PAYING FOR HIGHER DENSITIES
FERNANDO BURGA, PHD, LEAH STOCKSTROM, NICOLA SZIBBO, ERIC ANDERSON
The Bay Area is expected to welcome more than two million new residents over the next 25 years. Some of these individuals and families will choose to settle in Berkeley. The Association of Bay Area Governments adopted a state-mandated Sustainable Communities Strategy. This framework prioritizes new development in already urbanized areas with close access to public transit options. These areas are called Priority Development Areas. Downtown Berkeley has been designated as a PDA to allow for more density. LAND VALUE RECAPTURE INCREASE LAND VALUE Regional and Local Policies Transportation Investments Change of Land Use Plans
A Priority Development Area designation helps make land in these areas more valuable.
Of billions of dollars – with a significant portion going to mass transit in central areas – increases the value of properties.
Many local jurisdictions have or will change their land use plans to accommodate greater densities in the PDAs. This will further increase land values, assuming market demand.
LAND VALUE RECAPTURE Land Value Recapture
(Public Benefit Zoning or Public Benefit Bonus) Requiring community benefits from landowners whose land has increased in value due to government actions
IMPLEMENTATION Plan - Based
Negotiated
Community benefits are tied to Community benefits are specific increases in the density of negotiated between the development (or land use changes) locality and the landowner/ developer. These benefits are spelled out in a signed - Established before plan is development agreement. adopted.
Density Bonus
California’s “density bonus” law allows developers the right to build at higher densities in return for providing a percentage of the new housing at below-market rents or sales prices.
Green Pathway
Process in Berkeley provides a streamlined permit process for buildings and in return, Berkeley receives public benefits that could not otherwise be obtained. Requirements to mitigate air quality, noise, and short-term construction impacts.
COMMUNITY BENEFITS Historic Economic Community Sustainability Preservation Land Use Open Space Development Health
Housing
Access
With such an expectation of growth, there are many ways the city of Berkeley can benefit. Though, Berkeley must be careful to use LVR wisely. UC BERKELEY [IN]CITY 2014 DOWNTOWN BERKELEY PAYING FOR HIGHER DENSITIES
MARIAN WOLFE, PHD. DAYNA BLEWIS, REX CAMERON, RACHEL GOOR, SOPHIA JAYANTY, SAM LEVISON
FERNANDO BURGA, PHD, LEAH STOCKSTROM, NICOLA SZIBBO, ERIC ANDERSON
CASE STUDIES
SANTA MONICA
SAN FRANCISCO
The City of Santa Monica implemented a Negotiated approach. A flexible approach, designed to fund a range of public benefits, the quantity of benefits which are defined by an updated Santa Monica Zoning Code and nexus study. Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) adopted, which established a community benefits “Tier” structure for projects requesting an increase in the base height of 32 feet.
The City of San Francisco implemented a Plan-Based Established approach. Combined fees and housing options provide greater flexibility in the way affordable housing can be met, so that higher percentages of affordability are actually achievable. Eastern Neighborhoods Citizens Advisory Committee, which was established by the city, helps implement the plan and provides input to city agencies and decision makers.
FLEXIBLE TIER APPROACH
TIER APPROACH
TIER 1
Base height and Floor Area Ratio 3-7 Feet extra if affordable housing provided
TIER 2
Allows additional height and FAR when community benefits provided
TIER 3
Greater height and FAR exchanged for higher levels of community benefits Additional review required, but developers provided with extra certainty Encourages high-quality projects
TIER 1
Projects that remain at current height pay baseline impact fees because no increment in value results directly from governmental action
TIER 2
TIER 3
Increase of 1-2 stories Greater than 3 stories permitted Fees constitute baseline fees and Fees constitute baseline additional public fees and additional benefit zoning fees public benefit zoning fees
WHY THIS SPECIFIC PLAN FOR SANTA MONICA?
WHY THIS SPECIFIC PLAN FOR SAN FRANCISCO?
