Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Appendix D Survey of Local and Regional Governments D-3 â¢ Two are multi-disciplinary city economic development/urban renewal/development finance agenciesâthe Boston Planning & Development Agency (âBPDAâ) and Pittsburghâs Urban Redevelopment Authority (âURAâ).61 â¢ Two are county governments heavily involved in transportation planning and TODâHennepin County (which includes Minneapolis and has, like many Minnesota counties, a rail transit arm known as a Regional Rail Authority), and Montgomery County (in the Maryland suburbs of Washington, DC, with a significant focus on land use and inclusionary housing). â¢ Two are Metropolitan Planning Organizations (âMPOsâ) with a strong focus on TODâthe Atlanta Regional Commission and Oregon Metro, the unique elected MPO and regional service provider for Greater Portland. â¢ The Northwest Indiana Regional Development Authority (âNWIRDAâ) is a regional economic development agency created to promote development around key transportation assets. It serves as the funding partner and TOD/JD partner for the transit agency building two commuter rail improvements in the northwest Indiana suburbs of Chicago. The research team also wanted most (but not all) of the local jurisdictions to be located in markets whose transit agencies were surveyed as part of this study. The âoverlapsâ allow us to compare transit agency and local government perspectives, while the ânon-overlapsâ allow us to include more transit markets. Thus, 15 of the 18 local jurisdictions are âoverlapsâ; the exceptions are the Northwest Indiana Regional Development Authority, the City of Charlotte, and the City of Phoenix. The local government jurisdictions were interviewed, either in-person or by telephone, on the dates indicated in Table D-1. Wherever possible, the interviews were conducted by research team members familiar with the corporation and known to the interviewee. This appendix summarizes the findings of those interviews, which consisted of nine questions. Most of these were multi-part, open-ended queries inviting narrative responses. The questionnaire is provided in Appendix A of this memorandum. The dataset represented by the completed questionnaires consists of over 300 responses, counting answers to multi-part questions.62 The questions are grouped into a series of topical themes. The content of these thematic areas, and the survey questions associated with each, are outlined in Table D-2 (next page). The remainder of this Part B memorandum follows this structure; for convenience, Table D-2 previews the section and subsection numbers that correspond to this outline. 61 Agencies commonly known by acronyms are identified by their full names the first time they are referenced in the main text or in a footnote, and by their acronyms thereafter. 62 The completed questionnaires will be archived in the project files. As indicated to the respondents, these actual questionnaire documents were produced for internal use only and will not be included in the Guide. While the entities that participated in the survey are listed in this Appendix, in reporting the data individual respondents are never identified, and their agencies are identified by name only with respect to factual information readily available on-line, such as published policies or the names and key features of joint development projects.
Appendix D Survey of Local and Regional Governments D-4 Table D-2: Outline of Findings Section 2.0 TOD Policies and Outcomes 2.1 TOD as a Jurisdictional Priority (Questions 1a, 1b, 1f) 2.2 TOD-Friendly Zoning (Questions 1c, 1d) Section 3.0 Working with the Transit Agency 3.1 Transit Agency Role in TOD (Question 2) 3.2 Joint Development (Question 3) 3.3 Land Assembly for TOD/JD (Question 4) Section 4.0 TOD/JD Economics 4.1 Parking Requirements (Question 5) 4.2 Affordable Housing (Question 6) 4.3 Economic Development Incentives (Question 7) 4.4 District Value Capture (Question 8) Section 5.0 Community Response to TOD/JD (Question 9) 2.0 TOD Policies and Outcomes The ultimate focus of this appendix is the relationship between local government jurisdictions, on the one hand, and the TOD/JD activities of their transit agency counterparts, on the other. That relationship is explored directly in section 3.0. First, however, it is important to understand the context of that relationshipâlocal governmentâs approach to TOD in general, which from the standpoint of a municipality, county, or regional agency constitutes the broader sphere of policy and practice. To that end, our findings begin with two inter-related questions: â¢ the extent to which the jurisdiction has embraced TOD as a priority; â¢ the extent to which zoningâthe most basic way in which local government can impact the viability of TODâis supportive. 2.1 TOD as a Jurisdictional Priority Respondents were asked if they consider TOD a priority (Question 1a); if they have adopted a formal TOD Policy (Question 1b); and if they use TOD to achieve other public policy goals, such as providing housing, supporting economic development, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, encouraging healthy communities, or promoting active transportation (Question 1f). Given that the 18 jurisdictions were chosen in part because they are active in TOD, the pattern of responses was as expected. The local governments we interviewed have embraced TOD. All 18 said they treat it as a priority; several answers were emphatic (âa foundational priorityâ, âa very high priorityâ, âbaked into our master planâ). Moreover, almost all of the respondents agreed that they see TOD as a way to achieve smart growth, equitable housing, and sustainable transportation outcomes. In response to Question 1f, several answered âall of the above.â The California cities mentioned the state law requirement to shift from Level of Service (âLOSâ) to Vehicle Miles Traveled (âVMTâ) as the basis for reviewing the transportation impacts of planning and development proposals, as well as the overall role of TOD in addressing climate change. This multi-issue, multi-benefit approach helps to build constituencies for TOD and broaden the range of available funding sources.
