Alert regarding Council Study Session on commercial building zoning, TODAY

[Julie Lovins]

I have belatedly looked at the Staff Report concerning the Study Session
in the Plaza Conference Room at 5:30 this afternoon and discovered that
it is something the Task Force should be interested in.

The official title of the item is

3.1. ML Zone Density Bonus (Alexandria Project)

This is a proposal for new high-amenity office development near Plymouth.

There is discussion about whether or not it is sufficiently
close/accessible to Light Rail to make that a viable commute alternative,
and what sort of parking requirements and attempt to mitigate "traffic
impacts" might be suitable.

The former is an issue with regard to the granting of the "density bonus"
the developer is seeking. Staff is now proposing to have granting of
these zoning changes made less cumbersome (e.g., it is said that there is
now an additional three months of time added to the application process by
having each such request go thru EPC review before it goes to Council), if
the project meets a number of conditions that make it a better project.
I applaud this staff initiative and most its content but am concerned
about details of two of the concepts on the list:

1. Proposals to require "transportation demand management" with incentives
for carpools, ped/bike use, better access to local eateries or onsite
eatery, etc., are framed in terms of reduction in "traffic impacts", which
means how many cars are added to the roads around there, and GHG is not
mentioned, only "congestion". I suggest that, in keeping with the metrics
we used in the ESTF report, as well as new State legislation, increase in
GHG should also be used in development proposals, and there should be
comments about any extent to which this sets back our attempts to reduce,
and there should be mitigations specified to get net zero increase without
stopping development.

2. It is suggested that "minimum LEED certification" standards be
followed. Do they mean that actual certification must be obtained, or
not? Secondly, has a proposal to require LEED Silver for commercial
development been passed by Council or not, after they received comments
back on it from the Task Force? If not, clearly Council should take it up
again and act on it. If it has, I don't understand the lower standard
proposed in the Staff Report.

I will not be able to speak to these issues at the Study Session but hope
that someone else on the Task Force, someone who can fill in the lacunae
in my discussion above, will be able to, and both request a GHG evaluation
and discussion as standard operating procedure for development proposals,
and speak to the LEED issue (from knowledge of where we actually stand,
which I don't have).

Thanks!

Julie