Estimating Residential Infill Capacity: A Bay Area Application John D. Landis Department of City & Regional Planning UC Berkeley for Caltrans Horizons.

Estimating Residential Infill Capacity: A Bay

Area Application

John D. LandisDepartment 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?

a) Identifying Infill Sites

b) Current Densities

c) Estimating Capacity

COMPLICATIONS

NEXT STEPS

ANALYSIS

A. Infill and Refill SiteIdentification Criteria

1. Complete County Assessor’s entry.

2. Geo-codable using 2000 GDT maps.

3. Within CFMMP urban footprint.

4. Sites smaller than 2000 sqft excluded.

5. Includes only sites with I/L ratio less than or equal to .9.

6. All sites with structures built after 1970 excluded.

7. Public uses and structures excluded.

8. Condominium lands amalgamated.

9. 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

0% 50% 100% 150% 200%

Alameda

Contra Costa

Marin

Napa

San Francisco

San Mateo

Santa Clara

Solano

Sonoma

Infill Capacity/Projected 2000-2020 Household Growth

Commute ShedMethod

COMPLICATIONS

What is physically possible may not be desirable…..

1. This analysis ignores issues of financial feasibility. Our prior analysis suggests increased infill construction activities in many neighborhoods would require large subsidies,

2. 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.

3. How to program and pay for additional parking, even allowing for reduced parking requirements.

4. The foregoing infill levels don’t allow enough housing product choice, particularly with respect to single-family housing for families.

5. Cumulatively, the foregoing infill levels would lead to a significant alteration of community character.

6. 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

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

All Sites developed at HistoricDensities

Financially-feasible Sites developedat Historic Densities

Addi

tionl

Hou

sing

Units

Alameda Contra CostaMarin San Francisco

San Mateo Santa ClaraSolano

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)

-50,000 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000

Alameda

Contra Costa

Marin

Napa

SF

San Mateo

Santa Clara

Solano

Sonoma

Housing Unit Production

1/2 Infill Capacity

Needed GreenfieldCapacity

NEXT STEPS

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.