WHAT THE ESTABLISHED NEGOTIATED APPROACH DID FOR SANTA MONICA
WHAT THE ESTABLISHED PLAN-BASED APPROACH DID FOR SAN FRANCISCO
The City of Santa Monica had a long-standing tradition of achieving community benefits through development agreements, such as parks and park improvements, community health access, and child care centers with subsidies for low-income families. Through this new approach with the LUCE program, a fundamental principle ensures that future development can fund a range of measurable public benefits, making sure projects providing community benefits would be able to actually achieve financial feasibility.
Through the LUCE program, a range of measurable public benefits are included, from open space, to parks, to affordable housing. Enhanced land value is created through higher densities. In this approach when a developer chooses to exceed densities from Tier 1 to Tier 2 they will be required to provide additional community benefits.
The City of San Francisco has higher densities and an increased value for land and development, and therefore needed an approach that would establish baseline fees as well as public benefit fees. Affordable housing requirements needed a format where higher percentages of affordability would be actually achievable.
San Francisco through this approach provided greater flexibility in the way increased affordable housing production goals could be met in the Eastern Neighborhoods. In areas rezoned from industrial to mixed uses (mostly residential), more affordable housing is required to be produced than mandated under the city’s exclusionary program.
How can the Berkeley Downtown Area Plan learn from two progressive cities like Santa Monica and San Francisco? UC BERKELEY [IN]CITY 2014 DOWNTOWN BERKELEY PAYING FOR HIGHER DENSITIES
MARIAN WOLFE, PHD. DAYNA BLEWIS, REX CAMERON, RACHEL GOOR, SOPHIA JAYANTY, SAM LEVISON
UNDERSTANDING DOWNTOWN BERKELEY
POPULATION PERCENT INCREASE BY DECADE BY LOCATION
FERNANDO BURGA, PHD, LEAH STOCKSTROM, NICOLA SZIBBO, ERIC ANDERSON
BAY AREA
BERKELEY
DOWNTOWN BERKELEY 2000 - 21,203 2010 - 25,592 + 20.70%
BERKELEY
rin
Solano
Ma
Gilman
UC BERKELEY
Downtown Area
SAN FRANCISCO
College
e Ad
Ashby
elin
Sacramento
Tele grap h
Dwight
Alcatraz
DOWNTOWN BERKELEY
2010
Spruce
University
BAY AREA 2000 - 6,783,760 2010 - 7,150,739 + 5.41%
2000
Shattuck
OAKLAND
MLK Jr Way
San Pablo
4th
BERKELEY 2000 - 102,743 2010 - 112,580 + 10.30%
Rose
RENT AVERAGE RENT
RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS MIXED-USE WITH RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY SITE
EY
BERKEL
WALNUT
BERKELEY $1,177
MILVIA
DOWNTOWN BERKELEY $1,235
BONITA
HEARST
BAY AREA $1,305
ADDISON
40% 9,149
DOWNTOWN BERKELEY $33,066
UC Campus
POVERTY PERCENT IN POVERTY
OXFORD
INCOME MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME
TY
I UNIVERS
CENTER
19% 18,707
BERKELEY $58,617
CENTER STREET GARAGE
ALLSTON
10% 668,876
BAY AREA $75,989
GE
KITTRED
SHATTUCK
MILVIA
TRANSPORTATION
FT
BANCRO
MODES OF TRANSPORTATION TO AND FROM WORK *LOCAL TRANSIT - BICYCLE, WALK HOME
E
S
CAR P
OOL
BART
BICYCL
LOCAL COMMUTE 10.4%
E
V DRI
E N O AL
NG
CHANNI
FULTON
HOME
BU
MLK JR. WAY
BUS
S
LK WAE T CL AR CY B
BU
BI
DRIVE ALONE CARPOOL
T
DURANT
E ON AL IVE L DR CARPOO
BICYCLE
R BA
