310 likes | 406 Views
Estimating Residential Infill Capacity: A Bay Area Application. John D. Landis Department of City & Regional Planning UC Berkeley for Caltrans Horizons Planning Group May 11, 2004. OUTLINE. ANALYSIS: What is the Infill Capacity of the Bay Area? Identifying Infill Sites Current Densities
E N D
Estimating Residential Infill Capacity: A Bay Area Application John D. Landis Department of City & Regional Planning UC Berkeley for Caltrans Horizons Planning Group May 11, 2004
OUTLINE • ANALYSIS: What is the Infill Capacity of the Bay Area? • Identifying Infill Sites • Current Densities • Estimating Capacity • COMPLICATIONS • NEXT STEPS
A.Infill and Refill SiteIdentification Criteria • Complete County Assessor’s entry. • Geo-codable using 2000 GDT maps. • Within CFMMP urban footprint. • Sites smaller than 2000 sqft excluded. • Includes only sites with I/L ratio less than or equal to .9. • All sites with structures built after 1970 excluded. • Public uses and structures excluded. • Condominium lands amalgamated. • Superfund and wetland sites excluded.
B. Identification of Net Residential Densities Block group net residential density = Total housing units by BG [2000 Census] 1995 Residential land area by BG [ABAG]
C. Housing Allocation and Density Rules • All VACANT & REFILL acreage in BGs along major freeways and lacking transit service is reserved for commercial development. • All VACANT and REFILL acreage in BGs adjacent to transit stations is assigned housing at 150% of base BG density. • All VACANT& REFILL acreage in BGs adjacent to major commercial neighborhoods (from ABAG inventory) is assigned housing at 150% of base BG density. • All other commercial and multifamily REFILL sites are assigned housing at 150% of base BG density. • All other VACANT and single-family REFILL sites are assigned housing at 125% of base BG density. • No additional housing units assigned to rural infill sites.
Bottom Line: Ratio of Estimated Infill Housing Capacity to Projected 2000-2020 Household Growth, by County
What is physically possible may not be desirable….. • This analysis ignores issues of financial feasibility. Our prior analysis suggests increased infill construction activities in many neighborhoods would require large subsidies, • Without new capital infrastructure and public service financing vehicles, the foregoing infill levels would drastically overburden all community services, especially transportation, public safety, and parks. • How to program and pay for additional parking, even allowing for reduced parking requirements. • The foregoing infill levels don’t allow enough housing product choice, particularly with respect to single-family housing for families. • Cumulatively, the foregoing infill levels would lead to a significant alteration of community character. • Large-scale redevelopment of existing residential neighborhoods, whether market or policy-led = gentrification. Curtailing development opportunities at the urban edge, where land is less expensive, reduces opportunities for affordable family housing.
Many Physical Infill Opportunities, Fewer Profitable Opportunities 292,000 70,000 * Excludes Sonoma & Napa counties
½ -Projected Infill Housing Capacity plus Needed Greenfield Housing Capacity Required to Meet Projected 2000-2020 Housing Unit Demand (based on Local Jobs-Housing Balance)
NEXT STEPS:Research & Analysis • Statewide analysis of infill potential, capacity and financial feasibility. • Website for use by regional and local planners and redevelopment officials showing infill parcel locations and their potential for redevelopment. • Use of 2000 PUMS data to identify “recent-infill movers;” to compare them to recent movers more generally, and to project potential future demand. Jointly funded by Caltrans and HCD
NEXT STEPS: Policy Options • Significant CEQA reform/streamlining/tiering for pre-designated, pre-planned infill/exfill/specific plan planning areas. [As of right?] • Regional or county transportation and parks impact fees to pay for service upgrading in infill areas. • Housing production and incentive programs, a la MTC’s HIP program. • Mandatory inclusionary housing requirement in cities with low vacancy rates. • Sanctions for cities that grossly favor job growth over housing construction. RDA TIF takeback? • Infrastructure financing incentives (AB680?) to encourage better site and community planning in suburban areas.
NEXT STEPS: State Planning Incentives, Local Planning Initiatives • Planned/limited job decentralization along current/future transit & highway corridors. • Increased infill development activity along current/future transit corridors. • Increased infill development in support of existing urban neighborhoods. • Increased infill development activity in support of suburban downtowns. • Planned greenfield cluster development activity in areas with sufficient infrastructure capacity; which are not environmentally sensitive; and which have been identified for development in local general plans. • Identify appropriate locations for new planned communities.