Miller Avenue Precise Plan

By Garry Lion

I believe we do need a plan for Miller Avenue, and I generally support most of the streetscape improvements and the mixed use concept, but I fear relaxing our building standards will allow the intensity of development to get out of control.

I generally agree with the smart growth concept of mixed commercial and residential development along Miller, with an emphasis on smaller business and living spaces. I would like to see much affordable housing, but I do not support excessive housing as a strategy to satisfy our AGAB affordable housing goals with 20% inclusionary housing.

However, I am concerned with the possible level of development in MAPP and how this will be controlled. The Planning staff has recommended relaxing building standards for building heights, parking, densities, and set backs to encourage development in the Gateway and Main Street rooms. But this could significantly expand the development beyond what the MAPP now estimates, creating significant traffic, crowding and parking problems.

Instead, the City should use variances and exceptions to the existing building standards as a negotiating tool when development projects are reviewed by the City to ensure we get maximum affordable housing and other concessions which benefit the community. The City's Planned Development Overlay District and General Plan Housing Element provide considerable flexibility to allow the City to exceed our existing building standards when appropriate in exchange for affordable housing or other community benefits.

The Hillhaven replacement project (505 Miller) is a benchmark example. Led by a neighborhood-focused developer, this project initially faced many objections, but through extensive negotiations in the City's review process it was reshaped into one with nearly unanimous approval. During this process, the City allowed the project to exceed many of the City's building standards, specifically 44% more floor area, 30% less front setback, 10% greater height and 40% fewer parking spaces. But we did get a well designed project, 20% affordable housing and strong community consensus.

However, if the City relaxes the standards for all future projects now, the developers will be automatically entitled to that higher level of development and the city will lose its leverage in negotiating for affordable housing and other City benefits. Alternatively, the City will need to allow variances beyond the relaxed standards for the affordable housing, and we will get more development, traffic and parking woes than anticipated in the current illustrative plan.