delling on density eploring affordable housing...
Post on 08-Jul-2020
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
UC BERKELEY [IN]CITY 2015 Marian Wolfe, PhD, Scott chilberg, holly clarke, SohaM DheSi, eleanor fiSher, rebecca PynooS nicola Szibbo, PhD, Sonia-lynn abenojar, eric anDerSon, juStin kearnan
DWELLING ON DENSITY / EXPLORING AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF BERKELEY
THE PROBLEM
Housing Trust Fund
$$
$
Development fees
Other sources
CountyState
Federal
Affordable housing in Berkeley is produced in two ways:
by private developers mixed into market-rate projects, and
through government-funded nonprofit development projects.
Funding for the latter comes from fees on private development leveraged with county, state, and federal sources. All of these funding sources have depleted in recent years.
Berkeley is considering a local policy change that would grant a “density bonus” to developers in exchange for paying fees that would be used to fund affordable projects.
The Bay Area’s population is exploding. With an expected population growth of 24% by 2040, and pursuant to California Senate Bill 375, Berkeley has adopted a high-density, transit-oriented growth-management strategy around identified Priority Development Areas (see map above). With most of its land already developed, Berkeley is now facing the complicated task of accomodating “its share” of regional population growth while expanding availability of affordable housing.
How should Berkeley expand the supply of affordable housing using the density bonus plan?
Downtown Berkeley/ Downtown Area Plan
San Pablo Avenue/ West Berkeley Project
South Shattuck/ South Shattuck Strategic
Telegraph Avenue/ Southside Plan
Adeline Street/ South Shattuck Strategic Plan
University Avenue/ University Avenue Strategic Plan
BAY AREA
Priority Development AreasBay Area Plan
0 1.20.3Miles
PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AREAS
UC BERKELEY [IN]CITY 2015 Marian Wolfe, PhD, Scott chilberg, holly clarke, SohaM DheSi, eleanor fiSher, rebecca PynooS nicola Szibbo, PhD, Sonia-lynn abenojar, eric anDerSon, juStin kearnan
DWELLING ON DENSITY /
$ $
INCOME BRACKETS Extremely low Income Very Low IncomeLow Income Moderate Income
30 % Area Median Income 50 % AMI 80 % AMI 100 % AMI
Residential density is defined as the number of dwelling units per acre (du/ac)
FLOOR AREA RATIO [FAR]Ratio of total floor area of structures on a lot to total square footage of lot
LOT USE
AFFORDABILITYDENSITY
DENSITY BONUSAn increase in the number of residential units on a parcel beyond what the zoning ordinance allows
ZONING CONCESSIONSReductions in certain zoning regulations, such as:
100% Affordable Housing
Inclusionary Housing
Units that are reserved as affordable housing. Rents for below-market-rate units are set as 30% of the income of target tenant group (see Income Brackets table to the right).
100% AFFORDABLE HOUSING
ASSOCIATED PROBLEMSINCLUSIONARY HOUSING
Housing Trust Fund
Parking spaces
Parking spaces
Parking level entrance
4 - 10 du/ac
20 - 40 du/ac
50 - 100 du/ac
Single Family Dwelling
Townhouses
Apartments
Below market rate (BMR) units
Residential affordability is defined as 30% or less of household income spent on rent
BELOW MARKET RATE (BMR) UNITS
DEFINITION OF KEY CONCEPTS
open space parking setbacks height limits
Services
Lack of community Peripheral location
“Ghettoizing” the poor
Lengthy build process
No in-building services
Less affordable
Building
UC BERKELEY [IN]CITY 2015 Marian Wolfe, PhD, Scott chilberg, holly clarke, SohaM DheSi, eleanor fiSher, rebecca PynooS nicola Szibbo, PhD, Sonia-lynn abenojar, eric anDerSon, juStin kearnan
DWELLING ON DENSITY / BERKELEY DEMOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW
2010
1995
2014
2000
SNAPSHOT OF BERKELEY DEMOGRAPHICS
BERKELEY OVER TIME
ToTal PoPulaTion 116,768Median age 31 27% of Berkeley’s PoPulaTion is 18-24Workforce eMPloyed By uc Berkeley 23%Median houshold incoMe $61,960average household size 2.17renTer/ hoMeoWner PoPulaTion 59%/41%
POPULATION GROWTH NUMBER OF UNITS BUILT(In Buildings with 5+ Units)
% OF INCOME SPENT ON HOUSING
COMMUTER POPULATION
11, 197
52,330
27,176
AT A GLANCE
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2013
116,716
103,328 103,137 103,027
112,914
116,768
WhiteAfrican American
Asian, Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander
Two or More Races
Hispanic Latino
55%
10%
19%
5%11%
BREAKDOWN BY RACE
1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2008
4027
2125
578 573
1150
2010 Census Data, Berkeley Daily Planet
2010 Census Data
Workers commuting into Berkeley daily
Work & live in Berkeley
Berkeley residents working elsewhere
Data from LEHD
City of Berkeley - Consolidated Plan for Housing & Community Development (2010)Berkeley Housing Element (2009)
2010 Census Data, 2015-2023 Berkeley Housing Element
Housing in Berkeley has become more expensive over time; construction has declined while demand, especially from students, has increased.
