Link

Social

Embed

Disable autoplay on embedded content?

Download

Download
Download Transcript


[00:00:02]

AH, I'LL CALL TO ORDER THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL FOR THIS WORK SESSION.

IT IS NOVEMBER 28TH, 2023.

IT'S NINE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING.

WE ARE MEETING IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, LOCATED IN CITY HALL AT 3 0 1 WEST SECOND STREET IN AUSTIN, AND WE HAVE A QUORUM OF THE COUNCIL PRESENT, UH, MEMBERS IN PUBLIC.

THE WAY WE'RE GONNA PROCEED IS, UH, WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND START WITH THE WORK SESSION, UH, WHEN A QUORUM IS PRESENT.

UH, FOR THE, UH, AUSTIN WATER OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, UH, WE WILL RECESS THE WORK SESSION AND HAVE THE WATER OVERSIGHT.

UH, HAVE COUNCIL MEMBER POOLE, WHO'S CHAIR OF THAT COMMITTEE CALL TO ORDER, UH, THAT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE.

THEY WILL HOLD A VERY BRIEF, UH, MEETING AND THEN WE WILL COME BACK, UM, UH, TO THE WORK SESSION.

SO JUST BE PREPARED FOR, FOR US TO STOP WHEN WE GET TO THAT.

WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO FIRST IS WE WILL TAKE UP TWO BRIEFINGS.

UH, ONE BRIEFING IS RELATED TO THE HOME INITIATIVE.

UH, THE SECOND BRIEFING IS RELATED TO WINTER PREPAREDNESS, AND THEN THERE HAVE BEEN A COUPLE OF ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN PULLED, AND WE WILL TAKE THOSE UP.

THE WAY THIS MORNING WILL ALSO PROBABLY OPERATE IS THAT BECAUSE, UH, OF A COMMITMENT THAT I HAVE, I WILL TURN THE GAVEL OVER THE VIRTUAL GAVEL OVER TO, UM, THE MAYOR PRO TIM.

ACTUALLY, UH, I SEE THAT SHE'S JOINING VIRTUALLY.

SO I WILL TURN THE GAVEL OVER TO COUNCIL MEMBER POOL TO, UM, TO PRESIDE OVER THE MEETING WHEN IT, WHEN I HAVE TO, TO LEAVE.

SO WITH THAT, UH, I'LL TURN TO STAFF.

IF

[A. Pre-Selected Agenda Items]

YES, COUNCIL MEMBER FU.

CAN YOU REMIND ME WHICH ITEMS HAVE BEEN PULLED? CHE ITEMS ITEM 21 AND ITEM 84 HAVE BEEN PULLED.

OKAY.

IS ONE OF THOSE RELATED TO THE URBAN TRAILS? YES.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

ALRIGHT, UH, WHOEVER IS GOING TO

[B1. Amendments to the City’s Land Development Code that would allow up to three housing units, including tiny homes, on single family (SF) zoned property; revise regulations that apply to two housing units, and remove restrictions on the number of unrelated adults living in a housing unit.]

START THE, UH, STAFF PRESENTATION ON THE HOME INITIATIVE, I'LL, UH, RECOGNIZE YOU.

YES.

UH, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, VERONICA, VICE SENIOR.

THANK YOU, MA'AM.

GOOD MORNING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

VERONICA SENIO, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER.

HAPPY TO BE HERE WITH YOU TODAY.

TODAY'S STAFF WILL BE PRESENTING TO YOU AN UPDATE ON THE HOME INITIATIVE.

AS YOU KNOW, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON FOR THE PAST SEVERAL MONTHS.

IT IS, UH, FOLLOWING THROUGH WITH A COUNCIL POLICY AND PRIORITIES.

WE NOW ARE HERE BEFORE YOU WITH PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS AS WELL.

WE'VE HEARD NUMEROUS POINTS OF VIEW AS WE'VE GONE THROUGH THIS PROCESS.

ALL OF THEM LEGITIMATE AND STAFF HAS WORKED TIRELESSLY, TIRELESSLY TO BRING THIS FORWARD TO YOU.

SO I WOULD LIKE, AS A PERSONAL POINT OF PRIVILEGE, TAKE A OPPORTUNITY TO THANK OUR STAFF FOR MULTIPLE DEPARTMENTS.

YES, UH, YOU'LL SEE A HANDFUL OF THEM HERE TODAY, BUT JUST KNOW THEY STAND BEFORE MANY.

SO, UH, THANK YOU TO OUR STAFF FOR YOUR, YOUR EFFORTS.

WE'LL GIVE A BRIEF PRESENTATION.

WE WANT TO UPDATE YOU ON WHERE WE ARE NOW FROM THE LAST TIME WE WERE BEFORE YOU ABOUT A MONTH AGO, FOLLOWED BY OUR STAFF PRESENTATION.

WE WILL HEAR FROM THE A FROM A I A, THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS WHO WILL PRESENT MODELING ON WHAT POTENTIAL SCENARIOS COULD LOOK LIKE WITH THESE AMENDMENTS.

WE LOOK FORWARD TO HEAR FROM YOU ANY POTENTIAL COUNCIL AMENDMENTS THAT YOU'LL BE BRINGING FORWARD.

THIS WILL ALLOW US THE TIME BEFORE WE GET TO OUR MEETING NEXT WEEK, TO TAKE THOSE AMENDMENTS AND DRAFT SOME LANGUAGE THAT YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO CONSIDER ON THE SEVENTH ON DECEMBER 7TH.

WE ALSO ENCOURAGE YOU TO CONTINUE TO USE THE QUESTION AND ANSWER PORTAL.

HOPEFULLY THIS HAS BEEN, BEEN, BEEN BENEFICIAL TO YOU.

IT HAS TO US.

WE'VE HAD ABOUT A HUNDRED QUESTIONS SO FAR, UM, AND AGAIN, STAFF IS WORKING HARD TO PROVIDE YOU THE INFORMATION THAT YOU NEED TO MAKE THESE IMPORTANT DECISIONS.

SO, WITHOUT FURTHER ADO, I'M GONNA TURN IT OVER TO OUR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OVER PLANNING ANDREA BATES AND SHE WILL WALK US THROUGH THIS PRESENTATION, IF YOU DON'T MIND.

UM, WHAT WE MIGHT DO IS WE NOW HAVE A QUORUM OF THE WATER OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE.

SO JUST BEFORE YOU START, AND, UH, WE MIGHT TAKE CARE OF THAT AND GET THAT OUT OF THE WAY.

AND WITHOUT OBJECTION, I'LL RECESS THE WORK SESSION OF THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL, COUNCIL MEMBER POOLE.

YOU CAN GET THAT AND THEN I'LL CALL BACK TO ORDER THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL FOR THE WORK SESSION.

IT IS, UH, 9:11 AM AND WE WILL GO BACK TO WHERE WE WERE, UH, WITH STAFF MAKING A PRESENTATION.

GOOD MORNING, MAYOR, MAYOR, PRO TEM AND COUNCIL MEMBERS.

I'M ANDREA BATES, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

I'LL BE GIVING AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO RESIDENTIAL USES AND STANDARDS IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, INCLUDING THE CODE AMENDMENTS RELATED TO THE HOME INITIATIVE COUNCIL RECEIVED A FULL OVERVIEW OF THIS PROPOSAL DURING THE JOINT MEETING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON OCTOBER 26TH.

SO I'LL BE FOCUSING ON SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED.

WHEN THEY REVIEWED THE PROPOSAL ON NOVEMBER 14TH.

THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS RESPOND TO THE DIRECTION SET BY THREE RECENT

[00:05:01]

COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS.

AS A REFRESHER, THIS PROPOSAL WOULD DO THE FOLLOWING.

IT WILL ALLOW UP TO THREE HOMES ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY OR SSF ONE, SF TWO, AND SSF THREE.

IT WOULD SIMPLIFY SOME OF THE EXISTING REGULATIONS FOR BUILDING TWO HOMES.

IT WOULD REMOVE SOME ACCESSORY USES THAT ARE NO LONGER NEEDED IN THE CODE.

WITH THE OTHER CHANGES, IT WOULD LIMIT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE STANDARDS IN SUB CHAPTER F, WHICH ARE OFTEN CALLED THE MCMANSION STANDARDS TO LOTS WITH ONLY ONE HOME.

IT WOULD ALLOW TINY HOMES THAT MEET CERTAIN STANDARDS TO BE CONSIDERED A DWELLING UNIT, AND IT WOULD REMOVE THE LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF UNRELATED ADULTS ALLOWED TO LIVE TOGETHER.

SOME OF THE PRIMARY GOALS FOR THESE CODE AMENDMENTS ARE TO CREATE MORE HOUSING OPTIONS THAT ARE AFFORDABLE TO MIDDLE INCOME EARNERS, TO GIVE HOMEOWNERS OPTIONS TO HOUSE A FAMILY MEMBER OR TO EARN PASSIVE INCOME ON THEIR PROPERTY, TO INCREASE HOUSING SUPPLY AND TO PROMOTE SMALLER, MORE ENERGY EFFICIENT HOMES.

SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS THAT APPLY TO SSF ONE, SF TWO AND SSF THREE PROPERTIES TODAY WOULD CONTINUE TO APPLY UNDER THE PROPOSAL.

FOR EXAMPLE, A PROPERTY MIGHT HAVE SITE SPECIFIC CONSTRAINTS LIKE PROTECTED TREES OR OTHER LIMITATIONS LIKE DEED RESTRICTIONS OR HOA RESTRICTIONS THAT MAY LIMIT THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT CAN BE BUILT ON THAT SITE.

