Transit Panel (William Kohn Fleissig) - ULI fall meeting - 102711

© All Rights Reserved - Fleissig and Carlton - 2011

Reframing Transit & Development to

TOD 3.0

TransACT

William Kohn Fleissig ULI Fall Conference

October 27, 2011


TOD Is Evolving to Deliver Livability Benefits

TOD 2.0

1. Route Alignment

2. Station Location

3. Station Area

4. Land Assemblage

5. Infrastructure

6. Vertical Development

TOD 1.0

Tran

sit

Rea

l Est

ate

A. Land Assemblage

B. Infrastructure

C. Vertical Development

A. Route Alignment

B. Station Location

C. Station Area

7. Livability Benefits

TOD 3.0

UMTA Era: Uncoordinated transit infrastructure implementation and real estate development processes resulted in one-off real estate projects built only when markets and regulations fortuitously supported development

Since ISTEA: Greater regulatory coordination between transit and local land use planning that focused on TOD outcomes, though TOD projects still occurred on a one-off basis when markets supported development

Livable Communities Era: Transit investments are aligned with real estate development potential so that TOD can generate corridor-wide livability benefits via corridor-wide financing tools

1. Route Alignment

2. Station Location

3. Station Area

4. Land Assemblage

5. Infrastructure



Category Livability Benefits Category Livability Benefits

Mobility

• Pedestrian/Bicycle improvements

• Parking• Local shuttles• Car/bike sharing facilities

Services

• Street/Sidewalk cleaning service• Increased police patrols /

Ambassador force• Farmers’ markets• Other social services

Housing

• Low-income housing• Workforce housing• Supportive housing

Economic Development

• Job training• Business development• District marketing

Environment

• Site remediation• Air quality programs• Noise abatement• Water resources• Habitat preservation

Education

• Kindergarten / Daycare / After-school services

• Charter Schools• Magnet Schools• Public Schools

Public Space

• Open/green space• Recreation/active space• Streetscape enhancements• Trails• Façade enhancements• Historic structure preservation

Infrastructure

• School facility improvements• Community facility construction• Undergrounding utilities• Upgrading infrastructure• Alternative energy production

Potential TOD 3.0 Livability Benefits


Kendall Square, Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA 1975-1981


15th and Pearl Garage, GAGID 1998-1999, Boulder CO


16 Market Square, Denver, CO 1998-2000

Sugar Cube Building, Denver, CO 2004-2005

LODO District Zoning and Infrastructure, Denver 1984-1987


103 Acre Old Villa Italia Shopping Mall


23 Block Belmar District


Belmar, Lakewood, CO 2000 - present


Drivers of Growth

SB 375 and AB 32 impacting state,

regional and local policies and $$$

ABAGMTCUtilitiesWater DistrictsTransit AgenciesCountiesMunicipalities

www.growsmartbayarea.org


Bay Area Context:

Priority Development Areas

• Housing Affordability

• Jobs/Education Access • Neighborhood Vitality/Identity • VMT/SOV Trip Reduction • Mobility/Access Improvements • GHG Reductions

• Energy Use Reductions • Water Conservation • Waste Conservation


Sub Region

© All Rights Reserved - Fleissig and Carlton - 2011PLEASANTON TOD STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES

Pleasanton | Hacienda TOD


Hacienda Development Plan


Hacienda Land Use


Circulation


Existing Transit System


Potential Redevelopment Parcels


Existing Development Criteria

7. “Development standards for Mixed Commercial Office Industrial PD uses shall be determined by the use proposed for the site. These standards shall be based on the number of floors proposed in the tallest proposed building on the site and shall be as follows:

Number Of Maximum Minimum MinimumFloors Floor Area Ratio Landscape Ratio Parking Ratio

One 35% 20% 1 per 300 sf (3.3 per 1,000 sf)

Two 40% 25% 1 per 300 sf (3.3 per 1,000 sf)

Three 45%* 25% 1 per 300 sf (3.3 per 1,000 sf)

Four 50% 25% 1 per 300 sf (3.3 per 1,000 sf)

Five 60% 30% 1 per 300 sf (3.3 per 1,000 sf)

Six 60% 30% 1 per 300 sf (3.3 per 1,000 sf)


Development Criteria

8. Development standards for MCOIPD uses shall be determined by the use proposed for the site. These standards shall be based on the use and the number of floors proposed.

If a commercial use is proposed, the development standards shall be as follows:

Uses Maximum Minimum MinimumFloor Area Ratio Landscape Ratio Parking Ratio

Free-Standing Restaurant 12.5% 25% 1 per 150 sf (6.7 per 1,000 sf)

Hotel/Motel 60% 30% 1 per room plus 1 per employee at maximum

shiftCommercial/Retail 30% 25% 1 per 200 sf (5.0 per

1,000 sf)

Other specialized commercial land uses shall be reviewed on a case by case basis, and modifications to the above standards may be approved. Combined retail/office uses on a Parcel shall follow the development standards for office use, except that parking shall be provided for each use, treating each individually.


