|
Tier 2 allows additional height and FAR
<br />through a ministerial approval process when
<br />community benefits are provided.
<br />With Tier 3 even more height and FAR are
<br />allowed in exchange for higher levels of com-
<br />munity benefits. It is when developers seek Tier
<br />3 density increases that development agree-
<br />ments are required. This process requires addi-
<br />tional public review and flexibility and encour-
<br />ages high-quality projects. Tier3 projects are
<br />larger in scale, and development agreements
<br />provide developers with a greater degree of
<br />entitlement certainty.
<br />However, given the high costs of develop-
<br />ment agreements, the city is now pursuing a
<br />ministerial approach with fixed fee schedules
<br />as part of its zoning code update. When a de-
<br />veloper chooses to exceed densities from Tier
<br />1 up to Tier 2, he will be required to provide
<br />additional community benefits. The quantity
<br />(additional fees or affordable housing units)
<br />of these community benefits will be defined in
<br />Given the high costs
<br />of development
<br />agreements, Santa
<br />Monica is now pursuing
<br />a ministerial approach
<br />with fixed fee schedules
<br />as part of its zoning code
<br />update.
<br />2015 as part of the city's zoning update. At the
<br />time this article was written (April 2015), the
<br />proposed benefits are:
<br />• Affordable Housing: At least 5o percent
<br />more than what is required under Tier 1.
<br />For nonresidential projects the housing
<br />mitigation fee is increased by 14 percent
<br />REFERENCES
<br />• Civic San Diego. 2012. Planning Commission, Agenda of April 12, 20/2—Report NO.
<br />PC -12-o46.
<br />• Cullingworth, Barry, and Roger Caves. 2003. Planning in the USA. New York: Routledge:'
<br />• Gray, Cameron. n.d. "Vancouver's Community Amenity Contributions (CACs): A Ramble
<br />Down Memory Lane, Cambie, and a Couple of Side Streets." Unpublished paper. Avail-
<br />able at http://tinyurLcom/If7hgk4.
<br />• Huxley, Joe. 2009. Value Capture Finance: Making Urban DevelopmentPaylts Way. Lon-
<br />don: Urban Land Institute Europe. Available at'http://tinyurl.com/k416zzp.
<br />• Kayden, Jerold 5.1978. "Incentive Zoning in New York City: A Cost -Benefit Analysis.".
<br />Lincoln Land Policy Analysis Roundtable Series, No.2o1.
<br />• Kayden, Jerold 5.1992. "Market-based Regulatory Approaches: A Comparative Discus-
<br />sion of Environmental and Land Use Techniques in the United States." Environmental
<br />Affairs, 19(3) 565-580. Available at http://tinyurLcom/Isk2llt.
<br />above the base fee as required under the
<br />affordable housing fee for commercial
<br />development.
<br />• Transportation Impact Fee, Open Space Fee,
<br />and Child Care Facilities: 14 percent above
<br />base fee. An alternative for open space is
<br />the provision of accessible open space that
<br />complies with specific requirements.
<br />These increases were based on financial
<br />analyses of development prototypes that found
<br />that the proposed increases could be absorbed
<br />by developers of projects like the ones analyzed,
<br />and could result in financially feasible projects.
<br />CONCLUSIONS
<br />Value capture can generate benefits for both the
<br />public and the developer, provided that deci-
<br />sions about incentives and amenities are based
<br />on economic analysis, transparency, accountabil-
<br />ity, and intensive public participation. The value
<br />captured is a portion of the increase in land val-
<br />ues that result from public action. This increase
<br />is referred to in other English-speaking countries
<br />as "planning gain." The San Diego and San Fran-
<br />cisco case studies show examples ofvalue cap-
<br />ture based on plans. In Santa Monica the overall
<br />program is also based on a plan, the LUCE, that
<br />provides a framework for its "negotiation -based"
<br />implementation, based on development agree-
<br />ments. In the making is an alternative approach
<br />for smaller projects based on fixed fees.
<br />At a time when planners advocate for
<br />compact development that is likely to sharply
<br />increase land values, and as public resources
<br />continue to decline, planners in areas with
<br />growth potential should capture a portion of that
<br />increase to ensure funding for the public city.
<br />Cover: Image courtesy PYATOK;
<br />design concept by Lisa Barton.
<br />VOL. 32, NO. 6
<br />Zoning Practice is a monthly publication of the American Planning Association. Subscriptions are available for $95 (U.S.) and $120 (foreign). James M.
<br />Drinan, JD, Executive Director; David Rouse, AICP, Managing Director of Research and Advisory Services.
<br />Zoning Practice (ISSN 1548-0135) is produced at APA. Jim Schwab, AICP, and David Morley, AICP, Editors; Julie Von Bergen, Assistant Editor; Lisa Barton, Design
<br />and Production.
<br />Missing and damaged print issues: Contact Customer Service, American Planning Association, 205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1200, Chicago, IL 60601 (312-431-
<br />9100 or customerservice@planning.org) within 90 days of the publication date. Include the name of the publication, year, volume and issue number or month,
<br />and your name, mailing address, and membership number if applicable.
<br />Copyright ©2015 by the American Planning Association, 205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1200, Chicago, IL 60601-5927. The American Planning Association also
<br />has offices at 1030 15th St., NW, Suite 75o West, Washington, DC 20005-1503; www.planning.org.
<br />All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
<br />recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the American Planning Association.
<br />Printed on recycled paper, including 50-70% recycled fiber and io% postconsumer waste.
<br />ZONINGPRACTICE 6.15
<br />AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page?
<br />
|