ALL THREE ZONES WOULD STILL HAVE THE 35 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT FOR THE ZONE AND BUILDING COVER AND IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITS WOULD CONTINUE TO APPLY.

THIS IS AN OVERVIEW OF THE CODE AMENDMENT PROCESS.

AS YOU KNOW, THERE'LL BE THREE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.

THE FIRST WAS THE JOINT MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN CITY COUNCIL ON OCTOBER 26TH.

ON NOVEMBER 6TH, STAFF HELD AN OPEN HOUSE FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE PROPOSAL.

ON NOVEMBER 14TH, THE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING WAS HELD AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTED TO RECOMMEND THAT COUNCIL APPROVE THE PROPOSAL WITH A VARIETY OF AMENDMENTS.

AND FINALLY, THE COUNCIL WILL HOLD A PUBLIC MEETING AT A, A PUBLIC HEARING AT A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING ON DECEMBER 7TH.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED 22 AMENDMENTS TO THE PROPOSAL WHEN THEY REVIEWED IT ON NOVEMBER 14TH.

I WILL HIGHLIGHT SOME OF THEIR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS IN THIS PRESENTATION, BUT THE FULL LIST IS AVAILABLE ONLINE.

IT IS POSTED AS BACKUP, BOTH FOR THE NOVEMBER 14TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND FOR THE DECEMBER 7TH COUNCIL MEETING.

THE FIRST PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION IS TO SET A FLOOR TO AREA RATIO MAXIMUM FOR TWO AND THREE UNIT DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE MCMANSION AREA.

A FLOOR TO AREA RATIO, OR FAR MAXIMUM IS A WAY TO REGULATE THE MASS OR THE VOLUME OF A BUILDING ON A SITE.

IT IS CALCULATED BY DIVIDING THE TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF THE BUILDING OR BUILDINGS BY THE AREA OF THE SITE ITSELF.

AS A VERY SIMPLE EXAMPLE, A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ON A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT SITE HAS AN FAR OF ONE, A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ON A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT HEIGHT SITE, EXCUSE ME, HAS AN FAR OF 0.5.

A 2,500 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ON A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT HEIGHT ALSO HAS AN FAR OF 0.5.

SO IF YOU HAVE AN FAR MAXIMUM A SET RATIO, THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING THAT YOU CAN BUILD DEPENDS ON THE SIZE OF THE SITE.

YOU TAKE THE SITE SIZE TIMES THE RATIO, AND THAT'S THE SIZE OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING ALLOWED UNDER THE FAR MAXIMUM.

SO THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED FAR MAXIMUMS FOR TWO AND THREE UNIT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE MCMANSION AREA, WHICH IS THE AREA SHOWN IN BROWN.

IN THE MAP ON THE SLIDE, THEY RECOMMENDED A LAYERED APPROACH, AN FAR MAXIMUM FOR ALL OF THE BUILDINGS ON A SITE, AS WELL AS FAR MAXIMUMS THAT APPLY TO THE LARGEST INDIVIDUAL UNIT THAT REGULATE THE SIZE OF THE LARGEST UNIT ON THE SITE.

AND FOR THREE UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND FAR MAXIMUM THAT LIMITS THE SIZE OF THE LARGEST TWO BUILDINGS.

THIS DISTRIBUTES THE SQUARE FOOTAGE AMONG THE BUILDINGS ON THE SITE.

THE REASON BEHIND THIS LAYERED APPROACH OR SETTING A MAXIMUM FAR FOR THE LARGEST UNIT IS TO CLOSE A POTENTIAL LOOPHOLE

[00:10:01]

AND ENSURE THAT YOU CAN'T DEVELOP ONE HUGE UNIT AND TWO TINY UNITS LIKE A GIANT HOUSE AND TWO TINY POOL HOUSES THAT AREN'T REALLY INTENDED FOR OCCUPANCY.

SO THE GOALS OF HAVING AN FAR MAXIMUM ARE TO DE LIMIT THE SIZE OF THE INDIVIDUAL UNITS WHILE STILL ENCOURAGING THE DEVELOPMENT OF MULTIPLE UNITS ON ONE SITE BY GIVING ADDITIONAL FAR FOR PROPERTIES WITH ADDITIONAL UNITS.

BOTH OF THESE GOALS SUPPORT THE DIRECTION IN THE COUNCIL RESOLUTION.

THIS TABLE DOES SOME OF THE MATH FOR US.

IT CALCULATES THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF DEVELOPMENT THAT CAN BE BUILT UNDER THREE DIFFERENT FAR LIMITS FOR THREE DIFFERENT LOT SIZES.

THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO CONVERT THE FAR LIMIT, WHICH IS ABSTRACT TO THE POTENTIAL SIZE OF A BUILDING IN SQUARE FEET, WHICH MANY PEOPLE HAVE A BETTER SENSE FOR.

SO LET'S BREAK THAT DOWN AND START WITH THE THREE FAR LIMITS.

YOU SEE IN TODAY'S CODE, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE MCMANSION AREA HAS AN FAR LIMIT OF 0.4.

THAT 0.4 MAXIMUM WOULD CONTINUE TO APPLY TO SINGLE UNIT DEVELOPMENT IN THE MCMANSION AREA, BUT IT WOULD NOT APPLY TO TWO OR THREE UNITS.

THE PROPOSAL THAT YOU SAW ON OCTOBER 26TH DID NOT HAVE AN FAR MAXIMUM FOR TWO OR THREE UNITS.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED A 0.55 FAR MAXIMUM FOR TWO UNITS AND A 0.65 FAR MAXIMUM FOR THREE UNITS PER SITE.

THAT WOULD BE THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT FOR ALL THREE UNITS OR TWO UNITS ON THE SITE.

SO, LOT SIZES.

THIS TABLE INCLUDES THREE DIFFERENT LOT SIZES TO SHOW YOU WHAT THOSE FAR MAXIMUMS WOULD TRANSLATE TO FOR DIFFERENT LOTS IN TOWN.

THE 5,750 SQUARE FOOT LOT IS THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR SSF TWO AND SSF THREE ZONES.

8,000 SQUARE FEET IS THE AVERAGE LOT SIZE, AND 10,000 SQUARE FEET IS THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR SSF ONE.

BUT THE POINT OF THE TABLE IS TO CALCULATE THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED UNDER THE DIFFERENT FAR MAXIMUMS. SO I'M GONNA FOCUS ON AN 8,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT BECAUSE IT'S THE AVERAGE LOT SIZE.

SO UNDER THE CURRENT MCMANSION STANDARDS, A SINGLE UNIT ON AN 8,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT COULD BE TWO 3,200 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE OF GROSS FLOOR AREA.

SO A 3,200 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE.

UNDER THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROPOSAL, A TWO UNIT DEVELOPMENT COULD HAVE 4,400 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA, AND A THREE UNIT DEVELOPMENT COULD HAVE 5,200 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA.

SO THAT'S FAR.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO RECOMMENDED SOME DESIGN STANDARDS BE ADDED TO THE PROPOSAL.

THE RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDE STANDARDS FOR ENTRYWAYS, DRIVEWAYS AND GARAGE PLACEMENT.

THAT WOULD APPLY SOME EXISTING CODE PROVISIONS TO TWO AND THREE UNIT DEVELOPMENTS.

STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT WE START WITH THESE, BUT THEN REASSESS DESIGN STANDARDS AFTER A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS AND ADDITIONAL MODELING DURING PHASE TWO.

THE FIRST RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE ENTRYWAY OF AT LEAST ONE UNIT ON A MULTI-UNIT SITE MUST FACE THE STREET.

THIS IS TO HELP ACTIVATE THE STREET FRONT BY ENSURING THAT AT LEAST ONE FRONT DOOR FACES THE STREET.

THE SECOND RECOMMENDATION IS TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF PAVEMENT THAT CAN BE IN THE FRONT YARD AREA.

THE AREA BETWEEN THE FRONT LOT LINE AND THE BUILDING LINE CAN HAVE NO MORE THAN 40% IMPERVIOUS COVER THAT MINIMIZES THE IMPACT OF DRIVEWAY OR DRIVEWAYS AND HELPS CREATE A MORE PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY NEIGHBORHOOD.

THE THIRD RECOMMENDED DESIGN STANDARD RELATES TO WHERE A GARAGE OR CARPORT IS LOCATED IN RELATION TO THE HOUSE.

A GARAGE CANNOT BE LOCATED CLOSER TO THE STREET THAN THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE.

IT CAN'T BE IN FRONT OF THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, AND THE WIDTH OF THE GARAGE IS LIMITED IF IT IS NOT AT LEAST 20 FEET BEHIND THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE.

THIS MINIMIZES THE VISUAL IMPACT OF GARAGES AND AGAIN, HELPS CREATE A MORE PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY NEIGHBORHOOD.

[00:15:05]

NEXT, THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED ADDING SOMETHING CALLED A PRESERVATION BONUS TO THE PROPOSAL.

THE PURPOSE OF THE PRESERVATION BONUS IS TO HELP MAINTAIN OLDER, POTENTIALLY MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK TO HELP PRESERVE THE LOOK OF EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS FROM THE STREET AND TO REDUCE DEMOLITIONS AND KEEP HOUSING MATERIALS OUT OF THE LANDFILL.

