Mobility Committee (MOBC) meeting Transcript – 4/23/2024 Title: ATXN-1 (24hr) Channel: 1 - ATXN-1 Recorded On: 4/23/2024 6:00:00 AM Original Air Date: 4/23/2024 Transcript Generated by SnapStream ================================== Please note that the following transcript is for reference purposes and does not constitute the official record of actions taken during the meeting. For the official record of actions of the meeting, please refer to the Approved Minutes. [1:00:24 PM] thanks for joining us. This gloomy but gorgeous Tuesday afternoon in Austin, Texas. Good afternoon. I am Austin city council member Natasha harper-madison. I get the privilege and the honor of chairing the housing and planning committee. We are joined here by chair Ellis of the mobility committee, committee. And today we are going to have ourselves quite the hootenanny. We're going to do a joint meeting of the housing and planning and mobility committees, so it is now 1:00 pm, and I called to order the housing and planning committee, and I'd like to toss it over to my colleague, chair Ellis, to, to start off the mobility committee meeting. >> Good afternoon, everyone. I am Paige Ellis. I chair the mobility committee of the Austin city council. It is 1:01 P.M, and I call our meeting to order. We are here in city council chambers. >> All righty, and with that, I do believe we have ourselves a speaker. So I'd like to first [1:01:26 PM] speaker. So I'd like to first ask that staff call up general comment speakers for the purposes of today's agenda, we will limit our speakers to ten today. We have a tight, tight schedule today, so if you wouldn't mind calling up speakers. Thank you, bill bunch. Good morning, mister bunch or afternoon, thank you for your service to our community. Bill bunch will save our springs alliance, mostly addressing housing and planning, today. And want to start off. And this does overlap with your south central waterfront discussion, somewhat. But as you know, we won the lawsuit against the city to invalidate the south central waterfront tax increment reinvestment zone, and my request to you is that you not support any sort of appeal of [1:02:26 PM] support any sort of appeal of that decision. It was clearly correct. One under the law, but also the correct one for our community, y'all just heard about a big budget shortfall that we're looking at, you have no business siphoning off, millions of dollars each year, totaling, projected 354 million to subsidize the most luxurious, wealthy development that our city will ever see on the south shore of the lake, probably the most valuable land in the whole state of Texas, and it's totally inappropriate to be subsidizing that kind of development, high intensity, high profit development, and doing it in the name of supporting economic distressed areas, which is what that, tool is clearly intended for, for, there's no way any place in the central city could be considered either blighted or economically distressed. So, asking you not to appeal their [1:03:28 PM] asking you not to appeal their asking you not to consider this tool as mayor Watson spoke about on November 30th meeting of a potential tirz on the north shore of the lake between Lamar and mopac, completely inappropriate there, as you do your 78702 planning, there's no, no need or even should be remotely considered for the lake, north shore of the lake east of 35 as well, and then I want to draw attention to a big issue of tax increment Zones that's been overlooked. And that is buried in that statute. It says you can dodge Paige, our charter provisions that control, excuse me, distribution of public land. So basically it allows you to circumvent if it's upheld, there's reasons to challenge it. But the statute says you can dodge a charter provision that says you have to get voter approval to alienate [1:04:28 PM] get voter approval to alienate public parkland. You should not go anywhere near that, and that's especially why tirz are wholly inappropriate for being anywhere near any part of our lake, front parking, lake front land surrounding lady bird lake on the south central tirz, you have your backup says. Oh, we're holding on to the overlay ordinance, but we're changing it. So those are contradictory statements. You need to pin that down. I haven't seen anything. I think they're trying to gut the overlay and pretending like it's just massaging it. So let's see the details. Thank you. >> Thank you for joining us this afternoon. I appreciate it, so, colleagues, after consulting with the chair, Ellis, and recognizing we have a lot of important items to try to squeeze in today, I think in order to do so in a timely fashion, what we're recommending is that we take up our home and itod briefings, take those items up first, and then we'll [1:05:28 PM] up first, and then we'll conclude the joint meeting and move on to our housing and planning agenda, which includes housing and planning. Item number two, which is our standing ldc amendment prioritization, then, housing and planning committee meeting item number three. I don't have to tell you all how excited I am about the agrihood conversation. And then we'll close out with item number seven, which is to discuss future items. So again, the order of the housing and planning committee meeting will be, housing and planning committee and mobility committee . Item number one, where we approve minutes from both of the committees independently from last month. And then our joint briefings from staff, then item number four of housing and planning committee, which is item number two for mobility committee. That's regarding the proposed land development code amendments, including home phase two ev charging, the tod overlay and compatibility standards, and then housing and planning item [1:06:30 PM] then housing and planning item number five, which is mobility committee. Item number three regarding the proposed amendments for development around the south central waterfront, and then lastly, the housing and planning committee, item number six, which is mobility committee item number four regarding proposed amendments that would change, the parking requirements in the downtown area. So we'll let chair Ellis close and adjourn the mobility committee, then we'll resume with the remaining discussion on items for housing and planning agenda, which again include that item number two, discussion of the timeline of ldc amendments. Item number three, we'll hear from experts on the innovative form of sustainable development called agrihood. And then lastly item number seven which is future items. So with that said, item number one, our minutes, our first item is to approve the minutes of the housing and planning committee meeting of March 26, 2024. It looks like we have a motion by council member [1:07:31 PM] have a motion by council member qadri and seconded by vice chair alter. So moved and seconded. All in favor say I unanimous there. I'll pass the baton to chair Ellis for mobility committee, and I will move item number one on the mobility committee agenda, which is our minutes from March 28th, 2024. >> Do I have a motion by vice chair qadri and a second, by me, it's going to be Natasha harper-madison. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All all three of us in attendance, support that approval. >> Awesome, in which case we will move on to item number four, which is our briefing from staff on ldc amendments. And as you make your way up, as we go ahead through moving forward through the joint committee items, we're going to just sort of have everybody queued up to, to come up next. The next one will be item number five with the south central waterfront [1:08:33 PM] the south central waterfront briefing. Are there introduce yourself and we're ready when you are. >> Good afternoon. I am Andrea bates, assistant director with the planning department here to give a short overview of the four amendments that council and planning commission reviewed at the joint meeting on April 11th. Those amendments include electric vehicle charging use home phase two, which is a smaller lot size for one unit citywide changes to the compatible standards and the equitable transit oriented development or itod overlay. So I'll start with an overview of where we are in the review process for these amendments. We had the joint council and planning commission meeting on April 11th. Staff then hosted two open houses, an in-person open house on the 17th and a virtual open house on the 20th. Today is the 23rd, so we are having a briefing here with you, [1:09:33 PM] having a briefing here with you, and then there's a planning commission meeting tonight to review three of the four in the package of amendments. There is also a follow up planning commission hearing on April 30th. Then there will be two additional in-person open houses on may 6th, which is a location in west Austin, and may 8th, which is a location in east Austin. And then finally, city council will take up the item at their meeting on may 16th. So we've done quite a bit to get the word out about these code amendments as they move forward. This spring, we have mailed notices including what we refer to as the purple postcard for three of the items on the joint meeting, and in itod specific notice that went to a certain geography. There has also been news coverage. The city has done social media posts and also posted advertisements in several local publications. We have a website with extensive information about all the code [1:10:34 PM] information about all the code amendments and an email address and phone where people can leave comments and questions for staff to answer. And then of course, we also have the open houses that I mentioned previously. So in terms of the numbers as of yesterday, we mailed out over 670,000 purple postcards and over 39,000 itod specific notices at the beginning of the month, there have been almost 5000 visitors, 404,990 plus visitors to the portion of the speak up page that is specific to this group of amendments staff has received over 200 emails and phone calls with questions or comments about the amendments, and with an additional 150 comments left directly on speak up Austin, there were 181 speakers at the April 11th meeting. 