Pleasanton Transit Village:Core PUD Regulations*

• Density: Minimum of 30 Units per Acre

• Affordability: The greater of (a) 15% of all units, or (b) 130 units, will be made available exclusively to very-low income (50% of AMI) households. Affordable units will be deed-restricted in perpetuity..

• Section 8 Rental Assistance Vouchers: developments will be required to accept HUD Section 8 Rental Vouchers

• Bedroom Mix of Affordable Units: minimum of 10% 3br units minimum of 35% 2br units

• Location of Affordable Units: Affordable units will be dispersed throughout the development.

*Note: Core PUD Regulations are from the Term Sheet of final settlement agreement issued July 20, 2010


Category Livability Benefits Category Livability Benefits

Mobility

• Pedestrian/Bicycle improvements

• Parking• Local shuttles• Car/bike sharing facilities

Services

• Street/Sidewalk cleaning service• Increased police patrols /

Ambassador force• Farmers’ markets• Other social services

Housing

• Low-income housing• Workforce housing• Supportive housing

Economic Development

• Job training• Business development• District marketing

Environment

• Site remediation• Air quality programs• Noise abatement• Water resources• Habitat preservation

Education

• Kindergarten / Daycare / After-school services

• Charter Schools• Magnet Schools• Public Schools

Public Space

• Open/green space• Recreation/active space• Streetscape enhancements• Trails• Façade enhancements• Historic structure preservation

Infrastructure

• School facility improvements• Community facility construction• Undergrounding utilities• Upgrading infrastructure• Alternative energy production

Pleasanton BART - Livability Benefits


TOD FRAMEWORK


TOD FRAMEWORK

• Iron Horse Trail

• Pedestrian Street Sections

• Pedestrian Connections

• Public Open Spaces

• Key Retail / Service Edges

• Internal Street Hierarchy


BART PARCEL

Phased Framework

• Private Developer --Mixed Income Residential Adjacent to BART w Ped Connections, Retail and Open Space


BART PARCEL

Phased Framework

• Private Developer --Mixed Income Residential Adjacent to BART

• Private Developer – 2nd Mixed Income Project Continues Pedestrian Links


BART PARCEL

Phased Framework


• Private Developer – 2nd Mixed Income Project

• Major Employer -- Expansion for Parking with Iron Horse Trail Connections


BART PARCEL

Phased Framework


• Private Developer – 2nd Mixed Income Project

• Major Employer -- Expansion for Parking

• Parking District ? -- Shared Garage(s) for Employees, Commuters, and Shoppers


Orig. Base/Max. 20% trip reduction(allowed for TOD)

40% trip reduction (if supported by traffic

study / TOD Data)

Office 289,000 s.f. 350,000 s.f. 494,000 s.f.

Hotel 200 rooms 240 rooms 280 rooms

Retail 15,000 s.f. 25,000 s.f. 25,000 s.f.

PLEASANTON TOD STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES

BART SITE – ALLOWABLE DEVELOPMENT MATRIX

Or any combination of these uses which does not exceed trip generation.

Note: Residential densities allowed (by proposed regulations) create less trip than commensurate office, retail or hotel uses.


PARKING CONFIGURATIONS

OPTION 1:STAND ALONE BART STRUCTURE Option 1 has a stand alone BART parking structure and private garages to handle the development.



OPTION 2:ONE MULTI-USE BART STRUCTURE Option 2 has one multi-use garage on the eastern parcel that includes all of the BART parking and additional parking for the private development. Option 2 could be developed with a long parking structure similar to the design of Option 2.

A multi-use parking structure is a parking garage with separate and dedicated parking areas for BART patrons and associated private development.A multi-use parking structure is a parking garage with separate and dedicated parking areas for BART patrons and associated private development.



OPTION 3:TWO MULTI-USE BART STRUCTURES Option 3 has two multi-use garages on the eastern and western parcels with the BART parking split between the two. The distribution of BART parking in the two structures could change depending on amount and type of private development.

A multi-use parking structure is a parking garage with separate and dedicated parking areas for BART patrons and associated private development.A multi-use parking structure is a parking garage with separate and dedicated parking areas for BART patrons and associated private development.


DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS:MIX OF BUILDING TYPES

To provide maximum flexibility within the urban design framework, each parcel could be developed with office, residential and/or hotel uses.

To provide maximum flexibility within the urban design framework, each parcel could be developed with office, residential and/or hotel uses.


Subsequent Developer Application – Open Space / Retail Plaza


Retail/Live Work Streetfront


Live/Work Corner Condition


But TOD’s Take Many Years To Create Value

Requiring a different approach…

To realize that value…

In a shorter time frame…

Reducing risk and generating returns…..


