Item 2: Ordinances on Minor Code Amendments (MiCAP Remand)

Home Browse Search

1“[The increased off-street parking required for multiple family dwellings in 2the two university neighborhoods] will result in [an] increase of parking 3requirements to 200% of current for 2 bedroom units to 400% of current for 5 4bedroom units. I have reviewed the impact on eight recent projects of ours in 5these neighborhoods – two in design, four in construction now, and two 6recently completed. None of these projects could be built as designed. The 7amount of land required for parking limits the remaining space, used for out 8door living, pedestrian circulation, landscaping, and lastly – dwelling units, 9such that actual achievable density is reduced to ½ to 1/3 of current. Thus, we 10put cars before people, and actually invite more cars into the neighborhood, 1 11while reducing density.” Record 912. 12The developer went on to contend that “[a]s a practical matter, this will reduce the density 13that can be achieved by about half, in some cases 2/3.” Record 917. 2.Intervenors-Respondents’ View of the Indirect Effect 14 15Intervenors-respondents spend 17 pages in their brief arguing that the developer’s 16testimony quoted above for the most part fails to identify the assumptions or bases for his 17conclusions and vastly overstates the likely impact of the disputed changes. Intervenors- 18respondents’ Brief 10-27. Intervenors-respondents ultimately take the position that the 19regulations are unlikely to prevent individual development proposals from achieving the 20maximum residential development densities authorized by EC Table 9.2750 in either the R-3 21or R-4 zone. 22Intervenors-respondents particularly dispute petitioner’s contention that the new, 23lower maximum building heights will result in a loss of 600 units in the R-4 zoned portion of 24the 16-block area. Intervenors-respondents point out that within the R-4 zone, where the 25amendments will impose lower maximum building heights in R-4 zoned areas that are 26located within 225 feet of an R-1 zone, the percentage reduction in the normal 120-foot 27maximum building height would only necessarily result in a reduction in the achievable 28maximum development density if a 12-story building that takes full advantage of the 120- 1 A table that purports to display the impact of the disputed changes on the eight projects referenced in the quoted text appears at Record 923. Page 9