A DEVELOPMENT COULD USE THE PRESERVATION BONUS IF IT PRESERVES A STRUCTURE BUILT IN 1960 OR EARLIER.

PRESERVATION IN THIS CASE MEANS PRESERVATION OF 100% OF THE FACADE OR THE FRONT OF THE STRUCTURE AND PRESERVATION OF AT LEAST 50% OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.

SO ALL OF THE FACADE AND AT LEAST 50% OF THE STRUCTURE AS A WHOLE, IF THOSE REQUIREMENTS ARE MET.

THE PRESERVED SQUARE FOOTAGE DOES NOT COUNT TOWARDS THE FAR LIMIT OF THE SITE.

STAFF HAS SOME IMPLEMENTATION CONCERNS REGARDING THE PRESERVATION BONUS.

IF IT IS USED ON A WIDE SCALE, IT COULD IMPACT THE REVIEW PROCESSES IN THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.

WE ARE LOOKING AT IT CURRENTLY AND WORKING ON AN APPROACH, BUT THERE ARE SEVERAL CHALLENGES THAT WE ARE STILL WORKING THROUGH AT THIS TIME.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO RECOMMENDED A COMPANION SUSTAINABILITY BONUS.

THE GOALS ARE VERY SIMILAR TO MAINTAIN EXISTING POTENTIALLY MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK TO REDUCE THE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS CAUSED BY NEW CONSTRUCTION, BY REUSING EXISTING HOUSING STOCK AND REDUCING DEMOLITIONS AND KEEPING HOUSING MATERIALS OUT OF THE LANDFILL.

THE SUSTAINABILITY BONUS APPLIES TO MORE RECENT DEVELOPMENT THAN THE PRESERVATION BONUS.

A DEVELOPMENT QUALIFIES IF IT PRESERVES A STRUCTURE THAT IS AT LEAST 20 YEARS OLD, BUT BUILT AFTER 1960, WHICH IS THAT THRESHOLD FOR THE PRESERVATION BONUS.

AND THE PRESERVATION STANDARDS ARE A LITTLE SIMPLER.

IT SIMPLY REQUIRES PRESERVING AT LEAST 50% OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.

THERE'S NOT THAT EMPHASIS ON THE FRONT FACADE, IT'S JUST 50, 80, 50% OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.

AND IF THAT REQUIREMENT IS MET, THE INCENTIVE IS THAT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE PRESERVED AREA DOES NOT COUNT TOWARDS THE FAR LIMIT ON THE SITE.

I WILL QUICKLY MENTION A FEW OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S.

OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS, THEY RECOMMEND THAT SOME GARAGE SPACE BE EXEMPT FROM THE FAR MAXIMUMS, WHICH IS SIMILAR TO HOW THE CALCULATION IS CURRENTLY PERFORMED UNDER THE MCMANSION STANDARDS.

THEY RECOMMEND THAT THE PREVIOUSLY INCLUDED 1,100 SQUARE FOOT SIZE LIMIT FOR THE SECOND UNIT IN A DETACHED TWO UNIT DEVELOPMENT BE REMOVED.

THIS WOULD BE REPLACED BY THE SUGGESTED FAR LIMITS FOR THE TWO AND THREE UNIT DEVELOPMENTS.

THEY RECOMMEND SOME CHANGES TO FRONT, REAR, AND STREET SIDE YARD SETBACKS TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY.

THE FRONT SETBACK COULD BE AVERAGED BASED ON NEARBY EXISTING BUILDING SETBACKS.

SO IF YOUR NEIGHBOR'S HOUSES ARE CLOSER TO THE FRONT OF THE STREET, YOUR HOUSE COULD POTENTIALLY BE CLOSER TO THE FRONT OF THE STREET.

THE REAR SETBACK COULD BE REDUCED IN CERTAIN CONDITIONS, LIKE IF THE PROPERTY IS ADJACENT TO AN ALLEY OR A NON-RESIDENTIAL USE.

AND THEN THEY RECOMMENDED THAT THE STREET SIDE YARD SETBACK BE REDUCED TO 10 FEET ON CORNER LOTS FOR THESE PROPERTIES WITH MULTIPLE UNITS.

ALL OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD APPLY ONLY TO LOTS WITH TWO OR THREE UNITS.

THEY WOULD NOT APPLY TO LOTS WITH ONE UNIT.

AND FINALLY, THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THAT THESE CHANGES BECOME EFFECTIVE 60 DAYS AFTER FINAL ADOPTION TO ALLOW TIME TO PREPARE FOR IMPLEMENTATION.

WE CONTINUE TO ENCOURAGE THE COMMUNITY TO VISIT THE PROJECT WEBSITE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE PROPOSAL AND TO STAY UP TO DATE AS IT CONTINUES THROUGH THE REVIEW PROCESS.

THE WEBSITE INCLUDES A SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSAL AND THE DRAFT CODE LANGUAGE.

IT INCLUDES A VIDEO OF STAFF'S PRESENTATION FROM OCTOBER 26TH, WHICH WENT INTO MORE DETAIL ON THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TODAY'S CODE AND THE CHANGES.

THE WEBSITE INCLUDES ANSWERS TO FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS AND PROVIDES INFORMATION ON HOW TO PROVIDE INPUT AND HOW TO PROTEST THE CHANGES.

COMMUNITY MEMBERS CAN SUBMIT QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS TO STAFF VIA THE WEBSITE OR VIA THE EMAIL OR PHONE NUMBER THAT ARE ON THE SCREEN.

WE ARE RESPONDING TO QUESTIONS AND ANY COMMENTS SUBMITTED WERE PROVIDED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND WILL BE PROVIDED TO COUNSEL FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

[00:20:03]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THAT CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION.

AND MAYOR, I JUST MANAGER? YEAH.

AND ANDREA WAS BEING, UH, PERHAPS A, A, A MORE SUBTLE THAN I WOULD LIKE.

THERE ARE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WERE MADE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT, UH, WHEN WE DO THE ANALYSIS BETWEEN NOW AND THE 7TH OF DECEMBER, YOU MAY FIND US SAYING THAT WE DON'T THINK THOSE ARE CONSISTENT OR COMPATIBLE WITH YOUR, THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES SET OUT BY COUNSEL.

WE DON'T HAVE THAT LIST DONE TODAY.

I THINK WE AGREE WITH MOST OF THEM, BUT THERE'S SOME THAT ARE PROBLEMATIC AND WE'LL EXPLAIN WHY THEY'RE PROBLEMATIC, UH, PRIOR TO YOU, BECAUSE YOU'LL TAKE THAT ORDINANCE WITH ALL ITS AMENDMENTS AND WE'LL BE ASKING YOU TO, TO THINK THROUGH WHETHER YOU'D WANT TO AMEND THE, OR ACCEPT THOSE AMENDMENTS GIVEN THOSE CONSTRAINTS THAT WE MAY BE, BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN.

SO, GREAT.

THANK YOU MEMBERS.

UM, WE HANG ON A SECOND.

WHAT, WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO IS, IS ALLOW FOR SOME QUESTIONS, UM, AND THEN WE'RE GONNA HAVE A PRESENTATION FROM A I A AS I UNDERSTAND IT.

UM, AND THEN WE'LL ALLOW FOR QUESTIONS.

THEN YOU MAY WANT TO HOLD YOUR QUESTIONS UNTIL AFTER THE A I A PRESENTATION, BUT THAT'S UP TO YOU.

I, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO DO, WHATEVER THE COUNCIL MEMBERS WANT TO DO, AND THEN I WILL ASK THAT WE DO, UH, IF YOU HAVE AMENDMENTS THAT YOU KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO PRESENT NEXT WEEK AS PART OF THIS, UH, WE HAD DISCUSSED THAT WE WOULD TRY TO LAY THOSE OUT AT THIS MEETING AND SO THAT PEOPLE WOULD AT LEAST KNOW WHAT EVERYBODY WAS KIND OF THINKING ABOUT SOME OF THOSE THINGS.

COUNCIL MEMBER ALLISON ALTER.

THANK YOU.

I'LL HOLD MOST OF MY QUESTIONS TILL AFTER THE I I A OKAY.

UH, PRESENTATION.

BUT I DID WANNA GET FURTHER CLARIFICATION FROM THE CITY MANAGER ON THE TIMING OF WHEN WE WOULD BE, UM, SEEING THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

I MEAN, I THINK WE'RE WORKING THROUGH, WE'RE WAITING FOR THE DISCUSSION FOR TODAY, AND THEN WE'RE DOING THE ANALYSIS NOW.

THERE'S SOME THAT, THAT ARE, UH, WE'RE IN ANALYZING NOW IN TERMS OF WHERE WE WOULD LAND.

WE DON'T HAVE THAT DONE YET, BUT YOU'LL SEE IT IN THE PROPER STANDARD IN TERMS WHEN IT, WE'LL GET IT TO YOU WHEN IT IS.

WE'RE SET THE AGENDA FOR THE SEVENTH WITH PLENTY OF TIME FOR YOU TO REVIEW WHAT THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE.

OKAY.

WELL, THE, THE AGENDA'S ALREADY OUT FOR THE SEVENTH AND IT'S NINE DAYS AWAY.

AND THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHEN WE CAN EXPECT THIS.

PROBABLY FRIDAY.

THESE ARE A VERY, YOU KNOW, IMPORTANT.

MY GUESS IS BY FRIDAY.

OKAY.

I THANK YOU MAYOR COUNCIL TRISH LINK WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT.