Appendix D Survey of Local and Regional Governments D-5 With one exception, all jurisdictions stated that they have some type of official TOD Policy.63 Most but not all have adopted an overall, one-stop policy or strategy document, or a TOD section of their comprehensive or general plan.64 Certain features are shared by a number of municipal TOD policies or strategies: the use of a TOD Place Typology, and illustrative standards for the principal TOD ingredients of density, mixed uses, public realm design, and parking. At least three of the cities we interviewedâ Phoenix, San Diego, and San JosÃ©âhave TOD policies organized around the framework of urban or transit villages. The diversity of local TOD policies, strategies, and programs emerges when we consider development authorities, MPOs, and counties as well as municipalities. By way of example, Table D-3 (next page) outlines eight specific program initiatives cited by interviewees of all jurisdictional types. While traditional land use planning and zoning initiatives are generally confined to municipalities (or counties exercising land use powers in unincorporated areas), other types of TOD policies, strategies, and programs may be broadly replicable. 2.2 TOD-Friendly Zoning Land use planning and zoning is a core responsibility of local government, forming the foundation for TOD or frustrating it. This is critical for joint development, since in virtually all cases JD, whether on transit property or not, is subject to local zoning and entitlement.65 In Questions 1c and 1d, respondents were asked whether, in their view, current zoning allows TOD to be built as of right, without needing discretionary review; whether zoning has changed in recent years to become more âTOD-friendlyâ; and whether zoning is generally consistent with the TOD principles of higher density, mixed uses, pedestrian and transit-friendly urban design, and reduced parking requirements. Responses to these questions displayed the following pattern:66 â¢ Most jurisdictions have taken steps to update or reform their zoning ordinances or rezone properties to support their TOD priority areas. With respect to the TOD basics, jurisdictions generally saw current station-area zoning as good or âgetting there.â â¢ TOD-friendly zoning uses various tools: form-based codes; mixed-use zoning; broad application of parking reductions and/or density increases; or adoption of specific plans in station areas. Such zoning is typically adopted concurrent with or after the TOD plan or policy and provides more detailed measures to incentivize or guide development. â¢ With respect to âTOD as of rightâ, some respondents said that this is now the case, at least in certain TOD priority districts. Zoning in those districts provides for an appropriate height and 63 The City of Hayward reported not having a central TOD policy but noted that their Climate Action Plan includes a strategy to reduce VMT through land use and zoning, and their General Plan Mobility Element calls for multi-modal connections and complete streets. 64 The few exceptions are cities that address TOD through a series of area plans or directly through zoning. 65 As noted in Appendix B, there are two current exceptions in which transit agencies do have some zoning powers, at least with respect to their own station-area properties: BART (under AB 2923) and Miami-Dade County, parent entity of Miami-Dade Transit. Also, the City of Charlotte, one of the local government respondents, is the parent of the Charlotte Area Transit System and thus zones its own station areas. 66 Five of the respondents are regional entities, commenting broadly on the zoning codes of the municipalities within their districts or service areas.