LOCAL COMMUTE 33.6%
HOME
LK WA
K
L WA
HOME
LOCAL COMMUTE 54%
HASTE
N
DWIGHT
The population of Downtown Berkeley is increasing at a rapid rate, but a large proportion of those residents live below the poverty line and need additional support. UC BERKELEY [IN]CITY 2014 DOWNTOWN BERKELEY PAYING FOR HIGHER DENSITIES
MARIAN WOLFE, PHD. DAYNA BLEWIS, REX CAMERON, RACHEL GOOR, SOPHIA JAYANTY, SAM LEVISON
DOWNTOWN AREA PLAN
FERNANDO BURGA, PHD, LEAH STOCKSTROM, NICOLA SZIBBO, ERIC ANDERSON
DOWNTOWN AREA PLAN
The 2010 Downtown Area Plan emerged from the 1990 plan. The 1990 plan, developed over six years, focused on recapturing the tradition of Berkeley at a time of great change. A new plan was initiated in 2005, partly to address the University of California, Berkeley’s Long Range Development Plan. The City of Berkeley and University decided they would work mutually on a plan that would address improvements to the 1990 plan and foster revitalization. The Downtown Area Plan was developed through the extensive participation of
REVISED ZONING PROVISIONS
Berkeley’s citizens, along with the cooperation and support of the University. In 2005, Berkeley’s City Council appointed a 21-member Downtown Area Plan Advisory Committee. The Planning Commission differed from DAPAC on some substantive issues. Most Planning Commissioners expressed support for having a few more tall buildings Downtown, while a majority of DAPAC members did not. The City Council decided to place controversial aspects of the recommended Plan on the ballot as “Measure R” which passed by 65% in 2010.
AMENDED DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES
New zoning addresses community character considerations with provisions for building envelopes, active street frontages, and on-site open space, while retaining appropriate flexibility regarding use.
Additions to the 1994 Downtown Design Guidelines seek to encourage new development that respects historic assets, minimizes impacts from taller buildings, further emphasizes pedestrian-oriented design, and considers sustainable design in the context of Downtown. CORE AREA, OUTER CORE AND CORRIDOR AREAS
BUFFER DISTRICT
STREET LEVEL FRONTAGE REQUIRED FULTON DWIGHT
HASTE
N CHANNI
DURANT
FT BANCRO
G KITTRED
ALLSTON
CENTER
ADDISON
ITY
UNIVERS
BERKEL
EY
ALNUT
W
E
G
OXFORD
60 50 40 20
E
SID
RE
AR
ST
AR
ST
E
RE
SI
ET
E
SID
RE
DE
RE
SHATTUCK
75 50 40 20
SID
ET
CENTER STREET GARAGE
120FT Max. Diagonal
180 120
MILVIA
MILVIA
75 50 40 20
N
HEARST
BONITA
120
E
RE
AR
ST
MLK JR. WAY
Provides schematic designs for major improvements and guidelines for improvements that can be made throughout the Downtown Area. The SOSIP sets near-term priorities and is accompanied by financing strategies.
E
AR
E
RE SI E TALLER EXCEPTION UP TO 120FT, T CORE AREA AND OUTER CORE ONLY
ET
SID
RE ST
DE
RE
STREETS AND OPEN SPACE IMPROVEMENT PLAN
SID
75 50 40
SID
TALLER EXCEPTION UP TO 180 FT , CORE AREA ONLY
PARKING AND TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT Programs encourage transit and other alternatives to the car, as well as more effective use of parking. Appropriate pricing will make parking more available for retail patrons and other short-term visitors, while discouraging its use by all-day commuters who have other travel options.