48% of commuters to Berkeley make <50% of AMI
36% of Berkeley residents make <50% of AMI
UC BERKELEY STUDENT POPULATION GROWTH
37,581
Census Data, American Community Surveys
Census Data
UC Berkeley
10 15 20 23 27 30 33 37 40 45 50
¯
70,000-140,000
30,000-70,0000
0-5000
5000-10,000
10,000-15,000
15,000-30,000
DENSITY
29,662
UC BERKELEY [IN]CITY 2015 Marian Wolfe, PhD, Scott chilberg, holly clarke, SohaM DheSi, eleanor fiSher, rebecca PynooS nicola Szibbo, PhD, Sonia-lynn abenojar, eric anDerSon, juStin kearnan
DWELLING ON DENSITY /
1979
2008
2009
2011
2013
2015
1990
California passes Senate Bill 375
California Superior Court effectively bans Inclusionary Zoning for rental residences
Berkeley creates Housing Mitigation Fee
Association of Bay Area Governments pass Sustainable Communities Strategy
Changes proposed to Berkeley density policy
Berkeley creates Housing Trust Fund
California passes Density Bonus Law
STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW
BERKELEY’S CURRENT PATHS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROPOSED CHANGES
DISINCENTIVESReduced rent from BMR units
Density bonus granted
% of total units in project that are reserved for:
DISINCENTIVESPer-unit mitigation fee
INCENTIVESDensity bonus
Mitigation fee exemption
INCENTIVES100% market- rate rents
Berkeley City Council is reviewing a proposal that, if passed, would grant a 35% density bonus to developers who pay the housing mitigation fee as well as a density bonus fee.
moderate income
low income
very low income
10%
5%10%
11%20%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%40%
California’s density bonus policy reduces Berkeley’s discretionary control over zoning and density, and gives developers incentives to include affordable housing on-site. The proposed changes could create an enticing local alternative.
POLICY BACKGROUND
Grants a % increase above local limits on the allowed number of residential units for a project along with two zoning concessions in exchange for inclusion of below market rate (BMR) units. Local governments cannot deny a density bonus to proposed projects that meet the state’s criteria.