Appendix D Survey of Local and Regional Governments D-6 density envelope, mixed-use development, TOD-style urban form, and reduced parking; conforming projects can be permitted as of right, perhaps with mandatory design review applicable to all projects in high-visibility locations. Table D-3: Examples of Local Jurisdiction TOD Initiatives Jurisdiction TOD Policy, Program, or Strategy Link Atlanta Regional Commission Livable Centers Initiative (LCI): 20-year-old program using MPO âflex fundsâ. Planning as well as implementation funding for LCI Plans and periodic updates; all MARTA rail stations now covered. Has facilitated JD projects. https://atlantaregional.org/community- development/livable-centers-initiative City of Charlotte Comprehensive TOD rezoning adopted in 2019, covering existing and future corridors (light rail, streetcar, BRT). Parcels will be mapped into four new TOD districts (varying by intensity). http://ww.charmeck.org/Planning/Rezoning/20 18/153-169/2018- 169%20Transit%20Oriented%20Development% 20Regulations%20Rev.pdf Hennepin County CommunityWorks: a TOD planning strategy for the stations on the new Southwest Light Rail corridor (covering Minneapolis, five suburban cities in Hennepin Co., and regional agencies). https://www.swlrtcommunityworks.org/beyon d-rails City of Kansas City (MO) TOD Policy: adopted 2017, contemporaneous with KCATA (transit agency) Development Policy. A model TOD strategy for transit systems with bus, BRT, and streetcar. https://www.kcmo.gov/home/showdocument? id=781 City of Los Angeles Transit-Oriented Communities (âTOCâ): Cityâs overall approach is TOCs (same terminology as LA Metro). Now updating 35 community plans and associated zoning. A 2016 ballot measure added the TOC Affordable Housing Incentive Program, within Â½ mile of âMajor Transit Stopsâ. https://planning.lacity.org/ordinances/docs/to c/TOCGuidelines.pdf City of Phoenix REINVENT PHX: adopted 2018, a model TOD strategy framework for light rail cities. Organized around established âvillageâ planning districts. Also tied to Walkable Urban Code and Downtown Code form-based TOD districts. https://www.phoenix.gov/villagessite/Docume nts/pdd_pz_pdf_00380.pdf NW Indiana Regional Devt Authority Transit Development Districts (âTDDsâ): program created by 2017 legislation. For two commuter rail improvement projects: a combination of station area planning, land assembly, and value capture for public improvements. Potential to include JD with or on behalf of the rail agency. https://www.in.gov/rda/2371.htm Oregon Metro 22-year-old TOD program unique among MPOs but potentially replicable by others: uses âflex fundsâ for site- and project-specific land assembly and gap financing. Nearly 50 projects done. Can support certain TriMet JD projects. https://www.oregonmetro.gov/sites/default/fil es/2018/10/18/2018TODAnnualReport.pdf
Appendix D Survey of Local and Regional Governments D-7 â¢ Other respondents said that TOD projects (particularly high-profile ones) generally do need some type of discretionary review. In some cases, the adopted plan or policy is compatible with a proposed TOD project, but zoning has not caught up, placing a heavier entitlement burden on the project. Many cities are using specific plans and form-based codes as targeted general/comprehensive plan implementation tools that sometimes result in streamlined review.67 Because 15 of the 18 jurisdictions are located in metro areas whose transit agencies were surveyed as well, we were able to see if their views on certain topics were compatible. The perception that zoning has become TOD-supportive, or is at least moving discernibly in that direction, is broadly shared by the local government respondents and their transit agency counterparts.68 This is true not only in the aggregate, but in the individual paired relationshipsâin all but one of the 13 markets where both the transit agency and the city were surveyed, both offered a generally positive view with respect to planning and zoning as they relate to TOD. 3.0 Working with the Transit Agency Laws and regulations formally define the roles and responsibilities of transit agencies and local governments, but the collegiality and creativity of their leaderships are no less important. A series of questions asked the local jurisdictions to discuss how they work with their transit counterparts. Question 2 addresses the degree of collaboration around TOD in general. Question 3 turned specifically to joint development. Question 4 asked whether the local jurisdiction has worked with the transit agency, or is in a position to do so, to expand the JD footprint by pooling land holdings. 3.1 Transit Agency Role in TOD All of the local jurisdictions described their transit agency counterparts as taking an active role in TOD, pursuing TOD policies consistent with local or regional land use policy, and working collaboratively with the jurisdiction in question. Several of these responses were enthusiastic endorsements of the transit role and the collaborative relationship, which were reciprocated by the corresponding transit agencies in their own interviews or written surveys.69 There were two cases in which both the local jurisdiction and the transit agency described the relationship in more reserved terms; in each instance, the local jurisdiction observed that the transit agency had been relatively inactive in TOD for a period of years but was now more involved. 3.2 Joint Development Question 3 directly addresses joint development. Questions 3a and 3b ask the respondents for their understanding of whether the transit agency is actually engaged in JD (by having undertaken projects or presently planning them) and, if so, to what extent. 67 In California, preparation of program-level Environmental Impact Reports, or using ministerial review to bypass project-level CEQA review, is important for such streamlining. 68 For the transit agency view in the aggregate, see Appendix B, pp. B-11 ff. The consistency of local government and transit agency responses in each paired relationship was determined by reviewing individual questionnaires. 69 See previous footnote.