PUBLIC SERVING FRONTAGE REQUIRED
OHLONE GREENWAY
FULTON
NORTH SIDE RESIDENTIAL
SOUTHSIDE
DWIGHT
HASTE
NG CHANNI
DURANT
T F BANCRO
GE KITTRED
ALLSTON
8'
8'
11'
11'
SHATTUCK
CENTER STREET GARAGE
11'
CENTER
11'
8'
P
ADDISON
B
Y
12'
B
T
WALNU
UNIVERSIT
P
BERKEL
EY
OXFORD
MILVIA
6'
5'
P
B
8'
5'
10'
10'
B
P
5'
8'
5'
6'
12'
HEARST
BONITA
N
MILVIA
MLK JR. WAY
While the DAP outlines broad goals to promote a thriving, sustainable community, it should not ignore the negative effects caused by LVI. UC BERKELEY [IN]CITY 2014 DOWNTOWN BERKELEY PAYING FOR HIGHER DENSITIES
MARIAN WOLFE, PHD. DAYNA BLEWIS, REX CAMERON, RACHEL GOOR, SOPHIA JAYANTY, SAM LEVISON
FERNANDO BURGA, PHD, LEAH STOCKSTROM, NICOLA SZIBBO, ERIC ANDERSON
COMMUNITY NEEDS
WHAT THE COMMUNITY ITSELF THINKS IT NEEDS
The DAP states the community preferences should any new development occur and spells out desired public benefits. In order to understand what these benefits should be, it is necessary to learn from the community directly, by speaking with people and organizations in and around Downtown Berkeley. By reaching out to the constituents themselves, we can get a better general understanding of what the population feels any new development should give back.
Analysis of community meeting minutes
INTERVIEWS
With community organizations and members, and local residents
”Berkeley is being sacrificed. Berkeley shouldn’t have to take on all of the new development, other “Low-income housing. They are ‘Performance space.” pricing everyone out of the market.” -Berkeley Resident and patron neighboring cities should as well. Old buildings encapsulate energy. But money is in developing, that -Berkeley Resident of the Berkeley Arts Festival is why they want to build, and because politicians are tied to developers. Green sells, money flows.” -Berkeley Resident “Affordable housing for families, not just single rooms for students, but with variety in floor plans. Green Space accessible to people living there. One or more local grocery stores. Local hardware, not a chain. Developers should pay local workers to build any new buildings.” -Berkeley Resident since 1958
“Along with all the other city requirements, we hope to provide the City with "significant community benefits” for our project.” -Berkeley Developer and Architect
“Green LEED Building.” -Berkeley Resident
NEEDS REPRESENTED AROUND DOWNTOWN BERKELEY Public Space
Bank of America Outdoor Public Seating
Land Use
Permeable Pavement Project
Community Health
Greenhouse Emissions on Roadways
Historic Preservation
City Hall and Martin Luther King Jr Civic Center Park/Public Space
Housing
Need for Affordable Housing
Economic Development
Chase and Bank of America Buildings
Access
The Downtown Bart and Bicycle Racks
Sustainability
LEED Certified Brower Center
The community has many pressing needs that could be addressed using additional investment from any new development. UC BERKELEY [IN]CITY 2014 DOWNTOWN BERKELEY PAYING FOR HIGHER DENSITIES
MARIAN WOLFE, PHD. DAYNA BLEWIS, REX CAMERON, RACHEL GOOR, SOPHIA JAYANTY, SAM LEVISON
PROPOSED DEVELOPERS’ WANTS
FERNANDO BURGA, PHD, LEAH STOCKSTROM, NICOLA SZIBBO, ERIC ANDERSON
UC Campus
FULTON
OXFORD
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS IN DOWNTOWN AREA T U N L A W
A
RESIDENCES AT BERKELEY PLAZA
CURRENT
PROPOSED
MILVIA
BENEFITS PROPOSED
BONITA
HEARST
DWIGHT
N
KEY STAKEHOLDERS
MILVIA
B
HASTE
G N I N N A CH
DURANT
C
SHATTUCK
T F O R C N BA
N O T S L L A
CENTER
N O S I D D A