88 attendees at the first open house and about 75 at the second, and these are the details on the two [1:11:36 PM] these are the details on the two additional open houses that have been planned on may 6th, from 6 to 8 P.M, there will be an open house at Anderson high school, and on may 8th, also from 6 to 8 P.M, there will be an open house at the George Washington carver museum and cultural center. So that brings us to the Conway point of this presentation. Since we gave council and planning commission an overview of the four proposed code amendments on the 11th, today, we'll be focused on some clarifications that answer questions we have been receiving since then. We will start with the electric vehicle charging use. >> Good afternoon. I'm Eric Thomas with the planning department, and I'll be providing a couple clarifications to the proposed new electric vehicle charging principal land use. Part of the staff recommendation for ev charging is to prohibit the use underground. This is part of this. Excuse me. This [1:12:37 PM] this. Excuse me. This prohibition was included on recommendation by the fire marshal's office and this is because when evs catch fire, they burn incredibly hot and generate a great amount of smoke underground smoke remediation can take several days, during which time access to the entire parking garage would be prohibited. In the time since the staff recommendation was finalized, we have continued to coordinate with the fire department and have come to an understanding that ev charging could be acceptable. One level below grade with certain design criteria and restrictions on placement. Given the timing, staff is deferring the option to amend the proposal to the planning commission and city council. Additionally, after reviewing public engagement conversations, staff feels the need to clarify that the proposed principal land use will not change or restrict how ev charging is already permitted as part of an accessory parking use. The proposed regulations only apply to ev charging as the principal or only use of a site accessory. Parking will still be permitted for other principal uses. Staff does not and will [1:13:38 PM] uses. Staff does not and will not restrict the number of spaces that may be electrified, so long as accessory parking requirements are met. Thank you. >> Hello, council. I'm Laura Keating of the project connect office and case manager of home phase two. And we just wanted to clarify a few items that we've received questions about. So first, home phase two recommends a 45% impervious cover limit for all developments. Impervious cover limits help ensure there is space for rainwater to be absorbed into the ground or directed towards the storm drainage system. Residential subdivisions are designed with the assumption of 40, with a 45% impervious cover. Additionally, we've gotten some questions about emergency access and fire code. All new development is reviewed to ensure that it meets [1:14:38 PM] reviewed to ensure that it meets current fire code structures out of reach from the fire hose from the street must have a sprinkler system, or a fire lane is required, and in general, the median lot depth does not exceed the fire hose length. >> I'm Jonathan Lee, case manager for compatibility. I first want to emphasize that the compatibility buffer is much more flexible than the current no build setback, though they both have the same width, the compatibility buffer allows a number of low impact uses, and this additional flexibility translates to more buildable area on sites and for residential projects, this means more housing units. The compatibility buffer was adopted as part of db 90 in February, and the requirements for the buffer are located not in the zoning code, but in another section of the land development [1:15:39 PM] section of the land development code. Chapter 20 5-8 and I also wanted to share another statistic about compatible Katy. It's that the proposed compatibility changes would reduce the overall area, subject to compatibility, by nearly 94. This is in large part due to reducing the distance that compatibility applies from 540ft to 75ft, but also due to the revised applicability fee, including an exemption for a lower density multifamily districts. >> Good evening, council members. My name is Warner Cooke and I'm with the planning department and the case manager for the equitable tod overlay. And similarly we have a few clarifications based on some some feedback that we've received so far. The first being that there is no requirement if a property is rezoned into this overlay to redevelop, the property can continue existing as it is today, the they would just also have the ability to [1:16:40 PM] just also have the ability to take advantage of the new density bonus program if they comply with the requirements. The proposal also does include redevelopment requirements that help protect certain existing affordable housing tenants and commercial tenants, and that would actually make it harder in those cases for those properties to redevelop without providing those additional protections. Additionally, while new uses identified on the prohibited uses list for the proposal would not be able to be established in the future, you couldn't have a new one of the prohibited uses. The existing uses existing businesses would be able to continue to operate. They do not have to discontinue operation and shouldn't see any impact. They just become legal, nonconforming uses, we've also heard questions about compatibility and what Jonathan was just presenting on and how that relates to the dbe tod bonus program. And it is slightly relaxed in the staff proposal for the dbe tod bonus program as compared to the citywide compatibility standards [1:17:41 PM] citywide compatibility standards being proposed. The same compatibility buffer, the 25ft, would would still apply for dbe tod projects in the same ways, but the height limitations would be relaxed after that. So between 25ft and 50ft from the triggering property, a dbe tod building could reach up to 90ft in height, which is about 7 or 8 stories, and then after 50ft in distance, compatibility. Height limitations would not apply. So the property, would be able to reach its full height, which in this case would not be able to exceed ten stories or 120ft tall. And this relaxation helps, reduce compatibility's impact on our housing near transit, as well as aligning with the approach recommended in the staff recommendations published last year on compatibility that we should look at. Relax ING compatibility for projects that provide community benefits, such as those in density bonus [1:18:41 PM] as those in density bonus programs, the last, last few clarifications. It's important to emphasize that this is this really is an early out first phase of the tod overlay, there will be future phases of work staff plans to engage both the general public as well as, you know, interested stakeholders, the development community, etc. On a larger effort to calibrate a density bonus program that can apply in additional geographies such as along the metro rapid and metro rail lines, as well as looking at increased entitlements and additional types of community benefits beyond just the affordable housing benefit and we anticipate developing that and bringing it back in spring 2025. And then finally, it's worth noting that once these provisions are adopted, should council approve the ordinances in may and Ed, they're on the books, additional property owners within a half mile, which is about a ten minute walk or roll, half mile, of the phase one light rail, could request application of the new combining [1:19:42 PM] application of the new combining districts through the property specific rezoning process. So if they're not part of the rezoning proposal today, the planning commission or the appropriate land use commission would hear that through an individual rezoning in the future, should a property want to take advantage of this program. >> That brings us back to our schedule moving forward. As I mentioned before, tonight, the planning commission will be holding a hearing and taking potential action on home phase two compatibility and electric vehicle charging next Tuesday. On April 30th, there will be a council work session with a briefing on these items and a planning commission meeting in the evening, where the planning commission will be reviewing the itod overlay proposal on may 6th. There is the first additional open house in west Austin at Anderson high school, and on may 8th, the additional open house in east Austin at the carver museum. On may 14th, [1:20:43 PM] carver museum. On may 14th, there will be another council work session and then finally on may 16th, this returns to council for consideration. As always, we encourage folks to visit our project website. Speak up Austin all-glvc updates and email comments or questions to staff at ldc updates at Austin, texas.gov or give a call and leave a voicemail for staff. At (512) 974-7220. And that concludes our presentation for today. But we welcome questions. >> Thank you very much for the presentation. I know that I saw a couple of ears perk up, so I'll start with you, council member qadri. But Mr. Mayor, did you have questions also, I have one after. After council member qadri. I have one question on compatibility I share. >> I see that the one, two, three. >> Great. Thank you. Chair I have two questions on on home and then two questions on ev [1:21:46 PM] and then two questions on ev regulations. All right, I'll start with inviting the home case manager, miss Keating, up. >> Great. >> Hey. >> Well, I