City Council Meeting:
Agenda Item: _____
To: Mayor and City Council
From:
Subject: Alternative Strategies to Preserve the City’s Scale and
Character While Advancing Key Land Use and Circulation Element Interests
Recommended
Action
It is recommended that the City Council consider whether elements of the
Shape the Future 2025 / Motion by the Ocean (Land Use and Circulation Elements
(LUCE)) effort may and should be
expeditiously implemented to address community concerns related to building
height, scale, density and character, and give staff appropriate direction.
Executive Summary
Proposition
90 that recently qualified for the November state-wide ballot (“the Initiative”)
has caused the City to evaluate its ongoing efforts relative to preparation of
new Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan. The Initiative is
not only directed toward eminent domain and redevelopment activities, but as
provided in the Secretary of State’s analysis (http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm#2006General),
would impose new restrictions and costs on all state and local agencies’
ability to enact and enforce land use planning, zoning, environmental, consumer
and other laws and regulations. If approved by California voters, it would
amend the California Constitution, effective the day following the election, to
define compensable “damage” to property as including “government actions that
result in substantial economic loss to private property,” including as examples
such actions as down zoning and
“limitations on the use of private air space.”
By doing so, it may impose new costs on local decision makers who implement
planning changes such as adjustments to private property development standards,
including building height, scale and density.
Staff is seeking direction from
Council as to whether key components of the LUCE effort can and should be expeditiously
implemented. If feasible, such implementation could seek to preserve the City’s
ability to adjust current standards to a level that promotes
Critical issues for the City
Council to consider include:
·
What
are the short- and long-term objectives for strategically zoning parts of the
City, including changes to development standards or discretionary review
thresholds?
·
Which
specific neighborhoods may need protection?
·
Besides
zoning, are there other policies or City regulations that may provide effective
regulation to accomplish the goals of the LUCE and community-identified
Emerging Themes?
·
What
legal constraints or risks are associated with undertaking possible action?
·
What
staff and financial resources are necessary to expedite this review and what
projects will be deferred?
·
Which
option best addresses the Council’s concerns and what specific direction can be
given to staff to initiate this effort?
There are varying costs and
risks associated with each strategy considered in this report. Costs may be
limited to staff resources involved in preparing necessary reports and
ordinances, but may require the hiring of consultants. Funds necessary to cover
short term expenses would be drawn from the LUCE contract.
Discussion
Background
Nearly two years ago the City
initiated a project to comprehensively evaluate existing land uses, building heights,
densities, and circulation patterns and to capture community aspirations as to
From the outset, the community
has responded to various outreach efforts on a range of issues related to
diversity, growth, development activity, town character, and many other issues.
There has been a wide-range of
suggestions on how to address such matters. Nevertheless, community input has
demonstrated significant interest in preserving the scale and character of
existing neighborhoods. Relatedly, interest
has also been expressed in reducing development standards in some parts of
While this community discussion
is expected to continue and culminate in the LUCE update, there is immediate
concern that the Initiative may significantly and detrimentally impact the
City’s ability to fully implement the vision that is being expressed by community
members. In light of the Initiative
relative to the LUCE update efforts, this is an opportunity to ascertain
whether certain components of the LUCE update may be implemented in order to
preserve the ability to carry out an approved policy framework in the future.
Potential Impact of the Initiative
Although most of the Initiative is aimed at
the conduct of eminent domain, the Initiative also revises Article I, §19 of
the California Constitution to require state and local agencies to pay just
compensation if “government action” damages private property. Proposed
section (b)(8) of Article I, §19, below, makes clear compensable government
action includes general plan and zoning legislation:
Except when taken to protect public health and safety,
“damage” to private property includes government actions that result in
substantial economic loss to private property. Examples of substantial
economic loss include, but are not limited to, the down zoning of private
property, the elimination of any access to private property, and limitations on
the use of private air space. “Government action” shall mean any statute,
charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation.
The Statement of Findings in Section 1.(c) of the Initiative states this provision was drafted because: “The courts have not required government to pay compensation to property owners when enacting statutes, charter provisions, ordinances, resolutions, laws, rules or regulations not related to public health and safety that reduce the value of property.” Thus, it can be predicted that regulation that promotes community aesthetics and neighborhood compatibility through density, height, bulk and scale reductions will be subject to compensation claims under this proposed constitutional amendment.