TY I S R E V I UN
Y E L E K R BE
A
E G D E R T KIT
B
LEED GOLD
8,725 SQ FT AC TRANSIT OF PUBLIC SPACE PASSES
35 UNITS
MLK JR. WAY
Height: 25 FT 3 Stories 0 Residential Units
2129 SHATTUCK
CURRENT
Height: 180 FT 18 Stories 355 Residential Units
TWO FLOORS OF COMMERCIAL SPACE
KEY STAKEHOLDERS
PROPOSED
BENEFITS PROPOSED SOSIP FEE AC TRANSIT PASSES AFFORDABLE FOR EMPLOYEES HOUSING IMPACT FEE
Height: 25 FT 3 Stories 0 Residential Units
C
1951-75 SHATTUCK
CURRENT
PROPOSED
Height: 180 FT 16 Stories 293 Hotel Rooms
REGIONAL ATTRACTION
TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX
KEY STAKEHOLDERS BAY PROPERTIES, INC
BENEFITS PROPOSED LEED GOLD 4, 403 SQ FT STORM WATER OPEN SPACE INFRASTRUCTURE
Height: 20 ft 1 and 2 Stories 10 Residential Units
Height:120 ft 12 Stories 78 Residential Units
HOUSING MITIGATION FEE
PUBLIC ART PROGRAMMING
As developers attempt to gain more profits by building larger and higher, they will be able to provide even more money for additional public benefits. UC BERKELEY [IN]CITY 2014 DOWNTOWN BERKELEY PAYING FOR HIGHER DENSITIES
MARIAN WOLFE, PHD. DAYNA BLEWIS, REX CAMERON, RACHEL GOOR, SOPHIA JAYANTY, SAM LEVISON
PROPOSED HOUSING BENEFITS
FERNANDO BURGA, PHD, LEAH STOCKSTROM, NICOLA SZIBBO, ERIC ANDERSON
Based on current prices in Berkeley, this study looked at the costs to landowners of offering additional community housing benefits. Today’s average rental price is $3.36 per square foot, while the price for purchasing a unit averages $535 per square foot. Comparing these costs with affordable rents and sales prices in Berkeley, it is possible to evaluate the costs of current affordable housing proposals with higher requirements.
A
B
RESIDENCES AT BERKELEY PLAZA INCLUSIONARY AFFORDABLE HOUSING RENTAL UNITS Current - 10% Inclusionary Units Annual Cost to Landowner
Proposed - 20% Inclusionary Units Annual Cost to Landowner
$526,008
$1,052,016
$526,008
2129 SHATTUCK AFFORDABLE HOUSING MITIGATION FEE FOR COMMERCIAL SPACE
$2,120 Current - $4/ft One-Time Fee One-Time Cost to Landowner
$1,136,000 C
Annual Cost to Landowner to Provide 35 More Affordable Units On-Site
One-Time Cost to Landowner Proposed - $5/ft One-Time Fee to be Contributed to the One-Time Cost to Landowner Housing Trust Fund
$1,420,000
$284,000
1951-75 SHATTUCK INCLUSIONARY AFFORDABLE HOME OWNERSHIP UNITS
Developers’ Current Plan
Current - 20% Ownership Units One-Time Cost to Landowner
$8,971,050
Proposed - No Change Exceeds current requirements for affordable housing benefits
One-Time Cost to Landowner to Fund 15 Affordable Home Ownership Units On-Site
$8,971,050
There is a considerable need for BMR housing in Berkeley, and by designating 20% of new units as affordable, we can begin to address the need. UC BERKELEY [IN]CITY 2014 DOWNTOWN BERKELEY PAYING FOR HIGHER DENSITIES
MARIAN WOLFE, PHD. DAYNA BLEWIS, REX CAMERON, RACHEL GOOR, SOPHIA JAYANTY, SAM LEVISON
PROPOSED ACCESS BENEFITS
FERNANDO BURGA, PHD, LEAH STOCKSTROM, NICOLA SZIBBO, ERIC ANDERSON
METHODOLOGY:
This analysis calculated the price of facilitating the use of alternative modes of transportation, with a focus on bicycle parking and transit passes. The new buildings have proposed retail space for their ground floors, so assuming that bike parking will share this space, the numbers below rely on the retail rent figure of $2.50 per square foot. AC Transit passes cost $75 per month, and this price has been multiplied out for the year by number of units or anticipated number of employees.
