Facing record-level population growth and a booming job market, the city of San Francisco wants luxury developers to pay into the public transit system.
San Francisco faces a dilemma. In recent decades, population growth has far outpaced residential housing construction, creating a housing shortage for both affordable and market-rate units. The booming job market has added to the influx of commuters, overburdening an aging public transit system. The city wants to continue its program of encouraging new housing construction, but it also must find a way to mitigate the impact that growing congestion has on the transit system. Until now, downtown luxury high-rises have benefited from a multi-modal location without paying for it. "A luxury tower could advertise transit access as a perk, then dump all these new residents onto a bus and rail system that was already overloaded," writes Eric Jaffe.
To address the growing gap between population and transit capacity, the city has proposed that existing transit impact development fees be extended to market-rate residential developers. The fee proposal is part of a broader Transportation Sustainability campaign by the Planning Department: "If we don’t change our development practices and invest in transportation improvements citywide, we can expect unprecedented gridlock on our streets and crowding on our buses and trains."
But how much the fee should be is up for debate. Given the need to incentivize new construction, provide more affordable housing, and maintain a robust and reliable transit system, is the proposed fee structure effective? "The fee was set by determining how much development impacts transit in terms of cost, roughly $31 per square foot, then balancing it with the results of a fiscal feasibility study that looked at what level a fee would discourage development," writes Cory Weinberg.
Currently, such fees are paid by commercial builders, and annual revenue streams average $24 million. The new fee structure would increase that amount by 40 percent. According to Weinberg: non-residential developers would see an increase from $14 a square foot to $18.04 a square foot; the manufacturing sector (also a growth target for the city) would see only a minor fee increase, from $7.46 to $7.61 a square foot; and the newly added market-rate residential fee would be $7.74 a square foot.
A previous attempt to impose a transit impact fee on residential development was shot down because it also targeted non-profits, medical centers and affordable housing units. The new proposal exempts these groups as well as builders with less than 20 housing units.
The fact that developers are on board with the new proposal suggests that it will still be very profitable to build luxury condos in San Francisco. "Developer acceptance is great for the plan, but it does raise the question of whether the 'not unreasonable' fee might, in fact, be a bit too reasonable," says Jaffe.
FULL STORY: San Francisco's Humble Request to Luxury Developers: Pitch in for Public Transit
The state-sanctioned urbicide of Austin
People don’t kill cities. Freeways do.
US to reduce Colorado River water deliveries to Mexico
A new Colorado Treaty amendment reduces Mexico’s Colorado River water allocation by 250,000 acre feet.
New Jersey’s second-largest city bans standalone data centers
Jersey City will continue to allow co-location facilities, such as those meant for research institutions that store their own data.
Amtrak not solely to blame for New Jersey commuter rail's unreliability, report finds
A new study from the Garden State Initiative found that NJ Transit’s budget grew 20% across a 4 year period, but reliability declined significantly over the same period.
EPA erases limits on planet-warming pollution from power plants
Under Monday’s plan, power plants would still have some limits on how much mercury, arsenic and other contaminants they can emit.
Phoenix announces new on-demand transit service, more frequent RAPID buses
Both new services will launch in October, and are part of Phoenix's Project Effective Access Solutions for Easing Congestion.
FREE Course: Walkable City 1: Why Walkability?
After describing his path towards focusing on walkability as the essence of good planning, Jeff Speck marches through his five principal reasons for making more walkable places.
Reinventing Malls: Planning Alchemy—Turning Gray Fields Into Gold
The course focuses on the opportunities and imperatives that shape reinvention of mall sites.
Eagle County Government
Harvard University Graduate School of Design
Nashville Planning Department
The Architects Foundation
University of Cincinnati Online
The Pocatello Development Authority
The Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Pocatello
Journal of the American Planning Association