Appendix D Survey of Local and Regional Governments D-8 â¢ Twelve jurisdictions described their transit agency counterparts as being actively engaged in JD, consisting of either a series of projects or a full JD program. These answers were consistent with those of the corresponding transit agencies and with the research teamâs own research on those agenciesâ JD activities. â¢ Two jurisdictions stated correctly that their transit counterparts have not engaged in any JD projects.70 â¢ In four cases, the local jurisdiction said that the transit agency has not undertaken any JD projects or that they werenât sure, when in the view of the transit agency or the research team JD has in fact occurred. These discrepancies involved one or two projects only and may reflect definitional differences or the occurrence of projects before the arrival of current local jurisdiction staff. Those respondents who stated that their transit agencies are engaged in JD were then asked how these projects have been managed during construction and how they turned out in the end (Questions 3c and 3d). These observations were almost uniformly positive. Finally, these same respondents were asked if, in their opinion, their respective transit agencies might do anything to improve their JD projects. The responses were instructive: â¢ Two jurisdictions said that both they and the transit agency needed to improve their stakeholder outreach strategy with respect to fear of density, traffic, spillover parking, and congestion in single-family neighborhoods, and fear of gentrification in more disadvantaged neighborhoods. Similarly, another talked about anticipating and managing real-world issues (largely involving stakeholders) that cause projects to change. â¢ Three jurisdictions talked about internal management or policy issues within the transit agency: the need to speak with one voice; the need for a more flexible park & ride replacement policy; the need for the executive staff to have greater discretion to approve minor changes without board approval, and in general to advance projects more quickly. 3.3 Land Assembly for TOD/JD Beyond planning and zoning, another way in which local jurisdictions can support joint development is through the use, where applicable, of their own land holdings and their power to acquire and dispose of real property. These resources could help a transit agency expand its âJD footprintâ, in either a physical or a transactional sense. Local jurisdictions were therefore asked, in Question 4, whether they own land, or are assembling land, near a transit station or along a transit corridor; and, if so, whether they have considered working with the transit agency to pool land holdings or jointly prepare land for development. Eleven of the jurisdictions answered affirmatively to at least some part of this question. These responses, summarized in Table D-4 (next page), represent diverse examples of how a coordinated approach to site assembly could work. 70 These respondents were: the City of Phoenix (because Valley Metro does not own real property), and the Northwest Indiana Regional Development Authority (because its counterpart, the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District, is an operating agency only, and the JD-type initiatives which may arise from the Transit Development District program cited earlier have not yet begun).
Appendix D Survey of Local and Regional Governments D-9 Table D-4: Local Jurisdiction Role in Station Area Real Property Jurisdiction Example Boston Planning & Development Agency At least five high-visibility JD sites were created by combining MBTA and/or MassDOT property with BPDA/City property (North Station, South Station, Ruggles Station, Jackson Square, MassPike/Hynes Convention Air Rights). City of Carrollton Trinity Mills JD project site is a combination of adjacent DART- and city- owned parcels; JD jointly procured and negotiated. Additionally, City has an explicit land acquisition policy within each of its three DART station areas. City of Charlotte The transit agency (Charlotte Area Transit System or âCATSâ) is a City department; station-area land owned by the City is thus effectively available for JD. A JD project is approaching implementation on a city-owned park & lot (Scaleybark Station). There is also station-area land owned by the Housing Authority, Mecklenburg County, and School District. City of Denver The City is a founding partner in the Denver TOD Fund, which enables the non-profit Urban Land Conservancy to acquire property to preserve affordable housing or create sites for new affordable housing in RTD station areas. This was the first such fund in the US (since replicated in other cities). City of Phoenix The City has assembled or already owned sites of at least one acre in close proximity to eight different Valley Metro light rail stations, City of Quincy By law, the City Council has the right to approve any development in the MBTA Red Line air rights. The City and the MBTA collaborated in the procurement, award, and negotiation of a major mixed-use JD project, also involving easements on City streets and access to an adjacent City park. City of Kansas City The City owns significant land holdings along the new streetcar corridor, where development interest is intense and land values are rising. NW Indiana Regional Devt. Authority The South Shore Line improvements include station consolidation and alignment shifts that will create vacant station-area land. The West Lake extension will create new station areas. To be determined: JD roles and responsibilities; these sites will all be in Transit Development Districts. Oregon Metro Site acquisition is a key function of Metro TOD Program. Collaboration with TriMet (the transit agency): at least one project has involved both Metro and TriMet land; TriMet sits on Metro TOD Steering Committee; Metroâs assembly of JD sites facilitated by a TriMet funding swap. Pittsburgh Urban Redevt. Authority URA owns developable land on or near the Port Authority (âPAACâ) BRT Busways. One major collaborative project: the East Liberty TOD project involved both agencies, major station improvements, and large-scale mixed- use development. City of San JosÃ© At Diridon Station, as of 2020, the City has disposed of approximately 20 acres as part of the Google Master Plan. Land assembly also involves VTA and Caltrain; the City is in charge of the Station Area Plan and the proposed Google amendments. One of the largest TOD/JD projects in the US. Where applicable, the corresponding transit agencies described these activities in a manner consistent with the local jurisdictionâs response. Beyond these projects, several transit agencies expressed interest