Twenty-five Potential TOD Value Capture Mechanisms

PPPLocal

Revenue Sharing

Property Taxes

Transit Finance Districts

1. Ground/Air leases

2. Land development


4. Station connection fees

1. Development partnerships

2. Ownership dedication

3. Route location auction

4. Station location auction

5. Rail concessions to private developer

6. Developer infrastructure provision

7. Quasi-public developer

1. Benefits assessment districts

2. Infrastructure assessment districts

3. Tax increment financing

4. Parking districts

5. Transit redevelopment districts

1. Ad valorem realty tax

2. Land-only tax

3. Split rate tax4. Vacant/

Underutilized land tax

5. Windfall value tax

6. Highest and best use tax

Transit-owned land

1. Business taxes & fees

2. Parking assessment districts

3. Capitalized zoning changes

4. Redevelopment agency RE partner


Key is to Align Property Owner, Municipal and Transit Agency Interests around Station Districts

PPPLocal

Revenue Sharing

Property Taxes

Transit Finance Districts

1. Ground/Air leases

2. Land development


4. Station connection fees

1. Development partnerships

2. Ownership dedication

3. Route location auction

4. Station location auction

5. Rail concessions to private developer

6. Developer infrastructure provision

7. Quasi-public developer

1. Benefits assessment districts

2. Infrastructure assessment districts

3. Tax increment financing

4. Parking districts

5. Transit redevelopment districts

1. Ad valorem realty tax

2. Land-only tax

3. Split rate tax4. Vacant/

Underutilized land tax

5. Windfall value tax

6. Highest and best use tax

Transit-owned land

1. Business taxes & fees

2. Parking assessment districts

3. Capitalized zoning changes

4. Redevelopment agency RE partner


Downtown Portland’s Improvement District Funded a Streetcar and Spurred Redevelopment

Source: City of Portland; “Portland Streetcar: Development-Oriented Transit”; ”2008

Other

TIF

Government

Agencyland sale

Parkingdistrictbonds

Improvement District

Portland Streetcar Infrastructure Financing

Sources ($103M)

With supplemental funds from an improvement district, the redevelopment district has been able to fund the streetcar, new developments, parks, streetscapes, and 1,500 units affordable housing


Seattle Streetcar Infrastructure Primarily Funded by Property Value Capture

Source: http://www.seattlestreetcar.org/ Accessed 2/08/09

Property Assessment

District

GovernmentNo FTA New/Small(

)Starts

CityProperty

Sales

Seattle Streetcar Infrastructure Financing

Sources ($52M)


Dallas TOD TIF Zone Slated to Fund $182M in Corridor-wide Livability Benefits

Source: Office of Economic Development; “Dallas TOD TIF Plan;” City of Dallas; 2008

North

Central

South

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

Moc

king

bird

Zon

eC

edar

s Zo

neLa

ncas

ter

Zone

Affo

rdab

le H

ousi

ngA

dmin

istr

atio

n

Valuecapturegenerated

LivabilityBenefitsallocated

Dedicatedallocations

Budgeted Tax Increment

Tax

Incr

emen

t ($

M ‘0

9)

North

Central

South


No One Is Responsible for TOD Strategies Amongst Today’s TOD Players

Local government• Planning & Zoning• Permitting• Community outreach• Land owner• Affordable housing

Transit agency• Development• Land owner• Planning• Construction• Joint development

Private developer• Proposals• Land assembly• Entitlements• Construction

Metro government• Planning & Zoning• Permitting• Community outreach• Land owner• Affordable housing

US Treasury• LIHTC• NMTC

FTA• Formula funds • New Starts• Small Starts

State• DOT• Transport funds

HUD


Not-For Profit In Bay Area Working on Station “District Priorities”

San Leandro +Alameda County• Planning & Zoning• Permitting• Community outreach• Land owner• Affordable housing

BART / AC Transit• Development• Land owner• Planning• Construction• Joint development

Property Owners 5 Major Properties• Land assembly• Entitlements• Construction

MTC / ABAG• Planning & Zoning• Permitting• Community outreach• Land owner• Affordable housing

Local Foundations

RepresentativeBarbara Lee

State of CA• CalTrans• HCD• Transport funds

East BayGreenway

TransitCommunities.org


Reframe TOD Assumptions

Re-formulate: the BIG IDEA – TOD Districts that connect community assets

Re-examine: small + incremental infrastructure to improve station access (shuttles, bike lanes, pedestrian crossings, medians)

Re-measure: extend beyond the half mile

Re-draw: connect destinations, allocate parking to multiple users, and spread out lower, mid and higher density

Re-finance: expand the funding base beyond station areas

Re-energize: seek alignment with key employers and coordinate property owners site + building upgrades

Re-generate: foster interim activities near transit(food trucks; produce markets; short-term “pop-up” retail)

Transit Panel (William Kohn Fleissig) - ULI fall meeting - 102711

Technology

Transcript of Transit Panel (William Kohn Fleissig) - ULI fall meeting - 102711