UM, THE, I'VE DONE A MUNI CODE VERSION, SO OUR INFORMAL VERSION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE AGENDA OFFICE.

SO IT CAN BE POSTED AS SOON AS THE AGENDA OFFICE IS READY TO DO THAT.

AND THEN THE FORMAL ORDINANCE WE WILL HAVE TO THE AGENDA OFFICE, UM, BY THURSDAY MORNING AT THE VERY LATEST.

THANK YOU.

UH, WHY DON'T WE HAVE THE PRESENTATION, UH, FROM A I A GOOD MORNING COUNCIL MEMBERS, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY.

MY NAME IS LUCY BEGG AND I'M AN ARCHITECT HERE ON BEHALF OF A I A AUSTIN'S HOUSING ADVOCACY COMMITTEE.

WE'RE A GROUP OF PRACTICING ARCHITECTS WORKING ON HOUSING AT ALL SCALES AND INCOME LEVELS IN THE CITY WITH A LOT OF EXPERIENCE OF HOW AUSTIN ZONING CODES IMPACT WHAT TYPES AND SIZES OF HOMES WE BUILD.

WE'VE SPENT MANY HOURS MODELING THE POTENTIAL OUTCOMES OF THE HOME PHASE ONE DRAFT AND ARE HERE THIS MORNING TO SHARE THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT HAVE EMERGED FROM THOSE EFFORTS.

WE'RE ACTUALLY GONNA PRESENT THE SAME MATERIAL AS WE DID AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING, BUT ALSO INCLUDE SOME COMMENTARY AS IT RELATES TO THE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE PROPOSED BY PLANNING COMMISSION.

AND IF IT'S BEEN TOUCHED ON BY STAFF, I'LL KIND OF SKIP OVER THAT.

OUR GROUP IS MOTIVATED BY OUR SHARED FRUSTRATIONS WITH THE LIMITS THAT CURRENT RESIDENTIAL ZONING IMPOSES ON HOUSING CHOICES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, PARTICULARLY WHEN IT COMES TO SMALLER HOMES.

WE APPLAUD THE INTENT OF THE HOME INITIATIVE TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES AND ARE EAGER TO MAKE SURE THE DETAILS OF THE POLICY WORK IN SUPPORT OF ITS GOALS.

SO LET'S TALK ABOUT HOME SIZES.

PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF OUR CURRENT ZONING STANDARDS, IN 1984, HOMES IN AUSTIN AVERAGED AROUND 1500 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE, AND ALMOST ONE IN FIVE OF THOSE WERE PART OF A DUPLEX, TRIPLEX, OR FOURPLEX.

AFTER OUR CURRENT ZONING WAS PUT IN PLACE, RESTRICTING LARGE AREAS OF THE CITY TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON BIG LOTS, THOSE UNIT SIZES BEGAN TO INCREASE.

THIS CHART SHOWS HOW THE AVERAGE HOME BUILT SINCE 1990 IS ALMOST 50% LARGER THAN THE AVERAGE BUILT PRIOR.

AND HOW JUST A FRACTION OF THOSE LESS THAN 3% HAVE BEEN WITHIN TWO, THREE OR FOUR UNIT BUILDINGS.

THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE

[00:25:01]

NUMBER AND SIZES OF HOUSES PERMITTED IN THE LAST DECADE.

IN AUSTIN, OVER 75% OF THE NEW HOMES BUILT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS IN THAT TIME EXCEEDED 2000 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE, UH, ALMOST DIRECTLY IN OPPOSITION TO THE RATIO.

PRIOR TO 1990, WE ARE ACTUALLY ADDING HOMES GREATER THAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET TO OUR HOUSING STOCK AT A FASTER RATE THAN HOMES UNDER 1000 SQUARE FEET.

THIS PHENOMENON IS BEING DRIVEN BY THE COLLISION OF OUR 1980S ZONING STANDARDS WITH TODAY'S HIGH LAND COSTS.

WHILE OUR MINIMUM RESIDENTIAL LOT SIZE IS 5,750 SQUARE FEET, AS STAFF POINTED OUT, OUR MEDIAN LOT SIZE IS MUCH LARGER AT ALMOST 8,000 SQUARE FEET.

OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS TEND TO HAVE AVERAGES BELOW THAT, WHILE NEIGHBORHOODS BUILT OUT AFTER 1950 TEND TO HAVE LOTS LARGER THAN AVERAGE WITH ENTITLEMENTS LIMITED TO TWO DWELLING UNITS ON MOST RESIDENTIAL LOTS, AND WITH MANY RESTRICTIONS ON THE SIZE AND CONFIGURATION OF THE SECOND UNIT.

THE MOST COMMON DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME TODAY IS A SINGLE HOUSE THAT'S AS LARGE AS POSSIBLE, UP TO 40% OF THE LOT SIZE TO MAKE THE ECONOMICS WORK.

PUT SIMPLY OUR CURRENT RESIDENTIAL ZONING HAS A BIG HOUSE BIAS PRODUCING UNITS THAT ON AVERAGE ARE 2,800 SQUARE FEET TODAY.

AT THE SAME TIME, WHAT HOUSING OPTIONS HAVE WE BEEN EDITING OUT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS? OUR UNIT RESTRICTIONS AND SETBACKS MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO BUILD DEVELOPMENTS LIKE THIS ONE THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD OF EAST CESAR CHAVEZ IN 1926 AND RENOVATED A FEW YEARS AGO.

THESE THREE LIVABLE SMALL HOUSES ON A 9,600 SQUARE FOOT LOT EACH HAVE A FRONT PORCH, A SMALL PRIVATE BACKYARD, AND AN OFF STREET PARKING SPACE.

THEY'RE OWNED BY A YOUNG COUPLE, A SINGLE DAD AND AN ELDERLY RETIREE WHO ALL ENJOY THE BENEFITS OF OUR HIGH QUALITY NEIGHBORHOOD LIFE IN AREA.

THEY TOTAL THE SAME SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT TODAY YOU WOULD ONLY BE ALLOWED TO BUILD AS ONE OR MAXIMUM TWO HOUSES TO MEET THE HOME INITIATIVE'S GOAL OF GIVING SMALLER HOMES LIKE THESE A BIGGER CHANCE.

IN AUSTIN, WE BELIEVE THE DETAILS ARE CRITICAL AND THE FOLLOWING ARE OUR RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT HOW THE HOME ORDINANCE SHOULD BE FINE TUNED TO BETTER MEET ITS GOALS.

AND THIS IS WHERE I'LL INCLUDE OUR COMMENTARY ON THE PC AMENDMENTS.

SO OUR FIRST RECOMMENDATION WAS TO FURTHER INCREASE THE FLEXIBILITY WITHIN THE TWO UNIT USE.

AND THIS WAS, UH, WE'VE DONE A LOT OF THAT ALREADY IN THE TEXT WITH THE REDUCTION OF LOT SIZES FOR DUPLEXES, REMOVAL OF A COMMON WALL MANDATE, LOOSENING OF A DU LOCATION REQUIREMENTS.

WE FURTHER RECOMMENDED THAT THE 1100 SQUARE FOOT CAP THAT APPLIES TO DETACH SECOND UNITS BE REMOVED.

AND, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION CAPTURED THAT IN THEIR AMENDMENTS ALSO.

OUR SECOND RECOMMENDATION WAS TO CREATE A NEW FLOOR AREA RATIO TOOL FOR TWO AND THREE UNITS.

AND THIS HAD SEVERAL COMPONENTS TO IT.

THE FIRST WAS TO CREATE AN FAR CAP FOR EACH USE.

AND AGAIN, STAFF TALKED YOU THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT THAT CAPTURE THAT.

UM, THE SECOND WAS TO INVENT INCENTIVIZE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO AND THREE UNITS BY MODESTLY INCREASING THE TOTAL ALLOWABLE FAR FOR MORE UNITS.

AND AGAIN, PLANNING COMMISSION CAPTURED THAT IN THEIR AMENDMENTS OF GRADUATING FROM 0.55 FOR TWO UNITS TO 0.65 FOR THREE UNITS.

AND THAT FOLLOWED OUR RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, TO SET A MAXIMUM SIZE LIMIT FOR A SINGLE UNIT.

AGAIN, THAT WAS CAPTURED IN PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENTS.

WE DO HAVE ONE VERY SMALL DETAIL TO COMMENT ON THERE.

UH, PLANNING COMMISSION HAVE RECOMMENDED THAT WITHIN THREE UNIT USES THE TWO UNIT MAX BE LIMITED TO 0.5 RATHER THAN 0.55.

WE THINK THAT'S AN UNNECESSARY COMPLEXITY AND THAT IT SHOULD JUST BE KEPT AT 0.55.

AND THEN FINALLY, UM, WE PREPARE, WE RECOMMENDED INCLUDING GARAGES AND CARPORTS IN THE FLOOR AREA DEFINITION.

AND THIS IS WHERE WE'RE AT ODDS WITH, UM, WHAT PLANNING COMMISSION HAS RECOMMENDED IN THEIR AMENDMENTS.

AND IT'S, UH, IT'S A LITTLE BIT TRICKY, SO BEAR WITH ME AS I TRY AND EXPLAIN OUR POSITION.

UM, SO CURRENTLY SUBCHAPTER F INCLUDES PARKING STRUCTURES, GARAGES, AND CARPORTS IN THEIR DEFINITION OF FLOOR AREA, BUT THEY PROVIDE SOME EXEMPTIONS.