Appendix D Survey of Local and Regional Governments D-10 in additional opportunities for land pooling or other ways of expanding the JD footprint through collaborating with other public owners.71 Of the local jurisdictions that answered Question 3 in the negative, several were California cities stating that prior to 2012, when the stateâs local Redevelopment Agencies were dissolved, they were in the land assembly and disposition business, including for purposes of TOD/JD. Since the dissolution, they no longer assemble land for development and, in many instances, have sold off parcels that had been acquired. San JosÃ©âs involvement in the Google site assembly was the only current project mentioned. 4.0 TOD/JD Economics Market forces ultimately determine the timing and scale of development, but government actions can provide an incentive or disincentive. A sequence of questions sought information about four areas of jurisdictional practice that could affect the economic viability of joint development: parking requirements; inclusionary requirements for affordable housing and the corresponding availability of financial incentives; the availability of project-specific incentives for economic development and infrastructure; and the use of district value capture models. 4.1 Parking Requirements The parking provisions of local zoning codes can have a critical impact on TOD economicsâparticularly with respect to joint development, which is often located in closest proximity to a station and offers the strongest justification for parking reduction. Requiring more parking than the market demands adds significant cost and may physically constrain the amount of revenue space that can be built on the site. From a policy standpoint, excessive parking can frustrate other TOD objectives. Conversely, in cities that are transitioning to a higher level of transit service, there is often a period when congestion and parking demand are growing faster than transit services are expanding. A concern about providing too little parking may be shared by both developers and neighbors. Like the transit agencies and developers in this study, local government jurisdictions were asked specifically about parking (Question 5). Most of them said that parking requirements have moved in a TOD-supportive directionâthat is, one requiring less on-site parking. Only four respondents said that zoning has not materially improved with respect to parking and that traditional standards still apply. Three of these were suburban municipalities. In addition to reduced minimum ratios and the encouragement of shared parking, the following steps were cited by one or more jurisdictions: â¢ the complete elimination of minimums within a given ratio of a station; â¢ introduction of maximums; 71 For example, Denver RTD, which has not undertaken any land-pooling JD projects with the City of Denver, has done so with the Cities of Arvada and Boulder. In their survey, transit agencies were also asked whether they would be interested in collaborating with jurisdictions that own land along street-running transit corridors (buses and streetcars), where transit agencies themselves are unlikely to own property. Several transit agencies expressed at least general interest in this idea. (See the discussion of Question 22 in Appendix B, p. B-17.)
Appendix D Survey of Local and Regional Governments D-11 â¢ a specific limit on surface parking within a quarter-mile of a station; â¢ reductions associated with mixed-use development and affordable housing; â¢ reduction below the nominal zoning floor through project-specific relief, often in tandem with a Transportation Demand Management (âTDMâ) plan. 4.2 Affordable Housing As discussed in Appendix B, transit agencies engaged in joint development are encountering affordable housing as a key public policy and project feasibility issue, especially in markets where housing prices are rising most precipitously.72 Many transit agencies, including some of the most active JD participants, have adopted inclusionary policiesâacting not as zoning authorities (which in general they are not), but as land-owners deciding what should be built on their property, consistent with zoning. Municipal or county inclusionary requirements remain in place, but unless forbidden by local authorities, the transit agency (like any land owner) can choose to do more. Absent any local requirement (or, more typically, absent consistent requirements across a transit systemâs many zoning jurisdictions), a transit agency may have to adopt its own policy if it wishes to ensure affordable housing in its JD portfolio. In Question 6, jurisdictions were asked if they have adopted an inclusionary policy; whether the transit agency has done so; and, if both have, which is the more demanding requirement.73 They were also asked if they help developers pursue affordable housing incentives, particularly when the affordability is mandated. â¢ In seven cases, the local jurisdiction reported that both they and the transit agency have inclusionary requirements. Either the transit agency standard is higher, or the two are similar. As understood by the local jurisdictions, there were no cases in which the transit agency has adopted a lower inclusionary requirement than that already required locally. â¢ Three of the four smaller, non-central cities in the survey (Quincy, MA, and Hayward and Pasadena, CA) are among those with inclusionary policies; their respective transit agencies and central cities have done the same. â¢ In four cases, local jurisdictions have inclusionary requirements, but transit agencies do not. â¢ In seven cases, there is no reported inclusionary requirement on the part of either the local jurisdiction or the transit agency. Three of these local jurisdictions indicated that they are moving toward adopting inclusionary programs. Three others reported that are prevented by state law from doing so and must rely on incentives only. â¢ All of the jurisdictions that reported a local inclusionary requirement, and some that did not, reported that there are local or regional affordable housing incentives available. These may be directly financial in nature, like the gap financing offered by the Oregon Metro TOD Program and recently buttressed by a Metro Affordable Housing Bond. Or they may take the form of density, parking relief, and other bonuses conferred by zoning, such as Los Angelesâ TOC Affordable Housing Incentive Program. 72 See Appendix B, pp. B-23 ff. 73 Regional entities without zoning authority were asked if the zoning jurisdictions in their regions have adopted inclusionary policies.