appreciated the presentation as a whole, just two quick questions on home staff recommendation is 2000ft S, is there any reason not to consider something lower to meet the intent of home, you know, in the in the Mueller neighborhood or Miller, I still am terrified on what to call it or not to call it, the, the square feet is, I think, 600ft S. Is there a reason not to go all the way to what Mueller has or Miller. >> Yeah. So staff's recommendation, is calibrated to one if you have 45% impervious cover, 2000ft S gives you about 900ft S of impervious cover, which allows for a reasonable building footprint, along with, you know, a parking space or a short driveway, staff also calibrated the size based on [1:22:46 PM] calibrated the size based on existing lot sizes, and so the median lot, can divide into three under 2000ft S, that median lot size might be larger than 6000ft S. Typically it's 8500ft S citywide, but with the existing lot width, you'll only be able to get three, three lots out of that. And the flag lots in the back tend to be larger than that minimum because of the lot area to get back to them. >> Got it, and then one more question on home. You know, when it comes to the preservation incentive, you know, a lot of folks have called for fixing it. What does the fix look like? >> The exit, the preservation incentive that was passed under home phase one. >> Correct? Yeah so we're not able to make any changes to 2 or 3 units on a lot, because the notice that was sent out only [1:23:47 PM] notice that was sent out only referred to one unit on one lot. So, we cannot make any changes to the existing preservation an incentive at this time. Okay. >> Great. Thank you. And then, and then I just want to confirm there's going to be individual briefings, chair harper-madison on, like, are we going to go back to home and ev we are. Okay. Well then I will save my ev questions for when we go back. >> Got it Mr. Mayor. >> Thank you. On compatibility. And this may be a dumb question and I apologize in advance if it is, the second bullet that you had, you remember the bullet about 90 allowing for 94, 94% less, I think is the way it was phrased. First of all, if you can restate that. But but I'm not sure I understand how you get to that number. >> So, just to restate it, the proposed changes would reduce the overall land area, subject to compatibility by 94% compared to current regulations. [1:24:49 PM] to current regulations. >> So the current compatibility goes out to a distance of 540ft. We're cutting that to 75ft. That's a big part of it. We're also changing what triggers compatibility. >> I now understand okay. Unless you go ahead and finish. But it was a dumb question, just I'll declare it for you, just to say what triggers compatibility so everyone's aware, so that's a property zoned single family that has one, 2 or 3 housing units. That's that's part of the change. Previously, it was zoning without a single family use. Could trigger or vice versa. We've fixed that. >> I understand now. Thank you for answering the dumb question. >> No dumb questions. Mr. Mayor. >> I like your attitude. >> Vice chair. >> Alter, I have a home question. You touched on the fire code, safety issues. When I, I represent a number of [1:25:49 PM] I, I represent a number of neighborhoods who have very limited ingress and egress into their neighborhood. And I know when we look at a larger development that we look comprehensively and say, for this number of units, you have to have a certain ingress egress so people can get in and out. Do we have anything of that nature as it relates to a neighborhood? So saying that, you know, this area, it's only safe for 200 homes, and if we exceed that, then we need better ingress egress. >> Yeah. I would have to, defer to the fire department, but they do, review at the time of subdivision. So especially for phase two, I would have to see if that's a part of the review, if it's site specific or if they look at the neighborhood as a whole. But we can follow up on that. Yeah. [1:26:50 PM] that. Yeah. >> Would that be a question that is reviewed if you're not subdividing, if you're just putting three units on a lot without subdividing? >> Yeah, I don't know if that would be reviewed at that time because that's just a building permit. Right, well, I'd really be interested to know because, you know, we've obviously recognized that it's important at a certain level. And so I know neighborhood development has is different than a, one one development. But I do have that concern so that people can get in and out if we are creating a certain level of density within a neighborhood, my second question, it may be a question for you. Back when we did home phase one, the mayor had put on an amendment about data reporting that is really comprehensive and will help us see kind of how this is actually unfolding, when I think six months would be sometime in may. So are we is there an expectation of when we might see that first data report? >> Yeah, I know that, dsd is [1:27:51 PM] >> Yeah, I know that, dsd is collecting that information so I can follow up with them. Okay. >> Well, I appreciate that. And then I didn't this one question until councilmember qadri brought it up as it relates to the preservation bonus, I know there were some interpretation, questions. And I don't know if this is maybe a trick question or, but how how the resolution was interpreted by law. But and as it related to the notice, essentially I want to get clarification on if you're preserving what needs to be preserved with taking the subdivision question out. You are allowed under this proposal, the preserved units plus a maximum of two more. Is that correct? >> For a total of three. You're correct. Trish link with the law department okay. >> And I think that was part of the question of did did that unit count in the three total. And it it does. And I just want [1:28:51 PM] And it it does. And I just want to make sure that is clarified here. >> That is correct. >> Okay. >> Very good. Well that is my questions for now. Oh >> Councilmember Ellis, I did have a question about the community engagement efforts that have been planned. >> I know there was some interest in doing one that was, south, south, central, southwest, is there still an opportunity to schedule one of those? I know we're doing a community fair tomorrow night, but I know there's just a different method and plan to making sure we hit all parts of the community. Is there going to be one south of the river, and can we get in line? >> Council Veronica Briseno, assistant city manager, we try to be as broad as possible in our in our outreach and would love the opportunity to have more time to do outreach. But because of the compressed timeline, it's just really difficult to plan an additional event at this at this point, we did add the two on. We [1:29:52 PM] did add the two on. We struggled. We try to find something central west, and it was tough finding a location, west where we could host it. So, we made our best attempt and wish that we could have opportunities to have more outreach events, but just don't with this compressed timeline. Okay? >> And so are there other events on the list that are maybe like central library or something that's just city wide that folks south of the river could put on their calendars? >> There was one south central at the central library that I believe it was this past weekend. I'm going to ask the team to correct me if I'm wrong, there was also a virtual event that was held, and I believe that was recorded and should be available on our website, but I'll confirm that that's the case as well. >> That would be very helpful. If we can't get an event south of the river. I'd really love for folks to be able to watch along and have a chance to ask questions through a different format, just to make sure that people have a chance to understand better what what the changes propose. >> Absolutely. Okay. Thanks. Thank you. >> Thank you I appreciate that. [1:30:52 PM] >> Thank you I appreciate that. And, that's that is something that I considered when I looked at the locations. You know, how do we figure out how to thread that needle? And that's something to consider moving forward. So if there are no other questions, I think we're prepared to move forward, into our next briefing, so next up is , is, housing and planning item number five, mobility committee, item number three. This is our south central waterfront. Item we're going to hear from staff on proposed amendments for development around the south central waterfront and then ask some questions. Hi there. Please introduce yourself. >> Hi, good afternoon. My name is April Giarrusso. I'm with the planning department. My team and many colleagues across city departments have been working on the south central waterfront code. This includes team members from planning, housing, watershed Pritchard, project connect, economic development and development services, to name a few. But the list certainly goes on and we're glad to be presenting to you the [1:31:53 PM] to be presenting to you the draft code as it stands today, as a reminder for how we got here in 2016, when council adopted the south central waterfront vision framework plan, and as a part of that vision, it was recommended that a regulating plan for the district be written into the city's code to fulfill the vision plan. The code was initially started with both versions of the full land development code updates, both of which were unsuccessful. However, what was set into place from the vision plan was the street network that you see in front of you here, this is already established within the Austin strategic mobility plan. Additionally project connect was initiated and the south central waterfront was identified as part of phase one of build out the proposed path alignment and stop in the district selected last year is also shown on this map in front of