AND THOSE EXEMPTIONS ARE 450 SQUARE FEET FOR A DETACHED GARAGE IN THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY OR 200 SQUARE FEET FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE.

THAT'S WITHIN THE STRUCTURE.

HOWEVER, WHEN WE TAKE TWO AND THREE UNIT USES OUTTA SUBCHAPTER F

[00:30:01]

WE USE THE CITY'S, UH, GENERAL FLOOR AREA DEFINITION, AND THAT EXCLUDES PARKING STRUCTURES ALTOGETHER.

SO IF WE JUST USE THE CITY'S FLOOR AREA DEFINITION, THEN GARAGES AND CARPORTS WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM THE FAR LIMIT.

UM, WE THINK THAT WOULD INCREASE THE SITE, THE AMOUNT OF BUILT AREA ON THE SITE AND INCENTIVIZE AUTOCENTRIC DEVELOPMENT.

UM, SO WE'RE AGAINST THAT.

WHAT WHAT PLANNING COMMISSION DID IS THEY TOOK THE SUBCHAPTER F EXEMPTIONS 450 SQUARE FEET FOR DETACHED GARAGES, 200 FOR ATTACHED, BUT THEY'VE APPLIED IT ON A PER UNIT BASIS RATHER THAN A PER SITE BASIS.

SO ESSENTIALLY WHAT THEY'RE GRANTING, THEY'RE PROPOSING TO GRANT IS GREATER PARKING STRUCTURE EXEMPTIONS THAN SUBCHAPTER F CURRENTLY ALLOWS.

WE'RE WE'RE OPPOSED TO THAT FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS.

WE THINK THAT WORKS AGAINST THE GOALS OF THE HOME ORDINANCE TO PRODUCE SMALLER STRUCTURES.

AND WE ACTUALLY ALREADY CAPTURED THOSE PARKING EXEMPTIONS IN OUR PROPOSED GRADIENT OF 0.55 0.65.

THOSE WERE MEANT TO FACTOR IN THOSE AREAS OF GARAGES.

UM, A COUPLE OF OTHER THING REASONS WE'RE OPPOSED TO THAT IS, UH, WE THINK IT WORKS AGAINST THE GOAL OF SIMPLIFYING PERMITTING PROCESSES.

WE KNOW THAT GETTING RID OF THE SUBCHAPTER F HELPS REALLY, UM, FREE UP REVIEW TIME FOR EXEMPTIONS.

THIS CREATES ADDITIONAL EXEMPTIONS THAT HAVE TO BE DOCUMENTED AND REVIEWED.

UM, LIKE I SAID, IT REINFORCES THE BIAS TOWARDS AUTOCENTRIC DESIGN.

IT INCENTIVIZES DEVELOPERS WHO BUILD GARAGES BUT GIVES NO EQUIVALENT ENTITLEMENTS FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO BE INCENTIVIZING CAR-FREE OR CAR LIGHT LIFESTYLES.

AND FINALLY, I'LL GET TO THIS IN A SECOND.

WE THINK IT REMOVES SOME OF THE TEETH OF THE PRESERVATION INCENTIVE BY GIVING INCREASED FLOOR AREA ENTITLEMENTS THAT MAKE IT HARDER TO GET ABOVE THAT WITH THE PRESERVATION INCENTIVE.

I KNOW THAT'S A LOT OF INFORMATION, SO WE'RE VERY HAPPY TO KIND OF FOLLOW UP.

UM, UH, UH, WITH, WITH QUESTIONS.

UM, WE, UH, SUPPORT RELAXING FRONT YARD AND STREET SIDE YARD SETBACKS, AND THAT'S TO JUST GIVE MORE AREA TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THE CONFIGURATION OF MULTIPLE UNITS.

WHAT PLANNING COMMISSION HAS SUGGESTED IS ALLOWING FOR FRONT YARD AVERAGING, WHICH IS WHAT SUBCHAPTER F DOES, WE WOULD PREFER TO JUST HAVE A SINGLE REDUCED FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 15 FEET.

FRONT YARD AVERAGING IS A VERY TRICKY, EXPENSIVE PROCESS THAT INVOLVES SURVEYING AND, UM, ADDITIONAL COSTS AND DEPENDS ON WHAT YOUR FOUR NEIGHBORS HAPPEN TO BE.

UM, WE THINK IT WOULD BE SIMPLER JUST TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD TO 15 FEET.

THE STREETSIDE YARD RIGHT NOW IS 15 FEET.

UM, PLANNING COMMISSION PROPOSED, REDUCING THAT TO 10.

WE THINK THAT COULD GO TO FIVE FEET WITHOUT ANY NEG NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN.

AND FINALLY, OUR FOURTH RECOMMENDATION WAS TO ADOPT PRESERVATION INCENTIVE PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENTS HAVE DONE THAT.

THAT WAS, UH, MOSTLY DESIGNED BY PRESERVATION AUSTIN.

AND WE, WE SUPPORT THAT.

WE WILL CAUTION THAT, UM, BECAUSE WE'VE GOT INCREASED ENTITLEMENTS FOR THREE UNITS OF 0.65, IT IS GONNA BE CHALLENGING TO GET ADDITIONAL FLOOR AREA WHILE KEEPING EXISTING STRUCTURES WITHOUT INCREASING IMPERVIOUS COVER.

AND AGAIN, UNFORTUNATELY WE DON'T HAVE ANY GRAPHICS OF THAT.

BUT I THINK THE BEST THING THAT YOU COULD DO TO GIVE THE PRESERVATION INCENTIVE MORE TEETH WOULD BE TO ALLOW A BIT MORE IMPERVIOUS COVER.

UM, IT, AND ONE THING WE'D ALSO LOVE STAFF TO CLARIFY IS WHETHER, UH, AS WE UNDERSTAND IT, THE PRESERVATION INCENTIVE WOULD ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL UNIT FOR UNITS.

I DIDN'T SEE THEM MENTION THAT IN THEIR PRESENTATION, SO THAT WOULD BE GREAT TO CLARIFY.

UM, I'M GONNA PASS IT OVER TO MY COLLEAGUE CHRIS GANNON, JUST TO GET INTO, UM, SOME OF OUR DETAILS A LITTLE MORE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

GOOD MORNING.

UM, HI, I'M CHRIS GANNON.

UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS MORNING.

I'M THE INCOMING CO-CHAIR OF AIAS HOUSING GROUP.

UM, I'M GONNA JUMP RIGHT IN TO BRIEFLY LOOK AT SOME CHANGES THAT PORTLAND HAS TAKEN.

UH, THIS IS PORTLAND'S RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROJECT AND SOME GRAPHS THAT WE GOT FROM THEIR, UH, ONE YEAR REPORT.

UM, THEIR RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROJECT IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE, UH, HOME INITIATIVE.

THEY'RE ALLOWING,

[00:35:01]

UM, A NEW MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING TYPOLOGY.

UH, AND THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT HAVE BEEN IN DECLINE, UH, THAT LUCY LOOKED AT SINCE THE NINETIES.

UM, THEY'RE ALLOWING ADUS ALL THE WAY UP TO SIX PLEXES.

SO, UM, IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE INTENSIVE THAN WHAT WE'RE DOING.

UM, THE YEAR FOLLOWING THE ADAPTATION OF THIS POLICY SAW A DRAMATIC UPTICK IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS MI, THIS MIDDLE HOUSING WITH NEARLY THREE QUARTERS OF THE UNITS IN FOURPLEXES.

THAT'S WHAT THIS GRAPH HERE IS SHOWING.

UM, SO PORTLAND ADDED AN FAR CAP TO THEIR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AS WELL.

WELL, AND THEY STEPPED THAT FAR UH, 0.1 PER UNIT, WHICH IS, UM, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT AS WELL.

UH, WE LOOKED MOST CLOSELY AT THERE, R SEVEN LOTS AS THEY'RE MOST ALIGNED WITH AUSTIN'S LOT SIZE.

SO UNDER THIS PROGRAM, THEY FOUND THAT BY INCREASING THE FAR 0.10 PER ADDED UNIT, THEY WERE ABLE TO BOTH ENCOURAGE MORE UNITS.

AND THOSE UNITS ON AVERAGE WERE SMALLER.

UM, IN THEIR REPORT, THEY HAVE, UH, SOME INTERESTING NUMBERS.

I, I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO LOOK AT THIS REPORT THAT THE, THE LOT SIZE OR THE UNIT SIZES UNDER THIS ONE, UH, UH, THEIR PROGRAM VERSUS THE UNITS BEING SOLD OUTSIDE OF IT, WERE ON AVERAGE ABOUT A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS LESS.

WE DIDN'T DO ANY FINANCIAL MODELING IN OUR STUFF 'CAUSE WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE ARCHITECTS AND WE'RE LOOKING MORE AT FORM.

UM, BUT THAT'S AN INTERESTING AND, AND HELPFUL METRIC TO LOOK AT.

UM, SO OUR MODELING, WHICH WAS INDEPENDENT OF PORTLAND'S REPORT, FOUND THAT THE SAME THING, AN FAR CAP WITH A GRADIENT WOULD INCENTIVIZE MORE UNITS AND ON AVERAGE THESE UNITS WOULD BE SMALLER.

I WANNA NOTE THAT PORTLAND DOES INCLUDE GARAGES IN THEIR FAR.

UM, SO THAT'S AN IMPORTANT THING TO REMEMBER.

OKAY, SO WE LOOKED AT SEVERAL GRADIENT INCREASES, AND WE BELIEVE THAT THE 0.10 WORKS FOR AUSTIN.