Appendix D Survey of Local and Regional Governments D-12 In sum, transit agencies are increasingly likely to find that local jurisdictions have adopted inclusionary housing requirements of broad applicability to which JD projects may be subject. On the other hand, transit agencies that adopt their own inclusionary standards for JD projects are likely, for both practical and policy reasons, to set their inclusionary targets above those of most local jurisdictions. Either way, it is increasingly common for local or regional jurisdictions to create incentive programs in support of these affordability goals. 4.3 Economic Development Incentives Question 7 asked whether local jurisdictions make development incentives available for TOD. These might be programs offered at the local, county, or regional level, or state programs in which the jurisdiction has input. If such incentives are available, we asked if they are targeted to TOD as a priority and whether they have been provided to any JD projects. Most of the jurisdictions in the survey stated that have one or more such incentive programs in place.74 Programs identified by interviewees fell into several categories, outlined in Table D-5 (next page). Several of the jurisdictions stated that their development incentives are not only available for TOD but targeted toward it, either explicitly or in effect. Less common, but illustrative of the possibilities, is the handful of cases in which respondents identified the use of development incentives in support of a joint development project: â¢ The Atlanta Regional Commission has made capital grants in support of two recent MARTA JD projects, Avondale and Edgewood. â¢ The Pittsburgh URA used their land and incentive programs to implement the East Liberty joint development project. â¢ The City of Quincy obtained MassWorks funding for key components of its downtown revitalization program, a centerpiece of which is the Quincy Center Station JD project. 4.4 District Value Capture District value capture mechanisms mostly fall in two categories: tax increment financing and special assessment districts. As discussed in Appendix B (Transit Agencies), district value capture is often used in support of TOD; in most such cases the transit agency is not directly involved in the transaction and the value capture mechanism does not constitute joint development. Sometimes, however, the TOD in question already is or includes a joint development project. Also, there is a case to be made that if a value capture district is closely tied to station area development, the revenue flows into transit improvements, and the transit agency is a partner in the associated planning, then the transaction is a form of joint development or closely resembles it.75 74 The California cities, with their former Redevelopment structures dissolved, identified expedited permitting, fee reduction, and zoning incentives as their principal development incentives. 75 See Appendix B, p. B-18.
Appendix D Survey of Local and Regional Governments D-13 Table D-5: Types of Development Incentives Reported by Jurisdictions Type of Incentive Targeted, project-specific infrastructure grants, such as: â¢ Massachusettsâ MassWorks 76 â¢ the Atlanta Regional Commissionâs Livable Centers Initiative (âLCIâ) Implementation Grants 77 Targeted, project-specific grants for infrastructure or building improvements, such as: â¢ Hennepin Countyâs TOD Program 78 â¢ Pennsylvania Redevelopment Assistance Capital Program (âRACPâ) 79 Land assembly and disposition, including traditional urban renewal powers on the part of the Boston Planning & Development Agency and the Pittsburgh Urban Redevelopment Authority Economic development loan funds and gap financing programs Brownfield grants, loans, and technical assistance Targeted tax abatement incentives, including, in Phoenix, the Arizona Government Property Lease Excise Tax (âGPLETâ) 80 Revenue bond financing, either through the jurisdiction itself or through access to the stateâs economic development finance agency Expedited permitting and fee reduction In the local government survey, Question 7 asked if the respondent (or any local taxing jurisdiction working with it) has created a tax increment or special assessment district in any station area or transit corridor. If so, they were asked if TOD was a focus of that district; if the value capture took the form of a public revenue stream (as it did in all of the reported examples, as opposed to a developer tax abatement); and whether any of this captured revenue flowed specifically into transit improvements. Eleven respondents indicated that they or a sister jurisdiction had implemented some form of tax increment or special assessment district in a TOD setting.81 The details are summarized in Table D-6. There were a number of connections to joint development: 76 https://www.mass.gov/service-details/massworks-infrastructure-grants 77 https://atlantaregional.org/community-development/livable-centers-initiative. 78 https://www.hennepin.us/business/work-with-henn-co/transit-oriented-development 79 https://www.budget.pa.gov/Programs/RACP/Program- Guidelines/Pages/Program%20Guidelines%20(default).aspx. 80 GPLET allows a municipality or county to voluntarily take title to a development project and lease it back to the private party; the project then pays a use-type/square footage excise tax in lieu of property taxes, and in downtown commercial districts, the taxes can be abated for eight years. Phoenix uses this program to incentivize high-density TOD around light rail stations. (https://downtowndevil.com/2018/04/12/90257/amended-gplet- reform-bill-passes-through-legislature/) 81 The California cities are evaluating the option of Enhanced Infrastructure Finance Districts (EIFDs), which the legislature has enabled as a partial alternative to traditional tax increment financing, which was at the core of the pre-2012 Redevelopment apparatus. One station-area EIFD has been established, in the suburban city of LaVerne (https://www.cityoflaverne.org/index.php/home/bulletins/287-socalgas-requests-regulatory-approval-to- replenish-natural-gas-supply-at-aliso-canyon-storage-facility).