you. Then in 2022, city council put forward a resolution to reignite the development of code pertaining [1:32:55 PM] development of code pertaining to this area. The resolution, in part, called for developing a code that accomplished many different things, some of which are shown in front of you, and I'll highlight some of the resolution, where council asked for the code to maximize affordable housing units within and nearby the district, maximize infrastructure investments such as for new streets, parks and bicycles, infrastructure and trails. Maximize other community benefits. Ensure enhanced environmental standards and protections. Support project connect transit investment in the community, and notably create a connected pedestrian oriented, mixed use district where thousands more austinites can live, work, and play. So as staff got to work on this code, we had to make some adjustments. It's, including we've modified the code from a regulating plan to a combining district paired with a density bonus program. I can go into details as to why, if you're curious, the zoning regulations in the south central waterfront will therefore be [1:33:58 PM] waterfront will therefore be implemented by the hopeful council. Adoption of these optional set of regulations and bonus program if successful. The first step would make this area a paper district in the same way, the north burnet gateway is also, a paper district went through that process. Then we would ask for a city initiated rezoning of the properties in the district, but I want to quickly call out that our intent is staff is to ask for rezoning of all of the existing, parcels in the district with some exceptions that you see in front of you on the map, those include existing puds, pdas, and the plan development agreement in the area. We would not ask for those to be automatically rezoned. They would still have the ability to be rezoned, but that would be through special and typical. Excuse me, typical rezoning processes that would go through council separately. Additionally, council had asked [1:34:58 PM] Additionally, council had asked in 2022 for this regulating plan to be this code to be reevaluated at least every five years. We are recommending the first reevaluation to be within 1 to 2 years, to understand better economic trends that we're sort of currently going through. One additional adjustment adjustment we've made since the adoption of the vision plan is the addition of several parcels, extending the southern and western boundaries of the area, as shown on the map on the screen, to the south. This is to support the project connect and transit oriented development alignment. And then to the west. It's based on some public feedback. We received and staff believes allows for a cohesive urban approach along both south congress and south first streets. With this addition. As for the code itself, here's how it's organized. The elements of the combining district you see here on the left, and the density bonus elements are on the right. And I'll dive in [1:35:59 PM] the right. And I'll dive in further. Now about those things. The south central waterfront is broken down into four different subdistricts. The subdistricts are distinguished from one another in terms of both height limits and floor area ratio, essentially an approximation of density and intensity of development. The subdistricts are designed to reduce in density from the most dense subdistricts closest to downtown and adjacent to the proposed project connect station. Reduce Singh down from their. The critical water quality Zones or the Zones that reflect the floodplain in Austin, as shown here on the screen, will remain in the district and will be updated as is regularly done with the city. The waterfront overlay containing the auditorium shores, south shore and Travis heights subdistricts will remain. However various elements such as building height and impervious cover will be superseded by regulations. In this code. The land uses that [1:36:59 PM] this code. The land uses that are included in the district support transit oriented activities. Pedestrian oriented activities a mix of uses for day and nighttime activity. The creative enterprise and recreation and entertainment activity. As for the parks and open space in the area, the team has worked hard to establish what we can in terms of a structure to realize the open space. As we identified in the vision plan. Items on the screen are some of the important aspects of how we're hoping to achieve this. As for those that walk around the space or the pedestrian experience, we've developed standards such that internal walkways and streets have requirements. We can. We consider pedestrian walkways for an important reason. The goal of breaking up the building site to be more friendly at the human scale. So the concept that you see in front of you, the density distribution areas, require tirz. Each area may not exceed 90,000ft S, so roughly 300ft by [1:38:01 PM] 90,000ft S, so roughly 300ft by 300ft, which is approximate the same size as a downtown block. The first of its kind in Austin, das, are put forward in the code in an effort to get to the intent of the vision and the pedestrian and transit oriented development we're seeking as a community. So before I go into the density bonus program in some amount of detail, I'll mention we had two different economic consulting firms support us in analyzing and stress testing the program, eps and Hyatt brown eps supported us in calibrating the bonus area of the various on site community benefits. Hyatt brown analyzed how we might successfully structure the program so we could get a myriad of community benefits as desired by council and community, and that's still in their assessment, but at least marginally pencil in today's economic conditions. We also had them look at an improved economy, because we understand that today's conditions for development are challenging nationwide, [1:39:01 PM] challenging nationwide, including here in Austin, members from Hyatt brown are joining us remotely. If you have any questions for them on their analysis. Okay, so as for the bonus program, our gatekeeper requirements are, or those requirements that gain parcels, some amount of density include enhanced environmental standards, streetscape and built environment standards, and 5% of rental housing on site must be affordable within a 3 to 1 floor area ratio, and as you see on the screen, we did some rough calculations on the number of onsite affordable housing units. We're looking at if full build out occurs, and this gets us pretty close to what was anticipated in the vision plan. Additional affordable housing could be maximized in other ways through publicly owned land and leveraging additional resources. So to explain the remainder of the density bonus program, we've created this image for how it fits together. What's a parcel opts in to building within the south central waterfront [1:40:02 PM] south central waterfront combining district, there's a base floor area ratio, which they are permitted to build, and then in order to enter into the opportunity to build beyond that base to a density shown in the subdistrict map, a site must adhere to the gatekeeper requirements within the first 3 to 1 they're seeking in the district. Then, to achieve the maximum density as described in the subdistrict map, a site must contribute fees in lieu and other on site community benefits, so this is structured in the following way 70% of the in lieu fees and 70% of that density bonus could be gained through in-lieu fees and dedication, and those fees would be dedicated in the following way. Affordable housing. This would be spent within a boundary that the city is describing as south central Austin, parks fees . And this would be spent within a distance from the property from which it's obtained. This is how it's typically done with parks fees. And then the infrastructure and community impact benefit fee would be spent to support the south central waterfront district itself. And then the other 30% of density bonus could be earned [1:41:04 PM] of density bonus could be earned by achieved by achieving additional on site community benefits that are described there on the screen. So the image that's shown here is an artist's rendering of what could be expected in the district. As you see, density is the largest towards downtown and by the proposed light rail stop and moves down as you get further away from that portion of the city. To further get an idea of what it might look like within a single project, here's an example. In the district and that has recently submitted their development assessment application to the planning department. You can see that through the program, the development is able to achieve roughly 6 to 1 fa. And then community would in receive and return 21 on site affordable units. $7.1 million in fees and low for housing, parks and infrastructure. Based on the site size, it's broken into three density distribution areas [1:42:05 PM] three density distribution areas and additional density is gained through various provided on site community benefits. This includes certain types of commercial and music space, public art, and then of course, open space. So on April 9th, planning commission heard from the south central waterfront team on the draft code with a vote of ten one one. PC recommended to with 13 amendments and recommendations, move the draft code forward to council, I have outlined all 313 recommendations in the next few slides and the staff's responses to them per recommendation. Generally speaking, of the 13 recommendations made, staff is not recommending four of them, not including three since they're out of scope of this zoning code amendment. So not sort of technically within our scope of work. And then we're in support of and we're relevant to the code are including six, I'm not going to go into detail on each one