On the other
hand, while future claims can be anticipated if the Initiative is adopted, it
is not clear how “substantial economic loss” will be defined in determining
when governmental action damages private property. Article I, §19 of the California Constitution
currently provides: “Private property may be taken or damaged for public use
only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first
been paid to, or into court for, the owner.”
In San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 27 Cal.4th 643 664,
the
Finally, section 6 of the Initiative exempts legislation in effect on the date of its enactment and amendments to such legislation that promote its original policy and that do not broaden its scope of application. The Initiative provides that other than for eminent domain powers, the Initiative “shall not apply to any statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation in effect on the date of enactment that results in substantial economic loss to private property.” An amendment to such regulations after the date of the enactment would also remain exempt from the Initiative’s provisions “…provided that the amendment both serves to promote the original policy of the statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation and does not significantly broaden the scope of application of the statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation being amended.” (Emphasis added)
Thus, there is a lack of certainty not only as to how the Initiative will be applied, but to the extent it will be applied to amendments of legislation in effect at the time of enactment.
Options for Council Direction
on Expeditious Action
A significant portion of land within the
City is already protected by existing regulations that serve to maintain and
enhance the scale and character of neighborhoods. The single family
neighborhoods (R1 District), which make up over 28% of the privately owned land
in the City, have standards that promote compatibly sized buildings, and allow
for privacy and access to light and air.
More specifically, in
August 1999, the City adopted Ordinance Number 1950 (CCS) which amended the
North of Montana R-1 development standards in the Zoning Code to ensure that
new housing development would not detrimentally impact existing residences,
would be compatible with the existing neighborhood scale and character and
would be consistent with the neighborhood’s historic development patterns. In February 2003, the City adopted Interim
Ordinance Number 2066 (CCS), and subsequently extended this ordinance, to
advance similar objectives in the
Downtown continues to provide the most new housing opportunities and has contributed substantially to the City’s ability to meet state housing provisions. The pattern, scale and amount of development Downtown is consistent with existing Council policy to focus new development there. In May 2006, the City adopted Ordinance Number 2187 (CCS) modifying the development standards within the BSCD, C3, and C3C Zoning Districts including design standards for ground floor heights, building street-fronts, landscaping, and development adjacent to historic resources. This ordinance also reduced the development review threshold except for specified affordable housing projects.
The City’s industrial land
currently has the lowest development potential in terms of floor area and
building height, with few exceptions for a limited number of land uses that
receive certain incentives. Staff does
not recommend changes in this part of the City, Downtown, or in the R1 District,
expect as noted above.
The remaining land area that may
need preservation is, therefore, limited in scope to the multi-family districts
and commercial boulevards. Two primary proposals are explored in this report. They seek to ensure that scale and character are
protected consistent with the themes that have emerged from the LUCE update.
These proposals are further detailed in Attachment A; a summary of each is
provided below:
Incentive-Based Standards. This approach retains maximum build out potential in each residential district
for a discrete list of land uses, such as affordable housing. Other uses, such
as market rate housing, could be developed to a specified threshold set by Council. For instance in the R4 District, this
threshold could be two stories and 30 feet with a unit density of one unit for
each 1,500 square feet of parcel area, instead of the current standard of 4
stories and 45 feet with a unit density of one unit for each 900 square feet of
parcel area. A similar approach could be applied to the commercial boulevards. Alternatively,
commercial projects could be evaluated for compatibility through a
discretionary review process.
Average-Based Standards. Allow development that is consistent with the average height and
density of other existing improvements within a specified geographic area, such
as one city block. As with the other proposal, commercial and residential
standards could have the same structure or approach, or commercial projects
could be evaluated through discretionary review.
A hybrid of these two approaches
may also be considered.
There were a number of other
options that were evaluated, including two down-zoning suggestions from Santa
Monicans for Renters’ Rights (SMRR) and the Santa Monica Coalition for a
Livable City (SMCLC); a deferred down-zoning implementation approach from the
Planning Commission; and an “As-Is” scenario that would freeze future development
to the height and density that currently exists on each individual parcel. As
examined in the following section, each of these options present greater legal
risks than the two proposals described above and are, therefore, not
recommended.
Once Council has chosen a
preferred approach, additional analysis will be conducted and consideration
given to refine the option, including evaluation of legal requirements.