Appendix D Survey of Local and Regional Governments D-14 â¢ Several value capture districts were used in support of joint development projectsâeither directly or in the immediately surrounding infrastructure. These include projects in Denver; Carrollton, TX; Pittsburgh; Montgomery County; Quincy, MA, and Boston. â¢ In four cases, district value capture revenues have flowed, in whole or in part, into the underlying transit improvement: Denver Union Station (TIF District and Metro District); the Portland Streetcar (Local Improvement District); the Atlanta BeltLine (Tax Allocation District); and Pittsburghâs East Liberty (Transit Investment Revitalization District). Table D-6: District Value Capture Reported by Jurisdictions Value Capture Model Used for TOD Used for JD Used for Transit Traditional Tax Increment Financing (âTIFâ, also known as:) â â â¢ Tax Allocation District (âTADâ, GA) â â â¢ District Infrastructure Finance (âDIFâ, MA) â â â¢ Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (âTIRZâ, TX) â â TOD-specific planning and tax increment district â¢ Transit Revitalization Investment District (âTRIDâ, PA) 82 â â â â¢ Transit Development District (âTDDâ, NW Indiana) 83 â Special Assessment Districts â¢ Traditional SAD (MD) â â â¢ Metro District (CO) â â â â¢ Community Investment District (âCIDâ, GA and KS) â â¢ Local Improvement District (âLIDâ, OR) â â State Income and Sales Tax Increment â¢ Infrastructure Investment Incentive (âI-Cubedâ, MA) 84 â â Parking Tax Diversion (PA) 85 â â 5.0 Community Response to TOD/JD TOD and joint development can bring high-visibility change. As a final topic, the local government jurisdictions were asked to characterize community response to transit-oriented development. Question 9 asked whether neighborhood groups have reacted to particular aspects of proposed TOD zoning or permitting, such as density, affordable housing, traffic, reduced parking, infrastructure adequacy, or other issues. In addition to âall of the aboveâ, responses were clustered around three distinct themes (with individual respondents often citing more than one): 82 URA.TRID.Guidelines.2018.pdf. See also https://www.ura.org/pages/east-liberty-transit-oriented-development. 83 https://www.in.gov/rda/files/TDD%20Workshop%20(9-11-2018).pdf 84 In âI-cubedâ, the stateâs economic development finance agency issues special revenue bonds for infrastructure improvements, backed by the future net new state sales and income tax yield of the projects in the district. The developers pay the debt service until the revenue increment materializes. Most of the awards have been for TOD projects, including two major JD projects (Assembly Row and Boston Landing). http://www.mapc.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/11/MassDevelopment-Infrastructure-Presentation-January-2016.pdf 85 https://apps.pittsburghpa.gov/ura-files/URA_Parking_Tax_Diversion_Guidelines_adopted_2-11-16.pdf
Appendix D Survey of Local and Regional Governments D-15 â¢ concern about gentrification, displacement, and the sufficiency of affordable housing; â¢ a general âNIMBYâ reaction against height, density, and in some cases the introduction of affordable housing; â¢ a more specific concern about traffic congestion and spillover parking; â¢ a positive response to TOD based on its association with smart growth, sustainability, and greenhouse gas reduction. As to the overall success of the community outreach process, the overall tendency was to see it as challenging but generally successful, with some projects having to be modified in response to community concerns but most projects being managed to fruition. Respondents were also asked whether their transit agency counterparts generally become involved in stakeholder outreach with respect to requested zoning changes or entitlements for joint development. The jurisdictional perspective was about evenly divided between those who said their transit agencies generally do become involved and those who said they do not.