that you see in front [1:43:08 PM] each one that you see in front of you, but I'll highlight a few for you here. First, related to number one on the screen, the draft presented to planning commission outlined an even split amongst fees in lieu. Planning commission recommended modifying the fee in lieu distribution, with 60% going to affordable housing and the remaining 40 split amongst parks and infrastructure. And our staff recommendation is to maintain the even split among all three categories community input put a high importance on parks, open space and the pedestrian experience in the area. In addition to affordable housing. And since this is a financial tool to support the realization of all of the community benefits, we as staff feel that an even split still makes sense. Excuse me. Next, related to, numbers four and five, planning commission asked to modify the fa map and internal circulation routes. This was to further support the density in the area to support project connect, reduce density further on the new western parcels and then enhance the [1:44:09 PM] parcels and then enhance the pedestrian experience through the adjustment of internal circulation. Route options staff is making these adjustments in support of the planning commission, council and just generally the community's goal of transit and pedestrian, friendly environment. And then as for item number seven, this was definitely the most dramatic of the recommendations of the night. And was not universally passed. In short, the recommendation Ann asked staff to change this code by rewriting it to align with the downtown density bonus program. Part one specifically so explicitly not Rainey street, in the name of simplicity and on site affordable housing. Ultimately, the downtown density bonus program simply does not meet the needs of the central waterfront, and believe me, if it were as simple as such, we would have definitely proposed it versus working tireless to try and get something with the myriad of community benefits we've been [1:45:10 PM] community benefits we've been able to achieve with the draft we've got in front of us today, but we were asked to accomplish on site affordable housing in the area, infrastructure for pedestrian, transit and transportation, and incentivize open space and parks and the downtown density bonus program just doesn't work to do this, in front of you are a few reasons why, and I'll dive into them, and it's not first on the table, but I am going to start with affordable housing. Part one of the downtown density bonus program does not require on site affordable housing. It's completely optional, and we've seen over time developers most often opt for fees in lieu downtown as staff. We were asked by council and community to have affordable housing in the south central waterfront district. Beyond that explicit ask, it's the city's goal. Through the council approved strategic housing blueprint to create access to opportunity in the city. South central waterfront is specifically identified as an [1:46:11 PM] is specifically identified as an area of opportunity in the blueprint. Not only does the draft south central waterfront code require on site affordable housing for rental units, the affordability levels for rental and for sale are deeper than what is prescribed for any units that make it into downtown, providing optionality in on site, affordable housing in Austin has proven over time that affordable housing will be put elsewhere, this is against the stated goals of council staff and community for the south central waterfront. So beyond affordable housing, the downtown program does not accommodate the varied nature of lot sizes and configurations that the south central waterfront has. As the south central waterfront code. Does, occur? Update this the south central waterfront needs to provide incentives that are beneficial to small lot sizes. So 30,000ft S all the way up to multiple acres in size, and create a pedestrian and transit oriented environment while doing so. We do this with the [1:47:13 PM] so. We do this with the introduction of the density distribution areas to create a pedestrian oriented environment. The pedestrian scale is a community benefit that could otherwise be ignored in development without the parameter tirz. Our draft code establishes. Additionally, it needs to accommodate that the fact that there's insufficient existing infrastructure in the south central waterfront, especially at a pedestrian scale . So in south central waterfront, this code requires tirz a gatekeeper, a standard for enhanced streetscapes, including what elements we can from the great streets program. We require internal circulation routes within the das that have minimum standards at pedestrian and multimodal scale. Finally, downtown also does not accomplish much when it comes to parks and open space. The south central waterfront vision plan underscored parks, open space and trails as a hallmark of how the plan should be realized successfully, and there are [1:48:15 PM] successfully, and there are minimal tools available to the city to be able to accomplish this. But we've tried our best, in requiring 5, open space for development, providing density bonuses for additional open space provided, requiring public access easements for all provided open space encouraging, adjoining extending and enlarging existing parks, trails. Open space in and near the district, providing density bonuses for parkland buildout and additional fees and low will be directly supported. Park buildout in this area, the downtown density bonus program requires nothing related to parks and open space. The optional aspects within the bonus program downtown include additional density for optional, publicly accessible onsite plaza , and then also fees in lieu for off site open space. So in sum, again, downtown does not get us where we as a collective, both [1:49:16 PM] where we as a collective, both council and community have identified where we want to go within the south central waterfront. And we don't believe as staff a simple fix of expanding the area to CBD zoning and applying the downtown density bonus program will work. The final group of recommendations from PC are, seen on the screen here in front of you. Many of them are suggestions that go beyond the scope of this code, including the suggestion for extending the bridge option for project connect in this area, and a transportation management district. Where they are directly interfacing this code. Staffer in support of some, but not all recommendations specifically, staff support affordable housing suggestions, particularly items number 11 and 12, which will either be directly incorporated into the code like number 12 or already in place like number 11, and staff do not recommend the last recommendation from planning commission, as we've historically identified barriers with such requirements so [1:50:19 PM] with such requirements so substantially staff is in general support of more than half of the items planning commission put forward for those items. We aren't directly including in the code, but are in support of or await further public feedback on. We look forward to working with staff, community commissioners and council in the future. In terms of the big picture, here are some of the highlights on how the draft code has evolved from public and planning commission feedback. This year we expanded the boundaries in the district. As I mentioned, modified the subdistricts, and we adjusted the affordable housing investment area for the fees in lieu to ensure proximity to transit and to prioritize spending, in part to preserve affordable housing in that area. And we added multimodal circulation options and enhanced all internal circulation routes to further encourage an area where people are walking, biking and being outdoors. Finally, there are a number of things that we as staff have on our [1:51:23 PM] that we as staff have on our immediate to do list for next steps in the code that you see in front of you here. These are important for consideration, but to support the fta grant application process and its timeline, we feel like these items can be completed soon, instead of now with limited impact to the realization in this area. As for the timeline, here's where we've been with the public comment aspect. There was a one month public review of the first draft during it, we held three public meetings, two virtual, one in person, and we received hundreds of, responses via online survey. We've spoken to nine boards and commissions, including presenting before the planning commission a couple of weeks ago and have been incorporating relevant feedback along the way, we're also participating in the joint code amendment, open houses. We participated in the one last week and will be in the upcoming ones. We're speaking to this body today, and then we intend to go before council before the end of may. So as we continue to [1:52:23 PM] end of may. So as we continue to move forward, our hope is that council approves this draft code in may. And that concludes my presentation. But I do look forward to your questions. Thank you. >> Thank you very much for the presentation. Colleagues, do we have any questions? I'm going to start with vice chair alter and then move over to council member qadri. And just to, to kick it off, I misunderstood your question earlier about whether or not the briefings would be separated. They are in fact separated, but the one that you were making reference to, around electric vehicle charging. But that would not be an additional briefing. So, just so you guys know, after this round of questions, before we move on to the next briefing, I'd like to bring folks back up to, respond to your question about electric vehicle charging. So just to give a heads up. >> Thank you. Thank you, vice chair, just so I am clear in terms of the fee in lieu option, what what, if anything, can