Legal Risks, Constraints and Workload
Impacts
Legal Risks / Constraints
The California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) expressly states that the enactment and amendment of zoning
ordinances, and the adoption and amendment of local General Plans or elements
thereof are projects subject to its terms. In assessing the level of environmental review required for a
general plan or zoning ordinance amendment, a local agency must examine the
potential impact of the amendment on the “baseline” existing physical
environment (“ground to plan”); a comparison between the proposed amendment and
the existing plan or ordinance (“plan to plan”) is insufficient.
Staff has
identified a number of possible changes in existing plan and zoning ordinance
provisions. In the case of the proposed
amendments, the city will not be required to assess the environmental effects
of the entire plan or preexisting land use designations. Instead,
the question will be the potential impact on the existing environment of changes
in the plan which are embodied in the amendment. Thus, even though staff proposals may reduce
potential development from that which may be developed under existing plans and
implementing ordinances, the comparison analysis required by CEQA is between
existing conditions and the potential impacts of the changes to existing plans
or ordinances.
Finally, while courts
have consistently found that general plan amendments are subject to CEQA
because they have the potential for resulting in ultimate physical changes in
the environment, local agencies are not required to speculate or forecast how
regulations might be applied in the future. Thus, amending ordinances to
require discretionary findings or permits for certain development may not
require the same type of analysis as changing applicable zone districts or
development standards.
The incentive- and average-based
standard proposals identified above have advantage in that they minimize
changes that are required to be analyzed under CEQA. In contrast, the two down-zoning suggestions
proposed by SMRR and SMCLC may require greater environmental analysis thereby
extending the amount of time required to effectuate those changes to existing
zoning. The proposals also have advantage over the “As-Is” concept, which does
not treat all property owners within a district or representative area the
same. For instance, a property owner with a one story home in a high density
district would be treated differently from a neighbor who may be entitled to
build up to 4 stories 45 feet simply because that taller building already
exists.
The Planning Commission’s
deferred implementation strategy may also require a greater environmental
analysis for its down-zoning concept, but more importantly, there is concern
that the future implementation of the deferred standards may be subject to the Initiative,
if passed.
Additionally, in assessing these alternative strategies, the City must also act consistent with State and local enactments governing the provision of housing, particularly the provision of low and moderate income housing. Thus, any future action must be consistent with the City’s Housing Element and State Housing Element statutes, including the City’s adequate site analysis and its goals related to housing development, the City’s Density Bonus law which implements State law, and the State least-cost zoning laws. This latter provision imposes specific requirements for the City to designate and zone sufficient vacant land for residential use with appropriate standards to facilitate affordable housing development.
Thus, in
exploring the City’s alternatives the requirements of CEQA and State housing
law should be kept in mind. Also, the
Council should remain cognizant of the City’s current regulatory scheme and its
impacts.
Workload Impacts
Any action to develop a new ordinance will
result in a shift in workload priorities due to the time constraint of having
an ordinance adopted in September.
In order to expedite this process, four
full-time-equivalent employees from the City Planning Division’s Policy Team would
focus on completing this effort. Significant staff resources from the City
Attorney’s office would also be needed. Any direction that requires staff to
conduct a city-wide inventory of existing parcels or blocks to assess baseline
data is a significant undertaking and would necessitate the hiring of contract
staff to assist with day-to-day operations, permitting and other basic customer
service functions. Should such an analysis be required, it is recommended that
the City Council give the City Manager the authority to negotiate the hiring
and funding of emergency contract resources to address this need.
Some of the current projects most likely
impacted include:
·
Land Use & Circulation Element, Zoning
Ordinance Project: Consultant would continue to work on Alternatives; staff
involvement would be limited to the subject work effort.
·
Key Parcel Ordinance: Ordinance affects
approximately 250 parcels citywide; work would not resume until Spring 2007. This
ordinance relates to a condition where two property owners share a common
property, but due to each parcel’s orientation toward the street, one neighbor
could build an eight foot fence along the property line and the other neighbor
only a 42 inch fence. Council directed the preparation of an ordinance to
address this issue.
·
Division Training Program (Matrix
Recommendation): Effort to develop comprehensive training programs would be
deferred until the end of the year.
·
Development Review Threshold for Affordable
Housing Projects Interim Ordinance (Expires March 11, 2007): Work on ordinance
would begin in November.
·
Other Interim Ordinances: Extensions to
four interim ordinances will be reviewed by Council on July 11. A fifth interim
ordinance related to fence, wall and hedge regulation will be presented to
Council in the winter.