APPENDIX E LITERATURE REVIEW: ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY AND DISCUSSION
Appendix E Literature Review i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... E-1 2.0 Annotated Bibliography of Joint Development Literature Since 2002 ............................................... E-2 3.0 Summary of Research Findings ......................................................................................................... E-12 3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... E-12 3.2 Modern Joint Development in the United States ................................................................ E-12 3.3 International Joint Development Experience ...................................................................... E-13 3.4 Why Undertake Joint Development Projects? ..................................................................... E-13 3.5 Joint Development Transaction Models .............................................................................. E-14 3.6 Factors that Contribute to Successful Joint Development Projects ..................................... E-16 3.7 Joint Development and Real Estate Market Risk ................................................................. E-18 3.8 Joint Development and Affordable Housing ........................................................................ E-19 3.9 Joint Development and Parking ........................................................................................... E-19
Appendix E Literature Review E-1 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SUMMARY OF RESEARCH FINDINGS 1.0 Introduction Academic literature reviews are typically prepared to answer two questions: 1) what is already known about the subject topic; and, 2) what further information gaps exist? Because the findings from prior academic literature are critical to laying the foundation for further academic research, the literature sources tend to include only publications featuring peer reviewed articles and books by authors with significant academic credentials. However, literature reviews can also be targeted to practitioners working in an applied field, as is the case here. Such reviews will be structured differently than a traditional academic literature review and will address slightly different questions: 1) what is already known about the subject topic; 2) what are todayâs âbest practicesâ; and, 3) what we can learn from the literature that will lead to better or more effective practice in the future? Because the purpose of this literature review is to inform the contents and structure of the Guide to Joint Development for Public Transportation Agencies (âthe Guideâ)âthat is, a resource for practitioners rather than academic researchersâthe bibliography was developed by searching a wide range of research, including traditional academic sources but also professional organizations, advocacy groups, and practitioners.86 Given the breadth and depth of the transit- and TOD-related literature, it was important to establish screening parameters that would focus this search on the most relevant and informative work. The first parameter was to establish a working definition and typology of joint development, against which each item could be evaluated for inclusion in a manageable body of joint development literature. The adopted definition, stated at the beginning of the Guide, is as follows: Joint development is real estate development that occurs on transit agency property or through some other type of development transaction to which the transit agency is a party. Joint development is physically or functionally related to a transit facility, and it often involves the coordinated improvement of a transit facility and the affected real property. Transit agencies actively participate in joint development, generally by contributing property or funding; they benefit from joint development by deriving revenues, increased ridership, or transit improvements. The typology, which expands on the definition, is also introduced at the beginning of the Guide, by way of the following diagram: 86 These include: the Transportation Research International Documentation Database (TRID), the American Public Transportation Association; the Lincoln Institute for Land Use Policy; the Mineta Transportation Institute; the Gaining Ground Information Database (Elizabeth Haub School of Law, Pace University); the Center for Transit- Oriented Development; Reconnecting America; Enterprise Community Partners; National Center for Transit Research; US Environmental Protection Agency, Partners for Sustainable Growth; Victoria Transport Policy Institute; The Overhead Wire (website); the Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center of the Edward J. Bloustein School, Rutgers University; the Urban Land Institute; and Smart Growth America (TOD Resources).
Appendix E Literature Review E-2 Joint Development Typology Second, the consultant team established 2002 as a âcutoffâ year, prior to which the literature would be less relevant due to changing conditions. Moreover, the previous comprehensive literature review addressing joint development was completed in 2002 (TCRP Research Results Digest 52). Consequently, any material produced before 2002 was not included in this search. Third, material focusing primarily on international joint development examples was, for the most part, excluded from this review, because real estate market conditions, political context, and property ownership mechanisms in most international cases are vastly different from those in the United States. However, there are a few international joint development case studies that are cited repeatedly in the literature including Hong Kong, several Taiwanese cities, and Tokyo. Fourth, a great deal of writing about TOD in general and about value capture in particular touches on joint development. Works that mention joint development tangentially but do not discuss the topic in any depth were generally excluded. Intentional exceptions are materials that discuss affordable housing and the reduction or âright-sizingâ of parking supply in TOD settings. While these materials may not explore the mechanics of joint development, they raise important policy issues currently facing most transit agencies with joint development programs. Finally, individual case studies prepared by and for practitioners have been compiled separately in another appendix (Appendix H). 2.0 Annotated Bibliography of Joint Development Literature Since 2002 This annotated bibliography reflects the search criteria articulated above. It includes 40 items, listed in chronological order beginning with the most recent. Multiple publications in the same year are listed alphabetically.