UM, OURS STARTS AT 0.55 FOR TWO UNITS AND GOES TO 0.65 FOR THREE.

UH, THIS IS CRUCIAL TO UNDERSTAND THAT, UM, UNDER SUB CHAPTER F ARE, ARE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ARE CAPPED AT 0.4, BUT WHAT'S ACTUALLY BEING BUILT IS ON AVERAGE 0.45.

AND THAT'S TO ACCOMMODATE THE, UH, ALL THE EXEMPTIONS THAT ARE BUILT INTO THE MCMANSION ORDINANCE.

THAT'S AN ATTIC EXEMPTION, THAT'S A GR UH, THE GARAGE EXEMPTIONS AND THE BASEMENT EXEMPTION AS WELL.

UM, SO LOOKING AT THE DATA, THE AVERAGE SINGLE FAMILY HOME IS BEING BUILT AROUND 0.45.

WE STEPPED IT UP 0.1 FROM THAT.

SO THE 0.55 AND THE 0.65 INCLUDES THE EXEMPTIONS PREVIOUSLY GRANTED UNDER SUBCHAPTER F.

UM, SO WE MODELED WHAT THIS MIGHT LOOK LIKE.

THE FIRST, THE FIRST MODEL RIGHT THERE IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, AND THAT'S THE 0.4 PLUS THE EXEMPTIONS THAT ARE GRANTED ON OUR SUB-CHAPTER F.

SO YOU GET ABOUT 0.45.

UH, THE, UH, THE NEXT TWO MODELS ARE THE 0.1 STEP UP FROM THAT.

SO 0.55 AND 0.65.

UM, IF WE WERE TO INCLUDE THE SUBCHAPTER F GARAGE EXEMPTION INTO, UH, TWO AND THREE UNITS, WE WOULD NOT BE GETTING 0.55 AND 0.65 ANYMORE.

UM, ON AN AVERAGE LOT SIZE, WE WOULD BE GETTING CLOSER TO 0.60 FOR TWO UNITS AND 0.73 FOR TRIPLEXES.

THAT'S WITH THE 200 SQUARE FOOT OF ADDITIONAL, UM, GARAGE SPACE THAT'S BUILT INTO THAT.

SO WE, UH, LIKE LUCY SAID, WE SUPPORT, UH, CAPPING THE FAR OF A SINGLE UNIT IN A MULTI-UNIT DEVELOPMENT.

UH, AS WITHOUT, WITHOUT THIS GUARD RAIL, WE MIGHT SEE STEALTH MCMANSIONS.

THAT'S KINDA WHAT THIS MODEL IS SHOWING.

UH, THAT'S, THAT IT'S LIKE A TINY POOL CABANA WITH ONE GIANT HOUSE.

UM, THE CAP ON TWO UNITS.

UM, WE COULD SEE THAT BEING HELPFUL IF SOMEONE WAS TO DESIGN A THREE UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND THEN, UH, DECIDE TO ONLY BUILD TWO.

BUT WE THINK THAT THAT CAP FOR THREE UNITS SHOULD BE 0.55, UH, JUST TO ALIGN WITH THE CAP ON THE POINT ON ON THE TWO UNIT.

AND WE SUPPORT THE PRESERVATION AUSTIN'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PRESERVATION INCENTIVE.

UM, IT'S A DELICATE INCENTIVE, UM, UH, AND, AND

[00:40:01]

REALLY DIALING IN THE, THE CAP ON THE TWO AND THREE UNITS WILL HELP BOLSTER WHAT PRESERVATION IS DOING, WHICH I THINK IS AN IMPORTANT AND MEANINGFUL UM, UH, ISSUE HERE.

WE DO SUPPORT REDUCING THE SETBACKS AND ENCOURAGE THIS, UH, RESOLUTION GO FURTHER THAN THE FRONT YARD AVERAGING.

UM, IT, IT CAN BE EXPENSIVE AND TIME CONSUMING LIKE WHAT LUCY WAS UH, DESCRIBING, AND IT RELIES ON LUCK.

IF YOUR NEIGHBORS ARE BUILT CLOSE TO THE YARD, THEN YOU GET IT.

IF YOUR NEIGHBORS ARE NOT, THEN YOU DON'T GET IT.

UH, HISTORICALLY HOUSES WERE CLOSER TO THE LOT LINE, UM, AND ALSO THE UTILITIES ARE TYPICALLY CLOSER TO THE STREET AS WELL.

SO WE'D BE REDUCING THE, UH, THE DISTANCE, THE SEWER LINES.

UM, WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE FRONT YARD REDUCED TO 15 FEET AND STREET SIDE YARDS REDUCED TO FIVE TO ALLOW FOR GREATER FLEXIBILITY IN PLACING THE ADDITIONAL UNITS.

UM, AND WE'D LIKE TO SEE ALL PROPERTIES GET THIS BENEFIT, NOT JUST THE ONES IN, IN OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS.

UH, THIS WILL BE SIMPLER TO IMPLEMENT.

IT'LL SPREAD THE BENEFIT MORE EQUITABLY AND IT'LL ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS TO REFLECT THE TRADITIONAL CENTRAL AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOODS.

FINALLY, WE DO NEED TO SEE THAT PARKING STRUCTURES ARE INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION OF FAR.

THE 0.05 BUMP FROM 0.4 FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME, UM, IS REFLECTIVE OF ACTUAL CURRENT CONDITIONS THAT INCLUDE CONSTRUCTION OF GARAGES.

UH, WE ARE NOT REMOVING THIS FAR, BUT WE'RE ASKING FOR MORE FREEDOM OF ITS USE.

UH, THIS SLIDE KIND OF ILLUSTRATES THAT.

THE FIRST IMAGE IN THE TOP LEFT CORNER IS WHAT'S CURRENTLY BEING BUILT UNDER SUB CHAPTER F UH, THE BLUE IS THE 0.4 FAR AND THE YELLOW IS THE EXEMPTIONS.

IF YOU ADD ALL THAT UP, IT AVERAGES AT 0.45.

WE'VE TAKEN A POINT, ONE STEP FROM THAT NUMBER, UH, TO GET THE 0.55 OF TWO UNITS AND THE 0.65 OF THREE UNITS.

IF WE ADD MORE EXEMPTIONS TO IT, WE ARE AGAIN EXCEEDING AND WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE DOUBLE DIPPING INTO THE FAR.

UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

THAT'S THE END OF MY, UH, PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU, SIR.

COUNCIL MEMBER FUENTES, I'LL RECOGNIZE YOU FOR QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU.

IF YOU COULD STAY, SIR, MY QUESTIONS ARE REGARDING YOUR PRESENTATION, SIR, I DIDN'T CATCH YOUR NAME.

UM, THANK YOU FOR THE MODELING.

I THINK HAVING THOSE VISUALS IS, IS SUPER HELPFUL AND, YOU KNOW, SEEING WHAT THE EXEMPTIONS ARE AND WHAT THE POTENTIAL COULD BE WITH THE HOME INITIATIVE.

ONE THING I JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT, UM, FROM YOUR PRESENTATION IS, YOU KNOW, WE WE'RE GETTING A LOT OF QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMUNITY REGARDING, YOU KNOW, HOW CAN WE ENSURE THAT, UH, MULTIPLE HOMES WOULD BE BUILT ON THIS, ON THIS LOT.

UH, CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PORTLAND EXAMPLE THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, THEY CHANGED THEIR, THEIR, UM, ZONING CAPABILITIES AND DID CHANGE IT TO THEIR, THE FLORIDA AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS.

AND BASED ON WHAT YOU PRESENTED TODAY, WE SAW MULTIPLE SMALLER HOMES BEING BUILT WITH AN AVERAGE, UH, PRICE OF AT LEAST A HUNDRED THOUSAND LESS.

IS THAT RIGHT? YEAH.

UH, I ENCOURAGE YOU TO GO DIG INTO THE REPORT.

THEY JUST RELEASED IT.

UH, IT'S THEIR ONE YEAR REPORT FROM IMPLEMENTATION OF THEIR, UH, RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROJECT.

MM-HMM.

PROGRAM.

UM, AND, UH, IT'S GREAT.

IT SHOWS WHAT HAD BEEN BUILT PREVIOUSLY AND THEN WHAT WAS BUILT UNDER THE RIP, THE RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROGRAM.

UM, UH, THEY HAVE MORE METRICS THAN WHAT I INCLUDED IN MY PRESENTATION, INCLUDING PRICING DATA, WHICH I DIDN'T REALLY WANT TO TOUCH ON.

UM, BUT THEY'RE SHOWING THAT THE UNITS THAT ARE BUILT OUTSIDE OF THEIR, UH, THEIR FAR CAP PREVIOUS TO THE IMPLEMENTATION WERE ON AVERAGE A HUNDRED.

IT WAS LIKE $117,000 MORE THAN THE ONES BUILT UNDER THE RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROJECT.

AND THAT'S BECAUSE THEY ALLOWED MORE UNITS.

UH, BUT THEY CAPPED THE DEVELOPMENTAL, THE DEVELOPABLE AREA WITH THEIR FAR CAP.

SO IT PRODUCED MORE SMALLER UNITS.

AND IT SHOWED THAT THE MOST POPULAR, UH, TYPOLOGY WAS A FOURPLEX ACTUALLY.

UM, WHICH IS INTERESTING, AT THREE QUARTERS OF THE, OF THE NEW DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS GOING ON IN PORTLAND AFTER THIS THING PASSED WAS THIS MISSING MIDDLE, UH, TYPOLOGY.

