Res13 15305 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

11/18/2013 For developments where this is nat passible, the payment of in-lieu fees for the development of an equivalent number of units cauid be an alternative to this requirement. 4. Eliminate eligibility for targe commercial projects (75,000 square feet ar greater). Large commercial (aka big box) prajects are highly auto-oriented (even if they are near public transit) and undermine effarts to preserve or create historic, walkable commercial districts that are waven into the urban fabric. In the sho►t-term an individual big-box project may reduce lang-distancs driving ta the nearest similar stare. But there is a long-term impact on smaller, neighborhood-serving business districts, and retail in particular, that must be accounted far. As small walkable retail choices decline, VMT will grow and it becames mare difficult to reduce car awnership. In fact a 2011 study in Southern California by 5 praminent researchers found that the number af businesses per acre is the single mast robust indicator of whether peaple are likely to walk in their neighborhoad. They found that people living in neighborhaods with more business establishments per acre conduct more of their travel within the neighborhaod and are more likely to travel by walking. (Retrof'�tting Suburbs ta lncrease Walking, in tTS'ACCESS magazine, Fall 2011.) Beyond the fact thafi big box stores may harm the environment averall,there is little evidence ta suggest that big-box development is underbuilt in California. With billions in annual profits and dozens of stores opening each year in California, CEQA analysis does not seem to be an unaffardable ar unnecessary process for these stores. Recommendation: Eliminate the provision that allaws commercial or retail projects to be eligible if they prepare a transportation study. 5. Commercial/Retail projects in areas above.75% regianal per capita VMT shautd not be eligible just bas�d on meeting CALGreen criteria. The prapased guidelines lay out a very strong set af guidelines ta promote cammercial and retail development that can reduce VMT. Unfartunately, all of those criteria may be undermined in the same way that the residential gaals may be undermined. As stated above far residential prajects, CALGreen building cade daes not consider project location or ather criteria that address VMT. VMT is an appropriate metric far identifying infill development;CALGreen is not. While we support the inclusion of CALGreen in these guidelines, they shauld nat substitute far VMT as the metric far determining eligibility. Recammendation: Prajects in TAZs that are less than 75 percent af regianal VMT and meet the ather criteria should be able ta receive the SB 226 benefits. But the option of implementing CALGreen Tier 1 or 2 alone as a way to reach eligibility in the higher VMT TAZs should be eliminated. Given that the guidelines paint to iwa other criteria that could be met to eligible-- 1} close proximity tp 1,200 househalds and 2) transit proximity plus low parking -- it may be feasible ta develop some standards-based form for considering commercial and residential in yellow and red zone TAZs, but these should not be based on CALGreen and wnuld need to be explored in much greater depth. We are concerned that travel studies would not be adequate as the literature and the modeling capabilities for commerciaUretail projects are less robust than for residential and would be ripe for gaming. 6. Inctude a maximum parking ratia for two of the propased commercial/retait eligibility criteri� 4 RESO.#15305 MUFF#603