco landscape” together exceed 50 percent of total site
area.
25 pts: LEEDTM Platinum or equivalent (third-party certification req’d)
20 pts: LEEDTM Gold or equivalent (third-party certification req’d)
Alternative Energy 20 20 pts: If 10 percent of total building energy load provided by solar panels
or other on-site renewable sources, including co-generation.
Public Right-of-Way 30 Pts based on dollar value of off-site improvements X 10 divided by average
Improvements development cost per square foot or other case-by-case determination.

10. PROCEDURES
 Review and approval
 Ministerial—checklist, menu, etc.
 Adjudicative--Conditional Use Permit
 Legislative--Development Agreement
 Flexibility vs. certainty
 Threshold requirements
 Monitoring compliance and results

11. EVALUATION AND ADJUSTMENT
Periodic review to assess:
 Whether benefits provided
meet expectations
 Value of specific benefits in
light of community needs,
changes in regulatory
environment, other factors
 Effectiveness of
administrative procedures
and requirements

12. BERKELEY DOWNTOWN PLAN (DAP)
Downtown Area Plan requires all new development to
deliver significant public benefits “many of which should be
in proportion to building height”
LEED Gold or equivalent
Street, Open Space and Transportation impact fees
Alternative transportation (e.g. car sharing, transit passes,
unbundled parking, etc.)
Affordable housing or in-lieu mitigation fee
Voluntary “Green Pathway” review process for projects
providing “extraordinary public benefits that could not
otherwise be obtained”
Waiver available to allow adaptive reuse or preservation
Buildings over 75 feet must provide additional benefits

13. BERKELEY GREEN PATHWAY
 Two tiers based on building height
(above and below 75 feet), size, and
project type
 At or below 75 feet excluding hotels
and buildings with over 100 units
 Over 75 feet providing additional
benefits
 Prescriptive benefits—affordable
housing, local hiring, and prevailing
wages
 Incentive—Expedited review with
voluntary “Green Pathway” process

14. SANTA MONICA
 Core principle of LUCE--New
development under the LUCE
should provide benefits to
the community
 Procedural tracks tied to
development parameters
 Tier 1: Ministerial (based on
provision of affordable housing)
 Tier 2: Conditional use permit
 Tier 3: Development agreement

15. COMMUNITY BENEFITS IN THE
LUCE
 Approach:
 Base height of 32 feet and base FAR varying by district
 To exceed base height and FAR, projects must incorporate
features that will contribute to social and environmental
goals
 Five categories of benefits:
 Trip Reduction and Traffic Management (e.g. bike facilities,
free transit passes, shared parking)
 Affordable and Workforce Housing
 Community Physical Improvements (e.g. ped/bike
connections, open space, neighborhood retail)
 Social and Cultural Facilities (e.g. cultural, youth, and senior
facilities, public art)
 Historic Preservation

16. SAN DIEGO CENTRE CITY
DISTRICT for:
 FAR bonuses
 Affordable/senior housing exceeding State density
bonus
 Publicly accessible open space
 Dwelling units with three or more bedrooms
 Eco-Roofs to reduce energy consumption
 Public ROW improvements
 Employment uses excluding hotels and motels
 Public parkng
 Additional FAR bonuses may be purchased
 TDR for public park sites and historic structures

17. MAMMOTH LAKES
 2007 General Plan includes policies and actions to
achieve community benefits from new
development
 Community benefits incentive zoning intended as
a “bridge” framework to ensure policies and
standards are tied to impacts and desired
community outcomes
 Incentives should be granted incrementally in
direct proportion to scale of amenity received
ensuring that reasonable nexus between benefit
and incentive

18. RECOMMENDATIONS
 Distinguish baseline standards from community benefits
 Establish public process separate from development review to
identify benefit projects
 Economic analysis to provide transparency and demonstrate
reasonable relationship and feasibility
 Assign value reflecting citywide and district needs and
preferences
 Specify minimum requirements for qualifying benefits
 Allow flexibility for additional categories of benefits
 Ministerial and/or adjudicative procedures with specific
standards and requirements to maximize certainty
 Establish procedures to monitor compliance and effectiveness
over time
 Sparing use of Development Agreements