AND OF THAT THREE QUARTERS WAS A FOURPLEX.

GOOD DEAL.

AND THEN, UH, MY ONE REQUEST IS IF WE COULD HAVE BOTH OF THE A I A IN YOUR PRESENTATION EMAILED TO US, UH, I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.

THANK YOU.

FOR SURE.

GREAT.

COUNCILOR VALEN AND COUNCIL MEMBER ALLISON AND ALTER AND GOING ON THE PORTLAND, I DID LOOK AT THAT REPORT THAT, UH, THEY HAD.

AND HONESTLY, I THINK PORTLAND'S A A FROM A A, A HOUSING POINT OF VIEW, A

[00:45:01]

SMALL LOT KIND OF MIDDLE MISSING HOUSING POINT OF VIEW IS A, IS A GREAT EXAMPLE.

BUT MY UNDERSTANDING, UH, IS THAT PORTLAND BUILT ABOUT, I THINK THERE WERE ABOUT 700 UNITS OR SO CREATED UNDER THE NEWLY INSTITUTED, UH, RULES.

CAN YOU, CAN, DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT THAT ACTUAL NUMBER, CAN YOU CONFIRM WHAT THE TOTAL NUMBER WAS? I CAN'T, I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION.

UH, THERE WAS ONE ON YOUR SLIDE 'CAUSE YOU WERE SAYING ABOUT LIKE, I THINK 300 OR SO WAS YEAH.

UH, AGAIN, JUST TO POINT OUT THAT, I MEAN, PORTLAND IS ABOUT A MILLION PEOPLE, UH, RELATIVELY, I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 700 UNITS IN A CITY OF A MILLION PEOPLE.

UH, WHICH AGAIN, I I IS AN IMPORTANT BUT RELATIVELY MODEST, UH, IMPACT.

UH, AGAIN, I JUST KNOW THAT THERE'S THESE KIND OF, YOU KNOW, FEARS OUT THERE ABOUT WHOLESALE KIND OF, UH, CHANGES.

AND THE COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE TAKEN THESE KINDS OF STEPS HAVE SEEN MODEST CHANGES.

UH, AND AGAIN, I WOULD GO BACK TO OUR A DU UH, UH, EXAMPLE WHERE IN I BELIEVE 2015, UH, THE CITY COUNCIL LEGALIZED ADUS AND WE'VE SEEN THEM IN A TINY FRACTION OF, UH, LOTS WHERE THEY'RE ELIGIBLE.

YOU KNOW, VERY FEW.

YEAH.

SO ANYWAY, I JUST WANTED TO TO TO, YOU KNOW, POINT THAT OUT ABOUT, UH, UH, ABOUT THE IMPORTANT BUT RELATIVELY MODEST IMPACT THAT THE, UH, PORTLAND ZONING CHANGES, UH, HAD, UM, IN A, A SEMI-RELATED QUESTION.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE FAR IS IN, UH, MUELLER? I DO NOT KNOW.

I DON'T, BECAUSE I'VE BEEN IN, IN DISCUSSIONS AROUND THIS.

YOU KNOW, THAT IS KIND OF OUR TEMPLATE THAT, THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, MISSING MIDDLE, THE, THE GROUPED HOUSES, THE KIND OF DIFFERENT WAYS THAT, THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS LAID OUT.

UH, WE'RE REALLY LOOKING TO KIND OF EXPORT SOME OF THAT, UH, HOUSING TYPOLOGIES INTO SOME OF OUR OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS.

UH, AND MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THE MUELLER FAR, AND AGAIN, I I I WISH WAS AROUND THAT KIND OF LIKE, YOU KNOW, 0.7 OR, YOU KNOW, 0.65 AREA.

I DUNNO IF EITHER OF Y'ALL CAN SPEAK TO THAT.

UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT MUELLER DOESN'T HAVE FAR RESTRICTIONS.

UM, HOWEVER, THEY HAVE 40 PAGES OF DESIGN STANDARDS THAT HEAVILY REGULATE WHAT GETS BUILT THERE AND MUCH SMALLER MINIMUM LOT SIZES, UH, DOWN TO 1500 SQUARE FEET.

SO THAT, I THINK THAT IT PRODUCES ON AVERAGE AROUND 0.7 FAR.

BUT AGAIN, IF YOU THINK ABOUT THAT, THOSE ARE ON MUCH SMALLER LOTS.

SO YOU TEND TO GET SMALLER SIZES.

UM, THEY HAVE A LOT OF REGULATIONS.

THEY HAVE MUCH SMALLER SETBACKS, SOMETIMES AS LITTLE AS FIVE FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACKS.

THEY MANDATE GARAGES IN THE REAR, BUT THAT'S BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF ALLEY ACCESS.

UM, THEY HAVE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS.

SO THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT GOVERN HOW HOUSES ARE BUILT IN MUELLER, BUT INTERESTINGLY, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE ARE FAR CAPS JUST 'CAUSE OF HOW, UM, THE OTHER REGULATIONS WORK TOGETHER.

GOT IT.

WELL, THANK YOU.

AND WITH REGARD TO THE, THE, THE SETBACKS, UH, WHAT IS THE, THE, THE JUSTIFICATION FOR, YOU KNOW, THE, THE 25 FOOT SETBACK, A 15 FOOT ON THE SIDE SETBACK? UH, AGAIN, I MEAN, I KNOW A LOT OF FOLKS REALLY LIKE, YOU KNOW, THAT KIND OF A LARGE EXPANSE OF, OF GREEN, GREEN GRASS, UH, YOU KNOW, IN FRONT OF THEIR HOUSE ON THE SIDE OF THEIR HOUSE.

BUT I MEAN, WHAT, WHY DID WE CHOOSE SUCH, UH, SUCH LARGE, UH, UH, SETBACKS? DO Y'ALL HAVE ANY IDEAS ON THAT? I HAVE, I HAVE IDEAS , UH, AND, UM, IT'S NOT GREAT.

UM, YOU KNOW, IF WE GO BACK TO, UM, THE ORIGINS OF ZONING, IF WE TAKE IT ALL BACK TO EUCLID, UM, LOT SIZES HAVE PREDOMINANTLY BEEN USED AS A FORM OF EXCLUSION.

SO WHERE DO WE GET OUR, WHY IS OUR LOT SIZE 8,000 SQUARE FEET? THERE'S BEEN STUDIES THAT SHOW, UM, UH, 8,000 WAS THE TIPPING POINT ON WHAT, UH, SORT OF THE AFFLUENT COULD BUY.

SO HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY 8,000 SQUARE FEET? YOU HAVE TO SAY YOU CAN'T BUILD IN ON HALF OF IT.

UM, AND WHEN DID WE, UH, IMPLEMENT OUR 8,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZES? IT WAS IN 1948.

AND WHAT ELSE HAPPENED IN 1948? IT WAS THE, UH, WHEN WE NO LONGER ALLOWED RACIALLY EXCLUSIVE, UM, UH, DEED RESTRICTIONS.

YEAH, DEED RESTRICTIONS IN 1948, OUR LOT SIZE USED TO BE 3000 SQUARE FEET, AND THEN WE OUTLAWED A RACIALLY EXCLUSIONARY, UH, DEEDED RESTRICTIONS AND WE UP TO 8,000 SQUARE FEET.

MM-HMM.

SO IF YOU'RE ASKING ME MM-HMM.

I THINK THAT THE FRONT YARD SETBACK IS NOT, UM,

[00:50:01]

IT WASN'T PUT THERE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF EVERYBODY.

MM-HMM.

.

UH, WELL, I, I APPRECIATE THAT.

AND I WILL SAY FROM AN AESTHETIC POINT OF VIEW, I REALLY LIKE NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE THE HOMES AND THE PORCHES ARE A LITTLE BIT CLOSER.

I MEAN, I THINK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, HONESTLY, PARTS OF OLDER AUSTIN WHERE, YOU KNOW, UH, I MEAN, I THINK ABOUT EVEN LIKE A HYDE PARK WHERE, UH, YOU KNOW, THE HOMES ARE REALLY KIND OF RIGHT UP, YOU KNOW, 10 FEET OFF THE CURB, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

UH, I THINK ABOUT A, LIKE A NEW ORLEANS OR, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? A LOT OF GALVESTON, EVEN LIKE A LOT OF THE CITIES THAT, UH, I FIND, AND I, YOU KNOW, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR EVERYBODY OBVIOUSLY, BUT THAT MANY PEOPLE FIND, YOU KNOW, THAT TO BE THE MOST ATTRACTIVE AND THE MOST WALKABLE HAVE RELATIVELY SMALL, UH, SETBACKS.

WE WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE.

AND THIS ISN'T A MANDATE TO GET RID OF FRONT YARDS.

IF YOU WANT A FRONT YARD, IT'S ABSOLUTELY YOUR YARD TO HAVE .

AND THAT'S A GOOD POINT BECAUSE IF YOU WANT A 25 FOOT SETBACK, YOU CAN HAVE A 25.

NO ONE'S PREVENTING YOU FROM, YOU KNOW, SETTING YOUR HOUSE LIKE ALL THE WAY TO THE BACK, KIND OF HIDDEN IN THE BACK.

UH, THAT, THAT'S A, THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT.

BUT I WOULD, I WOULD ALSO ADD THAT HAVING THE 25 FOOT SETBACK FRONT YARD FOOT SETBACK SORT OF FORCES YOU TO SPLIT YOUR LOT IN TWO.