10% very low income
50% accessible for seniors
20% low income
Housing Trust Fund
Housing Trust Fund
$28,000
$28,000 $10,000
35%density bonus
mitigation fee per unit
per unit fee per base unit fee for the developer for affordable housing
INCLUSIONARY
100% AFFORDABLE
+ &$
UC BERKELEY [IN]CITY 2015 Marian Wolfe, PhD, Scott chilberg, holly clarke, SohaM DheSi, eleanor fiSher, rebecca PynooS nicola Szibbo, PhD, Sonia-lynn abenojar, eric anDerSon, juStin kearnan
DWELLING ON DENSITY / COMPARISONS: SAN FRANCISCO & SANTA MONICA
SAN FRANCISCO
SANTA MONICA
SquARE MIlES 47POPulATION 837,442MEdIAN INCOME $75,604/yR RENTERS/ OwNERS 65%/35%MEdIAN RENT AS MEdIAN
ShARE Of MONThly INCOME 37%
AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICY Residential developers building 10 + multifamily units must choose from the following options:
Mayor’s Office of Housing and CommunityDevelopment
Build affordable housing off-site, within 1 mile radius of market rate projectInclude 12% BMR
DEMOGRAPHICS
AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICY Residential developers building multifamily housing must choose from the following 4 options:
Housing Trust Fund
Build affordable housing off-site, within .25-mile radius of market rate project
Donate, sell, or option land to city or non-profit hous-
SquARE MIlES 8POPulATION 84,084MEdIAN INCOME $71,400/yR RENTERS/ OwNERS 72%/28%MEdIAN RENT AS MEdIAN
ShARE Of MONThly INCOME 26%
San Francisco and Santa Monica both have instituted housing policies not present in Berkeley, namely set density standards and a radius requirement for off-site affordable housing.
DEMOGRAPHICS DENSITY STANDARDThe San Francisco planning code standards outline maximum dwelling unit density based on zoning district and building use.
DENSITY STANDARDThe Santa Monica municipal code outlines maximum dwelling unit density based on zoning district and building use.
Inclusionary units
UC BERKELEY [IN]CITY 2015 Marian Wolfe, PhD, Scott chilberg, holly clarke, SohaM DheSi, eleanor fiSher, rebecca PynooS nicola Szibbo, PhD, Sonia-lynn abenojar, eric anDerSon, juStin kearnan
DWELLING ON DENSITY /
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION ECONOMIC DISTRIBUTION
5 - 1,407 1,407 - 5,616 5,617- 12,00012,001 - 22,45022,450 - 35,076
BERKELEY POPULATION BY INCOME BRACKET
# MODERATE-INCOME UNITS by TYPE # LOW-INCOME UNITS by TYPE
# EXTREMELY-LOW-INCOME UNITS by TYPE
# VERY-LOW-INCOME UNITS by TYPE
JOB DISTRIBUTION (jobs per sq mi)INCLUSIONARY
HOUSING UNITS MAPPED
100% AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS MAPPED
AVG. MARKET RENT*
HOUSEHOLD INCOME NECESSARY TO AFFORD AVG. MARKET RENT
2010 2014
INCOME DISTRIBUTION
54% of Berkeley renters are overpaying for rent. While sheer production of housing is necessary, it’s important to look at the distribution of affordable housing, both geographically and economically, to ensure that that production is equitable. Below- market-rate units should be available within Berkeley’s economic centers, and should meet the needs of the lowest income groups.
15,00020,00025,00030,000
40,000
50,00075,000100,000
35,000
45,000
DISTRIBUTION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
0 units 33 units
168 units
3,650
7,865
# of households
4,305
24 units
126 units
255 units 248 units
0 units
9,565Extremely Low Income
Very Low Income
Low Income
Moderate & Upper Income
0 to 19 units
20 to 39 units
0 to 19 units
20 to 39 units
40 to 59 units
60+ units
100% affordable housing, in contrast to inclusionary units, is distributed outside job centers and provides more deeply affordable units. Moderate income units are not produced by either category.
$1,765
$70,600
$2,171
$86,840*3-person, 2-bedroom
MODERATE & UPPER INCOME
LOW INCOME
VERY LOW INCOME
EXTREMELY LOW INCOME
Berkeley 2010 & 2015 affordable housing nexus studies
Job distribution data from LEHD, income distribution data from 2013 ACS
2007-2011 American Community Survey data
UC BERKELEY [IN]CITY 2015 Marian Wolfe, PhD, Scott chilberg, holly clarke, SohaM DheSi, eleanor fiSher, rebecca PynooS nicola Szibbo, PhD, Sonia-lynn abenojar, eric anDerSon, juStin kearnan
DWELLING ON DENSITY /
There is significantly better access to neighborhood amenities, public transit, and retail in the area with a high concentration of inclusionary housing than in the area with a high concentration of 100% affordable projects.