Previous Council Actions
On
Planning Commission Action
The Planning Commission has previously
contemplated the concerns identified in this report. A letter was drafted and
presented to the City Council on
Public Outreach
Consistent with the Council’s direction, a
webpage was established on
Alternatives
The primary focus of this report is on whether Council should give direction to staff to conduct necessary research and analysis, prepare reports and ordinances, and schedule public hearings as appropriate to advance efforts related to the LUCE update process, and to address the concerns expressed in this report.
Alternatively, the City Council may decide not to proceed on an expedited basis and let the LUCE update process continue on its existing schedule. Should the Council pursue this direction, the city’s ability to adjust development standards in the future may be impacted, should the Initiative pass in November.
Budget/Financial Impact
The
recommendation in this report does not require immediate funding or any budget
action. At this time, the scope of work can be covered under the existing
contract, including contingencies with Dyett & Bhatia Urban Planners.
Prepared by:
Jonathan
Lait, AICP, Principal Planner
|
Approved: |
|
Forwarded
to Council: |
|
|
|
|
|
Interim Director,
Planning & Community Development |
|
P. City Manager |
Attachments:
A.
Strategic
Rezoning Proposals
B.
LUCE Emerging
Themes
C.
Paul Goodwin,
Phone Survey Results
D.
Correspondence /
Internet Feedback
ATTACHMENT A
STRATEGIC ZONING PROPOSALS
|
Incentive
Based Standards |
|
Approach: Retain maximum build out potential in each
district for a discrete list of land uses, such as affordable housing. Other
uses, such as market rate housing, could be developed to a specified
threshold set Council. Example: A land use is identified as being able to build
to current standards, such as a residential care facility. In the R4 District
the care facility could extend to 4 stories and 45 feet with a unit density
of one unit for every 900 square feet of parcel area. The same parcel developed with a land use that is
not eligible to extend to the district’s maximum standards, such as a market
rate housing project, could be developed up to 2 stories and 30 feet, with a
unit density of one unit for every 1,500 square feet of parcel area. Comments: · Properties on commercial
boulevards could be similarly regulated, or evaluated through a discretionary
review process that evaluates the project’s compatibility with other
improvements in the neighborhood; this approach, however, would be limited to
commercial only projects, not housing projects. However, DR threshold does
not change underlying allowances. · Lowering the
discretionary review threshold could impact staff workload/resources; if this
approach is preferred and evaluation of this impact will be evaluated. · Possible Incentive
Projects include: o
Affordable housing development o
Mixed use development (in commercial districts) o
Projects that incorporate certain sustainable principles o
Projects that promote the preservation of existing housing or
potentially historic structures o
Projects that incorporate child day care centers o
Community care facilities o
Special needs housing (residential care, transitional housing, senior
group housing, etc.) How does this advance the Land Use and
Circulation Element Effort? This approach would promote certain land uses and
architecture that have been consistently identified through the outreach
effort. It balances the community’s interest in preserving the scale and
character of neighborhoods with types of developments that retain existing
improvements, promote sustainable design, and provide diverse housing
opportunities. Issues: This option does not require rezoning land within
the city; rather, it would involve changes to development standards for uses
already allowed within applicable districts. CEQA analysis would focus on
potential environmental impacts from changes in how allowable uses in the
districts may be developed under new standards (e.g., continued full
build-out for identified incentive uses and lesser development for other
allowed uses). Because incentive based
standards would not change build-out dimensions of applicable zoning, but
only those uses that may be developed to full build-out, a finding of no
potential significant environmental effect may be possible. |
|
Average
Based Standards |
|
Approach: Allow development that is consistent with the
average height and density of other existing improvements within a specified
geographic area, such as one city block. Example: The average or representative height and density
of all improvements on one city block is 24 feet and three units. An existing
one story single family home on the same block could be developed to 24 feet
in height with up to three dwelling units. Similarly, an existing 30 foot
tall five unit building on the same block could be developed to a height of
24 feet and have up to three dwelling
units. Comments: · The geographic area and
method for averaging would need to be defined · Consideration would need
to be given to geographic areas that contain a mix of residential and
commercial buildings · Averaging would be based
on conditions that exist at the time of ordinance adoption; it would not
change over time · Property owners seeking
to develop property would be required to provide survey information for all
properties with the geographic area – depending on the size of the geographic
area, this could be a significant expense · There may be workload
impacts due to increased time for site inspections and survey verification · All property owners
within the same geographic area would be treated equally · New development would be
at a scale and density that is lower than the tallest and most dense