A
RESIDENCES AT BERKELEY PLAZA BIKE PARKING & TRANSIT PASSES FOR RESIDENTS AC Transit Pass
B
AC Transit Pass
Secure Parking for 100 Bikes
AC Transit Passes for Residents
$21,000
$319,500
Annual Cost to Landowner to Provide Bicycle Parking & AC Transit Passes
$340,500
2129 SHATTUCK BIKE SHARE VOUCHERS FOR GUESTS & TRANSIT PASSES FOR EMPLOYEES AC Transit Pass
AC Transit Pass
Bike Share Vouchers for Hotel Guests
AC Transit Passes for Hotel Employees
$60,000
$108,000
C
Developers’ Current Plan
Annual Cost to Landowner to Provide Bike Share Vouchers & AC Transit Passes
$168,000
1951-75 SHATTUCK BIKE PARKING & TRANSIT PASSES FOR RESIDENTS AC Transit Pass
AC Transit Pass
Secure Parking for 50 Bikes
AC Transit Passes for Residents
$11,000
$70,200
Annual Cost to Landowner to Provide Bicycle Parking & AC Transit Passes
$81,200
By providing bicycle amenities and transit passes to residents and employees, developers can make Downtown a more livable, walkable place. UC BERKELEY [IN]CITY 2014 DOWNTOWN BERKELEY PAYING FOR HIGHER DENSITIES
MARIAN WOLFE, PHD. DAYNA BLEWIS, REX CAMERON, RACHEL GOOR, SOPHIA JAYANTY, SAM LEVISON
PROPOSED ECONOMIC BENEFITS
FERNANDO BURGA, PHD, LEAH STOCKSTROM, NICOLA SZIBBO, ERIC ANDERSON
METHODOLOGY:
By donating space and yearly funding to job training programs, new development can help spur an economic renaissance in Downtown Berkeley. This analysis multiplies the average monthly rent for retail and ofďŹ ce space ($2.50 and $2.28, respectively) by the estimated area needed to operate a particular program. In addition, each development could help support its associated program with a small yearly donation.
A
RESIDENCES AT BERKELEY PLAZA SPACE & FUNDS FOR MICRO-BUSINESS INCUBATOR Annual Cost to Landowner to Support MicroBusiness Incubator
1,700 Ft Donated Retail Space
Annual Funding Contribution
$51,000
$20,000
2
B
$71,000
2129 SHATTUCK SPACE & FUNDS FOR GREEN BUSINESS ACCELERATOR Annual Cost to Landowner to Support Green Business Accelerator
2,000 Ft Donated Office Space
Annual Funding Contribution
$54,720
$20,000
2
C
$74,720
1951-75 SHATTUCK SPACE & FUNDS FOR JOB TRAINING CENTER Annual Cost to Landowner to Support Job Training Center
1,600 Ft Donated Retail Space
Annual Funding Contribution
$48,000
$20,000
2
$68,000
New buildings can contribute to economic diversity and sustainability by housing and supporting job training and business development programs. UC BERKELEY [IN]CITY 2014 DOWNTOWN BERKELEY PAYING FOR HIGHER DENSITIES
MARIAN WOLFE, PHD. DAYNA BLEWIS, REX CAMERON, RACHEL GOOR, SOPHIA JAYANTY, SAM LEVISON
NOVEMBER BALLOT INITIATIVE
FERNANDO BURGA, PHD, LEAH STOCKSTROM, NICOLA SZIBBO, ERIC ANDERSON
HEIGHT CHANGES PROPOSED
OVERVIEW: In 2009, the Berkeley City Council approved the proposed Downtown Area Plan 7-2, but citizens subsequently voted it down. The Plan was rescinded, and in 2010, Measure R was passed by the public to amend the Plan to appease both citizens and policymakers. With three large developments in the pipeline, and no additional public benefits from the passage of Measure R, another, more stringent ballot measure has been proposed for this November, to ensure that the community sees the results of allowing higher densities downtown.
