14
TOOLS FOR EQUITABLE URBAN INVESTMENTS: NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL MODELS Vivian Kahn, FAICP Vivian Kahn, FAICP Dyett & Bhatia, San Dyett & Bhatia, San Francisco Francisco Crafting the New Normal Crafting the New Normal San Diego, CA San Diego, CA December 7, 2012 December 7, 2012

Vivian Kahn Panel 1

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Tools for Ensuring Equitable Urban Investments - National and International Models

Citation preview

Page 1: Vivian Kahn Panel 1

TOOLS FOR EQUITABLE URBAN INVESTMENTS:

NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL MODELS

Vivian Kahn, FAICPVivian Kahn, FAICPDyett & Bhatia, San FranciscoDyett & Bhatia, San FranciscoCrafting the New NormalCrafting the New NormalSan Diego, CASan Diego, CADecember 7, 2012December 7, 2012

Page 2: Vivian Kahn Panel 1

OVERVIEW

What are Community Benefits programs?

Authority Approaches to implementation Examples Lessons from outside California

Page 3: Vivian Kahn Panel 1

WHAT ARE COMMUNITY BENEFITS PROGRAMS?

A “market-based regulatory approach” offering “incentives that either increase revenue or reduce costs”

A legitimate exercise of police power imposing land use restrictions that enhance community welfare

A means of obtaining public benefit amenities (e.g. affordable housing, parks, plazas, improved transit access, ground floor retail, etc.) in exchange for allowing incremental increases in development intensity (e.g. FAR and height bonuses)

Distinguished from community-based CBAs

Page 4: Vivian Kahn Panel 1

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”

Page 5: Vivian Kahn Panel 1

IMPLEMENTATION APPROACHES

Development agreement Conditional use permit or

other adjudicative discretionary approval

Ministerial entitlement based on compliance determination

Page 6: Vivian Kahn Panel 1

IDENTIFYING BENEFITS AND INCENTIVES

To achieve benefits the community desires: Amenities must reflect community priorities Incentives must be grounded in local real

estate economics How to prioritize benefits? Different priorities in different districts

and/or neighborhoods Priorities that change over time Who decides and how?

Page 7: Vivian Kahn Panel 1

“TRADITIONAL” CBA PROCESS

Page 8: Vivian Kahn Panel 1

EXAMPLESJURISDICTION PROGRAM TYPE BONUS TYPE COMMUNITY BENEFITS

Berkeley Agreement Streamlined entitlement process

Environmental benefits and sustainability improvements above what is required

Chicago Development costs and criteria-based

Residential and non-residential intensity (FAR)

Affordable housing, streetscape improvements, green roofs, underground parking, parks/plazas, adopt-a-landmark, and others.

Juneau Points at discretion of Director

Residential density and height

Public improvements, views, sensitive lands preservation

Portland Stated percentage/ points bonus

Residential density Family-friendly features, green building, sound insulation, open space, crime prevention

Santa Monica (TBD)

Points Residential density, FAR, and height

Trip reduction, affordable housing, community physical improvements, social and cultural facilities, historic preservation

Seattle Criteria-based Residential and non-residential intensity (FAR)

Affordable housing, child care, open space, landmark preservations

Tampa Development costs of amenities

Residential and non-residential intensity (FAR)

Public improvements, affordable housing, green building, public art

Vancouver Stated percentage/ points bonus

Residential density Alternative transportation improvements (including TDM)

Page 9: Vivian Kahn Panel 1

DOWNTOWN CHICAGO

Downtown Density Bonus Program initiated 1957 offers FAR in exchange for specific amenities

Expanded 2004 to expand schedule and better reflect value

Some bonuses (e.g. green roof) combine impact fee credit with standard requirements

Page 10: Vivian Kahn Panel 1

PORTLAND Portland Multi-Family

Program Up to 50% increase in density

based on features selected from menu

Rose Quarter Development Project Diversifying PDC revenue

sources to create options not reliant on tax-increment financing

Leveraging public investment in Rose Quarter and Lloyd District to support community organizations

Community Benefits Agreements for City construction projects

Page 11: Vivian Kahn Panel 1

SEATTLE

Seattle Green Building/Affordable Housing Two tiers Affordable housing or in-

lieu fees for residential Open space, landmark

TDR, and other amenities for commercial development

Page 12: Vivian Kahn Panel 1

VANCOUVER,BC

Page 13: Vivian Kahn Panel 1

KEY ISSUES 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

Page 14: Vivian Kahn Panel 1

LESSONS FROM OTHER PLACES Preference for menu-based programs Assigning values to bonusable features increases

transparency for the public and provides greater certainty for applicants

Except for affordable housing, higher cost benefits usually require more discretionary review

Regulations that establish clear rules and standards and menus of quantified benefits can minimize need for discretionary and/or Commission review

Alternative compliance typically requires more public review and Commission and/or Council approval

Expedited processing not a popular incentive We don’t live in Canada