buildings in the geographic area · For commercial /
industrial projects, design compatibility could be used as a measure to
evaluate future projects How does this advance the Land Use and
Circulation Element Effort? This approach preserves the existing scale of
residential neighborhoods and commercial boulevards. Issues: This
option may require use of overlay zones on land within the city. It will
require identification of the appropriate geographic area to which it will be
applied, as well as the information and formula from which to derive
“average” or “representative” height and density for development standards in
that area. CEQA analysis would focus on potential environmental impacts from
changes in the baseline, existing physical setting under new “average” based
height and density standards. Because
“average” based development standards will be based on the existing setting,
a finding of no potential significant environmental effect may be possible. |
ATTACHMENT B
LUCE
EMERGING THEMES
Emerging Themes
(Excerpted from the Emerging
Themes Report)
|
1. |
A unique city with a strong sense of community. |
|
2. |
A city rich in amenities, within walking distance to
shops and services from neighborhoods. While in its outlook and character |
|
3. |
A diverse and inclusive city. |
|
4. |
A community built at an appropriate town-scale. Reinforcing the theme of a small and
unique town, the height and scale of new buildings should complement the
existing fabric of neighborhoods and commercial areas. Existing height limits
should be maintained, and high rise buildings are not appropriate in any part
of |
|
5. |
A city of strong neighborhoods, protected from
commercial and industrial uses. Neighborhoods should be protected from encroachment
of commercial and industrial uses, and have slow and safe traffic. New
development should be in keeping with the existing scale of neighborhoods |
|
6. |
A pedestrian and bicycle-friendly place. Streets and connections between
various activity areas shall be improved to create comfortable and safe
environments for pedestrians. Development should be friendly and engaging to
pedestrians. |
|
7. |
A city rich in its array of transit offerings. The need to support transit enjoys
overwhelming community support. Santa Monicans want to see high-quality
regional transit services, such as light-rail and rapid bus, at a level that
offers advantages over private autos for regional trips, as well as local
services that are safe and fast and convenient enough to compete with autos
for local trips. Santa Monicans especially support environmentally-friendly
transit vehicles and continue to express specific support for light rail
(with a terminus in downtown and a route along Exposition). |
|
8. |
A city where traffic and parking work. Automobile traffic should flow
smoothly, without disrupting neighborhood living. Park and ride lots,
shuttles, and free or permitted parking by residents should be explored to
facilitate easy movement. Transportation and land use patterns should be
designed to work synergistically. |
|
9. |
A city of balanced growth. |
|
10. |
A city with attractive boulevards. The city’s major boulevards should
be improved with increased landscaping, enhanced sidewalks, and additional
parking. Mixed-use centers combining shopping and new housing replacing aging
uses along the city’s major corridors may help meet multiple objectives,
including promoting neighborhood accessibility to shops and services, housing
affordability, aesthetic renewal, and jobs and homes in proximity to transit.
Residents would like to see the boulevards in walking distance from their
homes developed with the kinds of shops and restaurants they like to
frequent. |
|
11. |
A safe and secure community. The city’s neighborhoods should be
secure; people, including children, should be safe walking or bicycling to
schools or work. The City should address homeless issues so that public
areas, including, parks, streets, and transit vehicles can be pleasantly
enjoyed. |
|
12. |
An environmentally sustainable place. Santa Monica should continue to
emphasize “green” development, recycling, development patterns that encourage
walking and cycling, clean air and water, and reuse of older buildings. |
ATTACHMENT C
Paul
Goodwin, Phone Survey Results (GSSR)
(Not
available electronically)
ATTACHMENT
D
CORRESPONDENCE
/ INTERNET SURVEY
The following suggestions have been
received by the City of
|
05/22/2006 To: City Council Members Fm: Planning Commission Dear Council Members: In the last 10
days, The " In short, this Initiative
would amend the state constitution to, in effect, make it virtually
impossible for any city in Calif to downzone, restrict access, restrict
owners use of parcel airspace, or any other use that would diminish the
economic value of a parcel without full market compensation, by the city, for
the loss of economic value as a result on city action. This Initiative,
presumably will pass, and will take effect Nov. 7th 2006, the day after the
election. The Calif League of
Cities is extremely concerned of the effect on all cities in the State. You have received the
full legal text of the Initiative for your review. Please see
"damages" section for specific definition. Implementation of this
law, would tie the hands of the city to effect any reduced use/development of
any property in the city. In view of the review of the LUCE, and
its expected completion in another year or two, the impact of this new
law would virtually stop almost any rearrangement, change of use, or
reduction/incentive buildback program we would devise. Consequently, the
Planning Commission, at its meeting of May 16th, unanimously
voted to recommend that Council direct staff to study the impact of the Initiative
and devise immediate short-term remedies to forestall the aforeseen impact.