120 FT 75 FT
60 FT
50 FT
60 FT
50 FT
DOWNTOWN BUFFER ZONES
CORRIDOR SECTIONS
CIVIC CENTER HISTORIC DISTRICT
EY
BERKEL
WALNUT
Berkeley Way Parking Lot
MILVIA
CHANGES PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE
Golden Bear*
BONITA
HEARST
SITY
UNIVER
UC Campus
OXFORD
N
ADDISO
CENTER
Center Street Garage
C-DMU CORE C-DMU OUTER CORE C-DMU CORRIDOR C-DMU BUFFER HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
SHATTUCK
MILVIA
FT
BANCRO
DURANT
G
CHANNIN
FULTON
75 FT
GE
KITTRED
MLK JR. WAY
75 FT
HASTE
ry DAP Bounda
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RESTRICTED MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SOUTH AREA COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL HIGH-DENSITY SUBAREA RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE SUBAREA
N ALLSTO
DWIGHT
ISSUE
CURRENT <75FT
PROPOSED 60-75 FT
CURRENT 75FT+
PROPOSED 75FT+
Follow Green Pathway
Optional
Required
Optional
Required
LEED Certification
Gold
No change
Gold
Platinum
Units for Families
--
--
--
2-3 bedrooms in 20% of units
Affordable Units (at 50% AMI)
10%
20%
10%
30%
Affordable Units On-Site Optional
At least 10%
Optional
At least 20%
Prevailing Wages for Employees
--
Construction, Maintenance, Hotel, & Security Workers
--
Construction, Maintenance, Hotel, & Security Workers
Construction Workers from Berkeley
30%
50%
30%
50%
If passed, the November ballot initiative will result in a number of changes to the requirements for new development in the Downtown area. UC BERKELEY [IN]CITY 2014 DOWNTOWN BERKELEY PAYING FOR HIGHER DENSITIES
MARIAN WOLFE, PHD. DAYNA BLEWIS, REX CAMERON, RACHEL GOOR, SOPHIA JAYANTY, SAM LEVISON
PAYING FOR HIGHER DENSITIES
FERNANDO BURGA, PHD, LEAH STOCKSTROM, NICOLA SZIBBO, ERIC ANDERSON
Downtown Berkeley is at a critical juncture in its history, facing a rapidly rising population coupled with myriad community needs. Swift action must be taken to analyze the financial feasibility of attracting new development while simultaneously prioritizing community benefits. By leveraging land value recapture strategies, Berkeley can increase affordable housing, make Downtown a more livable place, and improve economic diversity and sustainability. RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATION #1 Commission a comprehensive and impartial financial feasibility analysis to determine the optimal ways to maintain developer interest while ensuring that sufficient community benefits are being provided.
RECOMMENDATION #2 Require 20% of units in new developments to be rented or sold at affordable prices. The feasibility analysis will determine the appropriate percentage to be required to be built on-site.
RECOMMENDATION #3
+
AC Transit Pass
Require secure, indoor bicycle parking from new developments, as well as free AC Transit passes for residents or employees. Since developers have already proposed open space and streetscape improvements as part of their residential amenities, additional benefits can include transit and space for bike parking.
RECOMMENDATION #4 Require developers to support economic development in Berkeley with a focus on underserved populations and green businesses. Provide the option of donating space and program funding or paying an annual fee of between $70,000 and $100,000 into a City-administered fund.
These recommendations are reasonable as developers of the proposed highrises have already committed to providing 2 of the 3 community benefits. The financial analysis will determine conclusively whether these recommendations are feasible and can be included in a community benefits agreement. UC BERKELEY [IN]CITY 2014 DOWNTOWN BERKELEY PAYING FOR HIGHER DENSITIES
MARIAN WOLFE, PHD. DAYNA BLEWIS, REX CAMERON, RACHEL GOOR, SOPHIA JAYANTY, SAM LEVISON