NEIGHBORHOOD AMENITIES
INCLUSIONARY UNITS
TRANSIT
WALK, BUS, BIKE SCORES
WALK, BUS, BIKE SCORES
LAND USE
Shat
tuck
Ave
MLK
Jr
Way
Virginia St
Blake St
University Ave
Hearst Ave
Bancroft WayEducation
Bus RoutesBart
Community Center
Park
Grocery
Hospital
Cultural Institution
Cultural Institution
InstitutionResidential UnitsCommercialMixed Use ResidentialRecreational
959869
AMENITIES AREA
Shat
tuck
Ave
MLK
Jr
Way
Virginia St
Blake St
University Ave
Hearst Ave
Bancroft Way
AFFORDABLE UNITS
TRANSIT
LAND USE
M.L
.K Jr
Way
Sacr
amen
to S
t
San
Pabl
o A
ve
Alcatraz
Russel St
Ashby St
Dwight Way
Education
Bus Routes
Institutional Residential UnitsCommercialMixed Use ResidentialRecreationalMixed Use Light Industrial
Bart
Community Center
Park
Grocery
Hospital
8859 99
AMENITIES AREA
M.L
.K Jr
Way
Sacr
amen
to S
t
San
Pabl
o A
ve
Alcatraz
Russel St
Ashby St
Dwight Way
UC BERKELEY [IN]CITY 2015 Marian Wolfe, PhD, Scott chilberg, holly clarke, SohaM DheSi, eleanor fiSher, rebecca PynooS nicola Szibbo, PhD, Sonia-lynn abenojar, eric anDerSon, juStin kearnan
DWELLING ON DENSITY /
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING
100% AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Ashby Lofts (54 Units)
Communal Outdoor Courtyard/ Terrace
Computer Work Space
On-Site WorkshopsHelios Corner (80 Units)
“ARTISTS ThRIvE IN lIvE/wORK lOTS AT 800 hEINz AvE.” - The Berkeley Daily Plant, August, 2005Margaret Breland
Homes (28 Units)
Wheel-Chair Friendly
“IT OffERS MORE ThAN juST AN APARTMENT hOME, IT OffERS A wORRy-fREE lIfESTylE.” - hARRIET TuBMAN TERRACE wEBSITE
Workout FacilitiesActon Courtyard (70 Total Units, 20 BMR)
Washer-Dryer In-Unit
Berkeley Central(118 Total Units, 23 BMR) Pet friendly
Allston Place(60 Total Units, 12 BMR)
Communal Outdoor Courtyard/ Terrace
In-building Access to car-share services
“SET yOuR hOME APART fROM ThE REST”- hIllSIdE vIllAgE APARTMENTS
[wE PuT AN] EMPhASIS ON hIgh-quAlITy dESIgN ThAT lOOKS lIKE A MARKET-RATE BuIldINg- SAhA hOMES
“OuR MISSION IS TO CREATE ANd PRESERvE AffORdABlE hOuSINg...TO BuIld COMMuNITy ANd ENRICh lIvES” - RCd hOuSINg
“wE gO TO gREAT lENgThS dESIgNINg AMMENITIES ANd ChOOSINg lOCATIONS ThAT PuT EvERyThINg wIThIN REACh.” - AvAlON BERKElEy
“A hOME ThAT SuITS yOuR PERSONAl NEEdS” - EquITy RESIdENTIAl (gAIA BuIldINg)
Both emphasize clean, modern designs.100% affordable projects put a strong emphasis on empowering residents through community activities, while inclusionary buildings focus on giving residents access to services on a more individual level.
IN-BUILDING AMENITIES
BUILDING TYPOLOGIES
BUILDING TYPOLOGIES
AMENITIES & SERVICES
AMENITIES & SERVICES
QUOTES
QUOTES
UC BERKELEY [IN]CITY 2015 Marian Wolfe, PhD, Scott chilberg, holly clarke, SohaM DheSi, eleanor fiSher, rebecca PynooS nicola Szibbo, PhD, Sonia-lynn abenojar, eric anDerSon, juStin kearnan
DWELLING ON DENSITY /
SCENARIO EVALUATION
CONCEPT-TO-OPERATION TIMELINE
10-unit building
SCENARIO A:
SCENARIO B:
PRODUCTION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING
100% AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Meets 10% BMR unit req.