This could include immediate reduced development standards for
all areas of the city, with the full intention of revised standards, after
the LUCE is adopted. Since any change as this
would require a 30 day waiting period after adoption, we urge council to
direct staff to immediately suggest alternatives for the council to adopt to
protect our city from this serious threat to our ability to shape the future
of our city. Best Regards, Commissioners: Johnson, Clark, Brown ,
Pugh, ODay, Koening, Dad In response to the
Andersen Initiative, SMRR has a draft proposal (attached) for downzoning
multifamily residential zones. It is important to recognize that State
law requires that when you decrease multifamily housing opportunities in one
part of a jurisdiction, you must provide equivalent opportunities
elsewhere. We think the LMSD Zone is an appropriate place to provide
new housing opportunities. This DRAFT proposal was
hastily created to respond quickly to the Anderson Initiative. We are
submitting it to make sure administration, planning and legal staff have our
ideas in the hopper as quickly as possible. We see this as a first
submittal and reserve the opportunity to amend or add to it. For
example, we did not have time to adequately explore downzoning R-4, which
staff should consider (as will we). This submittal in no way
implies disagreement with SMCLC on the need for downzoning commercial zones. Downzoning both
residential and commercial zones is immediately necessary because the
Anderson Initiative would make it virtually impossible to ever again reduce
height and density anywhere in the city. Downzoning now will preserve
our ability to plan our future at an appropriate pace, so long as all
downzoning changes are "IN EFFECT" by the time the Initiative could
pass on November 7. Michael Tarbet, for SMRR 5/19/06 Draft Residential
Downzoning Proposal In anticipation of the
qualification for the statewide ballot of a measure that will severely
restrict local governments zoning options,
Dear Council Members, Below is the initial
draft down zoning proposal I mentioned at the council meeting earlier this
morning. The Santa Monica Coalition for a We provide it now in
response to the Council's request to allow for a full analysis and public
discussion of it. Sincerely, Diana Gordon for SMCLC (www.smclc.net) Subject: a simple down
zone plan GOAL: Diminish future
residential and commercial build-out so that the result is fewer units and
building density than would be allowed under current zoning. HOW: Change two key
numbers and the result is a lower number of residential units and less
commercial building space. Those numbers are the square footage of lot
size needed per residential unit and the FAR in commercial zones. Residential: The number
of allowable units in multifamily zones is calculated as 'unit per square
foot (sf) of lot'. Example: Current R2 standards allow 1 unit per 1500sf of
lot. A typical 50x150 lot yields 5 units. By raising the
"1500" to 2000, a lot would yield 3.75 (round up to 4) units. By
raising the "1500" to 2200, a lot would yield 3.4 (round down) to 3
units. As we understand it, the
City of The State does allow the
single family homeowner, by-right, to build a second unit. However, single
family zones cannot be down zoned and would not be affected by this proposal.
Commercial: Allowable
building square footage is based on lot size multiplied by the FAR (Floor
Area Ratio). If the standard states an FAR of 2.5, as it does for the C3-C
Downtown Overlay District, and your lot is 7500sf, you can build an 18,750sf
building. Lower the FAR to 1.75 and a base reduction of 30% to building size
would be realized. The allowable building size is now 13,125sf. PROS *
Simple to understand *
Covers multi-residential and commercial development *
It is even handed and across the board *
Construct that is the *
Incentives, extras, bonuses, etc are left out of this proposal *
Still allows for development, just less of it *
Simple to craft if expressed in %, i.e.: CONS *
Still allows for development... too much? *
Does not address height *
Future tinkering of the code could erode or undermine the intent of an action
such as this unless additional protection is included I agree with proposals
made to initiate an overall down sizing of our existing zoning codes
especially in regards to building heights and density. This may be a
wonderful opportunity to sustain the remaining views, light and space so
essential to the enjoyment by all who live, work and visit our city. I hope
it is not just a measure to avoid prohibitive costs to the city and
developers until zoning changes can be made again which will allow
development profitable to all except a majority of the residents. I agree, Peter Tigler I feel very strongly that
it is of the utmost importance to protect and preserve our city's existing
building heights and population density. Jacob Samuel |
This
page was last modified 6/19/06