someone pay fee in lieu for because they. [1:53:26 PM] because they. >> There are a couple of aspects. So, 70% of the density earned could be obtained through payment of fee in lieu. >> Okay. So and that would be an even distribution of those three areas. >> And then additionally, sorry, you were about to ask a question . But then additionally you can pay a fee in lieu, in part for if you are building, for sale units, instead of rental units in the property, instead of providing on site affordable units at a for sale. So a condo market, you can pay a fee in lieu instead. >> And since the bonus is in terms of your fa, you're not going to be able to pay a fee in lieu as it relates to, let's say, like parkland, because your square footage is your square footage, it's really as it relates to gained square feet of vertical entitlements that. Correct. >> That's that's correct. >> Okay. I lost you a little bit [1:54:27 PM] >> Okay. I lost you a little bit on the density distribution areas. >> Okay. >> Those are 90 up to 90,000ft S within a specific zone that we're drawing. Is that correct? So parcels if you can bring up the slide that has a map we can look at the wonky parcel size. >> Well this is a fine example. So the parcel size is like I mentioned some of the parcel sizes are as small as 30,000ft S and some of them are acres large. And so what we're trying to do is accommodate and create a space where pedestrians and, and, and all sorts of people want to be on a regular basis and feel comfortable sort of walking around and sort of getting to places where they want to hang out and stay and be. And so what this density distribution area concept does is it allows within one parcel to not, necessary subdivide, but it is similar to the breaking up [1:55:28 PM] it is similar to the breaking up of the building land, like the building mass in a particular place, so that a pedestrian won't go more than roughly 300ft, to before they sort of get to another place to turn a corner or, you know, have, a break with an internal walkway or that sort of thing before the next building site. >> But that will only apply to certain pieces, I guess I'm trying to reconcile it with, like your example that you gave that had, looks like 750,000 square foot building, but you say these other are 90,000 square foot maximum. Those don't seem compatible in my mind. What? I know I'm missing something here. I'm just trying to figure out what. >> Yeah, I don't know if, Tyler or Chad. You want to come up? >> Yeah. >> Happy to forgive me for just not getting it. Hey, Chad Sherrod here. >> So the maximum. So, for [1:56:28 PM] >> So the maximum. So, for example, you have your parcel and the example you're referring to. There's multiple density distribution areas within that parcel. And so for example, I believe there's three I believe it was the 500 south congress example, so you would have multiple chunks so you can have more than one dda per parcel. Got it. Okay. >> That makes sense. >> That makes sense. >> Thank you. I thought we were talking about the whole lot that really, you know, can I say it back and see if I understood what he. >> Yes, by all means, what he seems to understand now, because I was with him on that. What you're saying is it, it may have 750,000ft S of building on it, but within that it will have to be divided up so that you have what she said, not more than a certain amount, where there's a walkway or something. So it's not a 750,000 square foot structure. It is a number of [1:57:30 PM] structure. It is a number of structures, in this case, probably three, that add up to 750,000. So that you get the walkability and movement. >> Yes, it's to reinforce that permeability for people because yeah. Good, good. Thank you. Thank you. >> My last question as it relates to the yeah. Thank you for that clarification that it just wasn't adding up, but the on site versus off site question that, y'all have clearly analyzed and you say, so the slide you had that at full build out. We're looking at potentially 481 on site units. Did y'all do any kind of comparison of what that would potentially yield if you did allow for any kind of fee in lieu and restricted that to a certain geography? So like let's say you could do fee in lieu, but you have to spend it within a mile that might yield, you know, 600 units or I, you know, making numbers up. >> But I don't believe we did any analysis on the affordable [1:58:31 PM] any analysis on the affordable housing investment area itself. >> What we wanted to understand is knowing that on site affordable housing was a priority stated to us. We wanted to understand what the threshold that we could get and would, as I said, marginally pencil in today's conditions. What we would be able to, we believe ask for in this density bonus program. And so as a result of that analysis, we looked strictly within the district area to understand, you know, what does that mean? How does that equate to what was asked for in the vision plan? So we only looked within within the district. >> Got it. And you know, I just think about the statesman site and the fee there that is going to support Mary Lee, which is about a mile away and is going to yield hundreds of units and some of many of them permanent supportive housing units. Based on that, that one fee in lieu. [1:59:32 PM] on that, that one fee in lieu. And so that policy question of, you know, it is very close. It's not right there, but it's within a mile of downtown. And the yield we're getting off of that just from a single site is almost this entire south central waterfront. And I just I think that's a question that we need to know what we're what the trade off is because we're potentially leaving a lot on the table that could be done nearby. But I see Mandy's at the edge of her seat, so I might I might have some numbers misquoted. And she. But Mandy Demayo with the housing department, the statesman pod, was, I think, a unique scenario in that it was, of course, an extremely large parcel which had the potential to effectuate a large fee in lieu. I do want to clarify that while we had a lot of discussions about Mary Lee, which is a development on a redevelopment that's being undertaken currently by [2:00:32 PM] undertaken currently by foundation communities, the fee in lieu was not, in fact, dedicated to Mary Lee. It was dedicated to the housing trust fund to be spent within a certain prescribed geographic area, we do not anticipate that, other large or of the scale of the statesman pud, development, and so we have worked closely with April and her team, on making sure, as April mentioned, that we prioritize size, a reasonable amount of on site affordability given today's market conditions. So we're fully supportive of those recommendations. >> And I think that's incredibly important. You know, I think about the presentation we got a couple weeks ago from related about their quite substantial development. And I know I've heard other people talk about ideas that aren't necessarily, you know, on paper yet happening, but that are huge, and so it just seems like there's potential there. But [2:01:34 PM] there's potential there. But anyways, I won't take any more time. I appreciate it very much. >> Any other questions? >> Regarding the street grid, what opportunities lie ahead of us to make sure that we have a functioning street grid through the south central waterfront? Overlay >> Well, I think the days are one element of it, but certainly this is one financial tool in the toolbox. And and in, in terms of and I, hopefully I'm getting to your question, but if not feel free to clarify, what we're, requiring as a gatekeeper requirement are enhanced streetscapes, in the days we are, requiring the internal circulation routes, there are four different options for those , one of those options does include vehicular, mobility in in addition to pedestrian and others are multimodal, including [2:02:37 PM] others are multimodal, including bike lanes and sidewalks and then there are some that are just pedestrian only, and so all of this would be sort of contributing, in terms of where we're getting to in terms of the street network, but then also, the fees in lieu would certainly be going towards the build out of infrastructure. I hope that gets to your question. >> It does. So there's fee in lieu that is not just about affordable housing but also about, stormwater infrastructure . Yes, absolutely. Building a road connection where it doesn't already exist that would come out of fee in lieu. Yeah. >> The fees in lieu are it's, it's, so all of the fees in lieu are sort of, put together in that 70% density bonus area. And those would be broken out evenly according to our draft proposal. So a third dedicated to affordable housing, a third, dedicated to infrastructure and community benefit, and a third dedicated to parks. [2:03:37 PM] dedicated to parks. >> Okay. And as far as if a street were to go through a tract of land that was not subdivided, what kind of leverage do we have through this infrastructure to get ahead of their land use planning processes, to make sure we can get people on foot or on bikes to the train, is where I'm really heading with this. Yeah, yeah. >> I mean, the goal of the density distribution areas is really to have mobility that is connected to other places and have this be a pedestrian oriented environment. >> And I don't know if the transportation public works representatives in the room have any other things to add beyond this. But the goal is to create connectivity to the open space that exists, as well as to the opportunity for multimodal transit bikes, transit, among other things. >> I see Mr. Baruah is here with us, thank you. Upul baruah, interim assistant director, Austin transportation and public [2:04:38 PM] Austin transportation and public works department. In addition to the south central waterfront plan, we also have the street impact fee program. So when a new development comes in, they either have to implement the street network that is laid out in smp or pay into the fee structure so that the city can build some of the street network out there and that is going to be a tool to connect the density to the future transit stations out there. Okay I'm very interested in that conversation because this area, well, some would claim that it's going to be redeveloped regardless of city council's actions. >> I think we need to be very wise about the fact that there are limitations to what a public entity can do to make private landowners, work with us on some of these issues, and I just want to make sure we're all at the same table and that we're not missing opportunity for folks who want to be able to bike and walk to the train to be able to use that infrastructure. And so I think I know a ton of work has gone into this on the staff [2:05:40 PM] gone into this on the staff side. And with south central waterfront, commission in the downtown commission trying to work on some of these issues. But I really want to make sure as these redevelop, that there is a way of making sure that the community's best interests are at the forefront of our minds, because if we miss this boat, it's going to be 1 or 2 generations before somebody else gets to take another round at it. >> Absolutely. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> I think I'll also clarify very quickly the community that's identified for the 30% of density bonus, which is transit supportive infrastructure, that for this area has not, been fully clarified. We anticipate through the public, process, through project. That project connects going through right now more clarity will be provided and we will be more specific in terms of what we mean by transit supportive, in infrastructure. And so certainly that's another sort of, carrot to, increase density and the ability to build more in this area for the [2:06:44 PM] more in this area for the developer and in return receive transit supportive infrastructure as a result. >> I really appreciate that. I know over the past number of years, we've had conversations around if you end up with private development, building their own roads and their own parks and their own community benefits, they have the ability sometimes to put a fence around it and lock it up and make sure that other people can't access public spaces. And I think that's something really important for us all to consider moving forward, to make sure these community benefits are actually something that the community can go and touch the grass and watch the bats and, and do all the things that we want to do in Austin. >> We, we, readily agree and have included the requirement of public access easements for all open space. >> And that designation is related to private, space. So any, internal circulation route, any dedicated open space that a developer provides as a result of using this density bonus program would have a required [2:07:44 PM] program would have a required public access easement, meaning open to all. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. And I appreciate you asking those clarifying questions, because those are really important components to consider. Council member qadri, you had a question. >> Yeah. Thank you, well, no questions. And I appreciate everyone's very thoughtful questions. And I appreciated the presentation. I just had a quick statement to make. If that's okay, I just wanted to say, really appreciate the presentation. We've been working with the community stakeholders and the commissioners every step of the way here. It's been a long time coming, so I'm grateful for city staff and our community volunteers for getting us where we are today on this, I will say there are some remaining questions is how to how the loss of waterfront, of the waterfront tirz impacts the density bonus program. And I look forward to exploring that with staff, and we need to make sure we chart a path forward to address infrastructure needs and the park vision overall. So I look forward to getting more information, in the upcoming weeks. >> Thanks. I will just say that this is one financial tool in the toolbox where we're not [2:08:45 PM] the toolbox where we're not solving everything with this, but we are distinctively separate from, the tirz in terms of a tool to sort of realize the build out of this area. But we look forward working with your offices, as well as other city departments, to sort of make sure that there is a weaved fabric. And I identified approach for the other tools in the toolbox to make this place whole. >> Great. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Thank you for the presentation, I appreciate it. I just had kind of a colliding small town Austin politics moment. And, so Eric Goff walks into the room in a Boston T shirt for followed by Deshotel. >> And you're talking about touching grass and watching bats. It's such an Austin day in Austin, and so, as we but as we prepare to move forward into the next presentation, council member qadri, I wanted you to be able to ask your question about ev chargers. [2:09:45 PM] ev chargers. >> Yeah, thank you. And my apologies for all the mess that I might have made, I had two questions on ev chargers, my first question, I will give it five seconds, how would the areas around our proposed caps be treated in the proposal that you had outlined earlier? Sure. >> Thank you. Eric Thomas with the planning department, currently, the areas where we're proposing to have caps above roads, would just correspond to how they're currently classified by the existing roadway types, similar to how staff didn't feel comfortable moving forward with an amendment to the underground charging prohibition. At this stage in development, we felt like we didn't have time to, fully address the caps. However, if an amendment were offered that said something to the effect that charging is prohibited along a roadway that abuts a cap, then we'd be happy to support that and assist in development of language, or answer any questions that would [2:10:47 PM] answer any questions that would come up with that great. >> And my second question, is there something we can do to treat those areas more like our transit corridors? Since we'd like those caps to be places for people and not cars? >> Absolutely, yes, I think we could. >> Okay, great. Yes >> That's it. Those are my two questions. >> Awesome. >> Thank you. Appreciate it. And with that I do believe we are prepared to move into our last combined briefing, this is item number six on the housing and planning committee side. And item number four and the mobility committee side. This is our briefing on downtown parking requirements. I please introduce yourself. >> Hello. Good afternoon, Cole kitan transportation and public works department, case manager for downtown parking modifications. Phase one. This is our first public presentation on the proposed changes, we've been hard at work since February, working with our our downtown stakeholders to come up with those proposed changes, we were also able to participate in last week's open house with the other, ldc amendments. So, as [2:11:49 PM] other, ldc amendments. So, as background, on February 1st, council adopted resolution, initiating changes to the land development code to modify parking regulations in downtown so that these regulations help achieve the goals of reducing the overall number of new parking spaces built within downtown Austin to meet parking needs. More efficiently, and creating a more walkable, pedestrian oriented, built environment with fewer large above ground parking structures, these modifications could include implementing parking soft caps and requiring a fee for parking built above soft caps, reducing the maximum motor vehicle parking allowed for development downtown, and requiring developers to decouple parking as part of the gatekeeper requirements for the downtown density bonus program. So the reason this, this code amendment is included in this, with the other amendments is, is because the fta new starts [2:12:52 PM] because the fta new starts application includes a existing land use criteria, which looks at our existing supply of parking downtown compared to the number of employees downtown. So a more quantitative criteria about what exists today, but it also has a more qualitative criteria under economic development effects, which looks at our transit supportive plans and policies. And that's where looking at parking maximums and how they would be considered transit supportive and may support a higher rating. So late last year, urban land institute convened a technical assistance panel, looking at downtown Austin parking, looking at strategies to encourage less vehicular transportation and parking and developments. And this, this, this uli panel confirmed a lot of the problems that we understood to be true, which is parking ratios remain high in downtown is over parked, [2:13:53 PM] high in downtown is over parked, but it also highlighted some of the issues. And has revealed a lot of things such as the source of the parking demand is unclear . So the uli panel was specifically asked, how can the city of Austin facilitate and encourage less vehicular transportation and parking within downtown, to accomplish our 50 over 50 mode share? So looking back at those issues that they had uncovered about market and industry concerns, they also pointed out that cities like Austin with a strong real estate market can actually benefit from pushing the boundaries and trying to come up with innovative, innovative solutions to reduce our parking supply. But they also pointed out a shift, in a friction is needed in order to make this shift, but they, highlighted that we've we've seen, market [2:14:54 PM] that we've we've seen, market movement. So it's encouraging to see that the market is actually providing lower parking ratios than, than