Pays $2 million ($28,000/unit) to city
1 unit BMR
20 unit BMR
A typical affordable housing project costs $350,000-$400,000 per unit to build
Funding sources:
20-25% 75-80%etc.
$100,000 of city funding produces 1 unit of affordable housing
It takes more time to build 100% affordable housing projects; however, you get more units per development with this approach.
I. ConCept II. pre-Development III. Development Iv. ConstruCtIon v. operatIon
I. ConCept & seCurIng FInanCIng II. pre-Development III. FInal DesIgn Iv. ConstruCtIon v. operatIon
3.5 - 8 years
3 - 6 years
UC BERKELEY [IN]CITY 2015 Marian Wolfe, PhD, Scott chilberg, holly clarke, SohaM DheSi, eleanor fiSher, rebecca PynooS nicola Szibbo, PhD, Sonia-lynn abenojar, eric anDerSon, juStin kearnan
DWELLING ON DENSITY / HYPOTHETICAL COST & REVENUE ANALYSIS
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:
IMPLICATIONS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Under the proposed policy change, Scenario C produces more units in aggregate while incurring greater costs on developers. However, the increased revenues would absorb that cost in under five years.
Pay mitigation fee?
Seek density bonus?
Include BMR units?
FEES / COSTSADDED REVENUE FROM DENSITY BONUS
TOTAL ANNUAL REVENUES FROM RENT
$1.2 million one-time mitigation
fee
$63,000 annual cost*
$2.4 millionone-time mitigation
& density bonus fees
* Cost here means the difference between revenue from inclusionary units at market rate minus inclusionary units at below market rate
scenario aCurrent policy: Pays mitigation fee
scenario BCurrent policy: Builds on-site housing
scenario cProposed policy: Pay mitigation+ density bonus fees
Housing Trust Fund
$1.2 million
$2.4 million
N/A
This is a hypothetical analysis of the costs a 50-unit proposed development might incur related to affordable housing requirements under 3 scenarios. Scenarios A and B look at the current density bonus policy, and Scenario C looks at the proposed changes.
2124 Bancroft WayBANCROFT APARTMENTS
$400,000
$1.11 million
58 5
68 24
50 12
# of MR units
# of BMR units
$400,000
$1.43 million
$1.51 million
Housing Trust Fund
UC BERKELEY [IN]CITY 2015 Marian Wolfe, PhD, Scott chilberg, holly clarke, SohaM DheSi, eleanor fiSher, rebecca PynooS nicola Szibbo, PhD, Sonia-lynn abenojar, eric anDerSon, juStin kearnan
DWELLING ON DENSITY / LOOKING AHEAD
Services
Proposed market-rate development
Proposed 100% affordable housing project
The lack of community issue was qualitatively supported, but needs further research.
Spatial analysis shows 100% affordable projects are primarily in peripheral locations outside job centers.
In-building services exist in both cases, but address different needs.
No noticeable income difference between market-rate and 100% affordable development neighborhoods.
Extremely low income housholds are underserved by inclusionary housing. Moderate income households are underserved by both.
100% affordable housing projects have a slightly lengthier build process, but result in more affordable units per development.
RECOMMENDATION #1: Conduct a feasibility study to determine a “tipping point” for inclusionary requirements & fees under the new policy, in order to encourage a mixture. Look especially at ways to promote unit production for moderate-income households.
RECOMMENDATION #2: Develop systems for gathering and analysing data on below-market-rate unit production, location, and affordability to allow for a holistic and adaptive affordable housing strategy.
RECOMMENDATION #3: Create mechanisms for early community engagement between developers and community members around new proposals.
RECOMMENDATION #4: Conduct a study on the effects of high-density developments on neighborhoods and incorporate community education.
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS
RECOMMENDATIONS
Priority Development Areas
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS
top related