Upload
san-diego-housing-federation
View
310
Download
3
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Tools for Ensuring Equitable Urban Investments - National and International Models
Citation preview
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
OVERVIEW
What are Community Benefits programs?
Authority Approaches to implementation Examples Lessons from outside California
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
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”
IMPLEMENTATION APPROACHES
Development agreement Conditional use permit or
other adjudicative discretionary approval
Ministerial entitlement based on compliance determination
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?
“TRADITIONAL” CBA PROCESS
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)
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
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
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
VANCOUVER,BC
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
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