in the past. And in some instances, providing no parking at all. So as part of their, panel report, they provided policy recommendations, which, which, you'll see as part of, being incorporated, incorporated into our staff recommendation. Burns, but they include using parking caps to limit the amount of parking built downtown. But allowing developers to pay a fee, in order to exceed that, that parking cap, also encouraging decoupling of parking from residential assets, encouraging shared parking as well as improving the biking and walking experience. So, moving on, staff's approach to coming up with a proposed changes was looking at the last ten years [2:15:55 PM] looking at the last ten years worth of development downtown Ann, and understanding what those parking calculations, ended up being. So over the last ten years of approved site plans, we have 76 cases, which equaled 30,000 parking spaces. So you can see, at minimum it was zero, but at maximum it was 2000 spaces, with the average being about 400. And these are cases, as you can see, throughout all of downtown. So looking closer at how parking is calculated, the amount of parking allowed is calculated based on a site's land uses and parking ratios in appendix a of the land development code, a snippet of that table is shown to the right, but parking has not been required in downtown since 2013 and citywide since 2023. However, appendix a is still used to calculate parking maximums and required excess accessible spaces. In 2013, when those parking maximums were [2:17:00 PM] those parking maximums were introduced, it capped parking at 60% of what was previously required in appendix a, and with the ability to exceed that parking cap up to 110% upon request. Prior to 2013, a minimum of 20% of all developments and 60% for residential uses, was required with no parking maximum, so looking at what this means using an example development on the right, you see that for every 275ft S of office space, appendix a says there should be one parking space and for restaurant space, space, it's one one parking space per 75ft S. So with this development at 100% of appendix a, that would have been 779 spaces at the 60% cap, it would have been 467. However, [2:18:03 PM] would have been 467. However, this development provided 526 spaces of above ground parking, which is 68% of appendix a. So what we wanted to do then was look at all of these cases, across how how many parking spaces they provided and what was the comparison to appendix a? So on average, throughout all of the cases, they provided 50% of, of the parking found in appendix a or otherwise required in appendix a, with the 80th percentile being 79. So that means 20% of these cases, over the last ten years, provided more than 79% of appendix a, using that same example and pointing it out on the graphic, you can see that the 526, spaces was 68% of appendix a. So [2:19:04 PM] was 68% of appendix a. So working with our our downtown stakeholders, they also wanted to see this information broke down by use type because different uses have different parking demands, so this first one is commercial and the average was 53% of appendix a, which is, which is lower than, the, the total. Similarly for hotels, this was the, the, the lowest parking demand compared to appendix a, which was on average 34. For mixed use developments, it was 56. Average for office space, it was 30. And then the highest one, which, increased is the overall average was for residential, residential uses only at 73. So looking at [2:20:05 PM] uses only at 73. So looking at all this information, we're trying to understand what to do with it. So looking at, what happened versus what could have been, out of the what could have been was 57,000 spaces at 100% of appendix a. Fortunately, that wasn't the case, even though that was completely feasible and allowed within the land development code as it as it's currently written. So instead, about a little more than 50% was provided or, at 30,000 spaces if we used the caps that the uli report identified died, it would have amounted to a little bit less than what actually was provided at 29,000, but even at the 60% cap amount, it would have been 34,000. So the amount of parking spaces provided was still less than, the 60% cap. [2:21:07 PM] still less than, the 60% cap. So, looking at the cases across the different thresholds, only 36% of cases exceeded the current 60% parking maximum. However, that makes up 41% of the parking provided. So still a significant contribution to why our parking is oversupplied, only 18% of cases provided greater than 80, and only one case exceeded 100. But it was still, below the overall average at 361 spaces, and then on the lower end, 30% of cases actually provided less than 40% of appendix a, which is where we want to see that percentage grow, and then overall, just more than half of the cases fell between that 40% and 80% of appendix a. So moving into our staff recommendation, after, [2:22:09 PM] staff recommendation, after, meeting with our downtown stakeholders and, and looking at the data over the last ten years, we're proposing to revise the existing soft parking cap, for properties zoned CBD and dmu. We would reduce the parking cap from 60% to 40. And then developments under 10,000ft S, or with 70 or fewer residential units can continue to include up to 60, and this was in a way to differentiate the scale and size of the different development types downtown, however, all, all developments would be able to, exceed the soft parking cap under certain conditions, which don't exist today. So, the director may allow more parking than the soft cap if, it's found that there's no risk to public [2:23:11 PM] that there's no risk to public health and safety or welfare and that it aligns with planning policies in the area and one of the following conditions is included. Parking is part of a shared parking facility, or parking is rented or sold separately from building space, or parking is designed and constructed for conversion to usable building space in the future, or parking is underground or mitigation fees are paid for parking built above the parking maximum that go toward multimodal improvements. And then the last point being that we would reduce the absolute maximum amount of parking allowed currently from 110% to 80% of parking spaces in appendix a, and all developments would still be allowed up to 100% of parking spaces, so long as the additional parking spaces above 80% were included. Underground so what this looks like even further comparing the [2:24:14 PM] like even further comparing the existing regulations to the proposed regulations, there are no minimum parking requirements today, with 60% of appendix a allowed and up to 110, 110% allowed without conditions, and we would be moving towards a 40% of appendix a, cap with up to 80% of appendix a allowed with conditions, and then up to 100% if the additional parking is underground. So what that amounts to is instead of potentially having 110% of appendix a, all above ground, we're limited to 80% of appendix a allowed above ground and an additional 20% underground. And of that, 80, 40% of the parking would have to have a condition applied to it. So the next steps will be presenting to planning [2:25:15 PM] will be presenting to planning commission on April 30th, and then back to council on may 30th. And with that, I'll take any questions. >> Any questions colleagues, just to more of a statement. That's fine, you said with that you'll take any questions, how about statements or statements, I just, I just wanted to say thank you to staff. >> Really appreciate the great work, and all the stakeholders, as usual. And I just want to be clear for this body and those watching at home that the intent of decoupling parking was to apply to all developments as a given in the process, not as an option for extra parking. The current staff recommendation is decoupling parking as one option of several for that extra 20% of appendix a to get the developer to 100. So I just want to make sure that the downtown density bonus update will have decoupling parking as a gatekeeper requirement, and this and then that. This could be amended. And I want to make sure [2:26:15 PM] amended. And I want to make sure the developers are being encouraged to think about shared parking, underground parking, or convertible design for any extra parking. So therefore I think would be good if the recommendation could require decoupling and one of those extra options for the extra percentage not decoupling as just one of the options. Great thank you. >> And I actually do have a question. So, there was one thing that you mentioned and I probably should know this, but I don't the mitigation fees where do those go. >> So today the mitigation fee doesn't exist. So we would have to establish a mitigation fund, by separate ordinance. And those and those funds would be, allowed to construct multimodal improvements, whether it's sidewalks, curb ramps, transit enhancements, bike facilities. >> Thank you. You anticipated the second half of my question because you specifically said the thing about multimodal investments. And so that was going to be the second half. Thank you, Mr. Ken. I appreciate it. No other questions. All [2:27:16 PM] it. No other questions. All right, y'all. Well, that's it, so, considering there are no other questions there, I will let chair Ellis. Conclude and adjourn our mobility committee meeting before we resume with the remaining items for housing and planning, agenda? >> Yes. >> And just before I adjourn our meeting, are there any other future items people want to identify? I will refrain from reading our lengthy list of interesting topics, but if there's anything else we wanted to throw on the list today. >> Thanks. I don't think so. >> With that, 2:27 P.M, we are adjourned for the mobility committee. >> Thank you everybody, thank you, council member Ellis.