Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/09/2015

Home

under their careful watch. Citizen participation is especially appropriate for expressing prefer- ences for possible amenities, and online par- ticipation is becoming common. Redwood City, California, for example, is making use of an online forum, in addition to community work- shops, to define desired benefits and identify top priorities. The list of amenities identified in cities with value capture includes afford- able and workforce housing (usually on top of the list), open space and parks, bikeways, public right-of-way improvements, public art and art programs, and funding for mass transit services. CASE STUDIES The following case studies are based on plans prepared with extensive public participation, but with different value capture mechanisms. In downtown San Diego developers pay cash for FARs. In the Eastern Neighbor- hoods in San Francisco they pay fees for additional height and provide more affordable housing for land -use changes from industrial to mixed use. The same is true in Santa Mon- ica. But in Santa Monica the ap- proval process varies depending on the type of development and incentive: negotiation -based for large developments and ministerial for smaller ones. In all cities the level of cash, fees, and affordable housing requirements were based on economic analyses. San Diego FAR Incentive and Bonus Payment Program In 2005 the San Diego's Centre City Development Corporation (CCDC) released a draft plan for downtown San Diego. It proposed to double its development potential, both for residential and commercial uses, from 53 million square feet to 1o6 million square feet. The draft includ- ed increases of two FARs over the earlier (1992) downtown plan for the majority of downtown. In addition, CCDC proposed a system of FAR incentives and transfer of development rights to provide parks, preserve historic sites, and develop inclusionary units on-site. Citizen groups, notably Citizens Coordi- nate for Century Three (C-3), pointed out that additional FAR should not be handed out for free. Since they would increase land value con- siderably, they argued, some of the increases in value should be recaptured for downtown's benefit. C-3 also predicted that additional FAR would probably make the utilization of incen- tives by developers less desirable. Heeding these criticisms, the plan was changed to maintain the lower FARs of the 1992 plan as the base maximum density. Developers could receive increases in FARs if they provided ben- efits that included affordable housing, urban open space, three-bedroom units, eco -roofs, and employment uses. Additionally, a few weeks before the ap- proval of the plan in March 2006, the mayor and the council member for the downtown announced a FAR bonus payment program council approved, an amendment to the FAR acquisition bonus program to expand the areas where FAR could be purchased, as well as an increase of about 5o percent in the number of FARs that could be purchased through the pro- gram to help implement the open space and park system in downtown. According to a Civic San Diego document, the bonus programs "have been attractive to developers and have been successful in increasing densities and have resulted in the provision of public amenities and benefits," with the FAR payment bonus program resulting in $1.7 million in funds for the potential imple- mentation of public parks and enhanced public right-of-way improvements (Civic San Diego 2012, 12). San Francisco—Eastern Neighborhoods Plan The plan for San Francisco's Eastern Neighborhoods (ENs) came about as a result of the need for the city to plan for areas containing underutilized industrial areas and the Image courtesy PYATOK that would help pay for parks and open space: Builders wishing to build above and beyond the levels allowed in the 1992 plan could do so at a cost of $15 per square foot. In May 2007, CCDC approved this FAR bonus program for certain geographic areas of downtown. In 2011, the state of California eliminated redevelopment agencies, increasing the need to identify additional funding sources in rede- velopment areas. In downtown San Diego, the elimination of funding for the implementation of the open space system especially worried city officials. In 2012, Civic San Diego (CCDC's successor organization) proposed, and the city conflicts that arose from the dotcom boom of the late 2oth century. During the boom, certain areas east of Market Street—primarily in the mostly Latino Mission District— experienced rapid increases in real estate values, gentrifica- tion, and the displacement of families and businesses. The coalition that formed to fight the changes occurring in their neighborhoods (the Mission Anti -Displacement Coalition, or MAC) decided—when the city initiated a planning process for those areas—that they would create their own plan, called the People's Plan forJobs, Housing, and Community. As part of the People's Plan preparation, the leaders of MAC came up with the idea of"Public Benefit Incentive Zoning" (PBIZ). They argued that in- creases in density create greatervalue for land owners and developers and that, through PBIZ, a portion of this increase could be captured in the form of public benefits that would mitigate the impact of the additional development. The plan included a menu of public benefits, with affordable housing on top of the list. Eventually the city embraced the concept of PBIZ as part of the planning process for the ENs. ZONINGPRACTICE 6.15 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION Ipage5