SO YOU HAVE A BACKYARD AND A FRONT YARD, BUT IF YOU RELAX THAT, THEN YOU'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE ONE BIG BACKYARD OR ONE BIG FRONT YARD, YOU CAN ACTUALLY DO MORE WITH THE SPACE THAT YOU HAVE.

MM-HMM.

APPRECIATE THAT.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

THANK YOU.

COUNCILMAN ALLISON ALTER.

THANK YOU.

UM, I THINK I HAVE, I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, BUT LET ME START WITH ONE FOR YOU ALL.

FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR YOUR MODELING AND I APPRECIATE, UM, YOUR GOAL OF, OF HELPING US TO, TO STRUCTURE THIS TO HAVE SMALLER HOUSES, UM, THAN WHERE THIS ORIGINALLY STARTED.

UM, I WANTED TO ASK HOW YOU THINK THIS PROPOSAL WILL GET RID OF THE STEALTH MCMANSIONS? UM, I'M VERY CONCERNED THAT WE'RE ADDING ALL THIS ADDITIONAL FAR AND IN MY DISTRICT, UM, WE'RE JUST GONNA GET BIGGER HOUSES THAN YOU CAN DO NOW BECAUSE THE MCMANSION RULES WON'T APPLY AND PEOPLE CAN HAVE A POOL HOUSE AND THEY CAN HAVE A GUEST HOUSE, AND YOU'RE JUST GONNA WITH BIGGER HOUSES WITH NOBODY ELSE LIVING IN THERE.

SO HOW DOES WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING PREVENT THAT? WELL, I BELIEVE THAT THE, THAT THE CAP ON ONE UNIT SET AT 0.4 WILL, UH, IT MEANS THAT ANY ONE UNIT OF A TWO AND THREE UNIT DEVELOPMENT IS GONNA BE SMALLER THAN THE HOMES THAT YOU SEE BEING BUILT RIGHT NOW.

CURRENTLY THE AVERAGE HOME IS BEING BUILT AT 0.45.

SO IF WE SET A CAP AT ANY ONE UNIT, THEN THAT FIRST UNIT THAT YOU BUILD IS CAPPED AT 0.4.

YOU NOW HAVE 0.25 FAR TO USE.

UM, SO EVEN YOUR VERY LARGEST HOUSE IN A TWO AND THREE UNIT DEVELOPMENT WILL BE SMALLER THAN THE AVERAGE HOUSE THAT'S BEING BUILT RIGHT NOW.

SO, SO THE DEFINITION OF UNIT THOUGH IS JUST LIKE SOME LIVING SPACE AND A BATHROOM AND A SINK EFFECTIVELY OUTSIDE IT, AS BEST I CAN TELL.

SO IF I WANTED TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, A MOTHER-IN-LAW SUITE, YOU KNOW, ATTACHED TO MY MAIN HOUSE, UM, OR IF I WANTED, YOU KNOW, TO HAVE A POOL HOUSE AS LONG AS IT HAS A BATHROOM AND HAS A SINK FOR THE BAR COUNTS AS A UNIT, IS THERE THERE ANYTHING THAT PREVENTS ME? I MEAN, THERE'S NOTHING THAT PREVENTS ME FROM HAVING A CONNECTION BETWEEN THE UNITS.

THERE'S NOTHING, I MEAN, I SEE IT NOW THAT PEOPLE DO THIS IN MY DISTRICT WHERE THEY CAN HAVE THE SECOND UNIT AND SSF THREE.

AND, UM, SO I JUST, YOU KNOW, IS THERE ANYTHING IN THIS THAT PREVENTS SOMEBODY WHO WANTS TO BUILD SOMETHING BIGGER AT THE 0.65? THEY CAN CALL IT THREE UNITS AS LONG AS THEY HAVE ENOUGH BATHROOMS AND SINKS.

IS THERE ANYTHING TO, TO, TO PREVENT THAT, TO MAKE SURE THERE'S MULTIPLE PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, MULTIPLE FAMILIES LIVING IN THESE SPACES? UH, THERE ISN'T ANYTHING RIGHT NOW, AND I THINK THAT'S A VALID POINT.

SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE A INTERESTING, UM, PIECE FOR COUNCIL TO DEBATE AND THINK THROUGH.

UM, I WOULD HATE TO SEE THAT BECOME THE REASON TO NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH THREE UNITS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE POSSIBILITY OF, LET'S CALL THEM BAD ACTORS UNDER THAT TAKING AWAY THE POSSIBILITY OF, YOU KNOW, GREATER GOOD BEING POSSIBLE THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

UM, I, I, I UNDERSTAND, I UNDERSTAND THAT CONCERN.

UM, BUT WE'VE ALSO SEEN WHAT DOES GET BUILT CURRENTLY UNDER THE CURRENT RULES AND HAVE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THE CENSUS DATA THAT WE'VE SEEN, UM, YOU KNOW, THE, THE NUMBER OF, I, I DON'T HAVE THE TOTAL NUMBER, BUT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE MOVING INTO OUR COMMUNITY THAT ARE MAKING OVER $200,000

[00:55:01]

A YEAR, UM, YOU KNOW, IS ENORMOUS.

THERE'S, YOU KNOW, IN THE LAST THREE YEARS, IT'S SOMETHING LIKE OVER 30,000 PEOPLE.

AND SO THE DEMAND FOR THE LARGER HOMES IS THERE AND THE ABILITY TO PAY FOR THEM IS THERE AND IS A WHOLE LOT EASIER TO MAKE MONEY ON THEM.

SO I DON'T KNOW THAT ANYBODY HAS TO NECESSARILY, UM, BE NEFARIOUS, BUT THE WAY THAT THE, YOU KNOW, THE RULES CAN BE USED TO MAKE THE MOST PROFIT AND IF IT IS MORE PROFITABLE FOR SOMEBODY TO BUILD THE BIGGER HOUSE, IF THEY HAVE THE BUYER TO DO THAT.

UM, SO, SO I WOULD SAY, UM, IT TO, TO THIS, UH, CONCERN, IF WE LOOK AT THE MARKET DATA RIGHT NOW, UM, FOR AB UNITS, THE B UNIT SELLS MUCH QUICKER THAN THE A UNIT.

SO I'M SAYING THE A DU, THE 1100 SQUARE FOOT SECONDARY UNIT IS THE HOT COMMODITY.

THE FRONT UNIT IS, UH, THE LEAST, UH, DESIRABLE.

UM, SO IF WE WERE JUST LOOKING AT WHAT THE MARKET DATA IS LOOKING FOR, PEOPLE ARE LOOKING FOR SMALLER UNITS.

UM, THEY'RE, THEY'RE GENERALLY MORE AFFORDABLE THERE.

SO IF WE GIVE THE OPTION, YOU COULD BUILD ONE GIGANTIC HOUSE, OR YOU COULD BUILD THREE SMALLER HOUSES.

UM, EVEN IF THAT WAS ON THE TABLE, UH, THE, WHAT THE MARKET IS LOOKING FOR IS THE THREE SMALLER HOUSES.

SO IF YOU'RE RESPONDING TO THE MARKET, IT'S GONNA BE THE THREE SMALLER HOUSES THAT ARE GETTING BUILT.

IF, IF THERE IS A, A BAD ACTOR WHO COMES IN AND SAYS, YOU KNOW, I HAVE ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD AND I WANT TO BUILD ONE GIANT HOUSE, AND THERE'S, AND I'M GONNA PUT DOORS BETWEEN MY THREE UNITS, UM, THEY WOULD, YOU KNOW, THEY'D BE IN VIOLATION FOR ADDING UNPERMITTED DOORS.

UM, WELL, WELL, THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING IS THERE'S NOTHING IN HERE THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T HAVE THE DOORS, THOUGH.

I MEAN, WELL, IF IT'S, THAT'S I'M ASKING IS IF IT'S ONE UNIT, IF IT'S, IF IT'S ONE UNIT, A UNIT DOESN'T HAVE ANY DEFINITION THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T HAVE CONNECTING DOORS ACROSS THE UNITS.

IT JUST SAYS THAT YOU WOULD CAN CALL ANYTHING A UNIT THAT HAS A LIVING SPACE, A BATHROOM, AND A SINK THE OTHER.

SO I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE A GOOD, I THINK THIS IS A GOOD DISCUSSION.

UM, I WOULD ALSO SAY, IS THERE ANY REASON, UH, IF THERE WAS A, AN ELDERLY PARENT WHO YOU WANTED A HOUSE IN YOUR HOUSE AND YOU WANTED THEM TO HAVE THEIR OWN UNIT, BUT FOR SAFETY'S SAKE YOU WANTED TO BE ABLE TO GET INTO THEIR UNIT, WOULD WE MAKE EXCEPTIONS FOR THAT OR HOW I, IT'S NOT ALL BAD ACTORS, BUT I, I, AGAIN, I'M NOT SAYING IT'S ALL BAD ACTORS, BUT WE, WE DO KNOW THAT I KNOW UNDER THE CURRENT RULES THAT WE HAVE THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE REASONS THAT MAKES IT COMPLICATED IS THAT THERE ARE SO MANY EXEMPTIONS AND MM-HMM, , THE MCMANSION 10 PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO MAXIMIZE WHAT, WHAT THEY CAN BUILD.

AND WE SEE THAT HAPPENING NOW.

SO I CAN THINK WE CAN CONTINUE THAT.

UM, I'M NOT SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, I STILL THINK THAT THERE'S PLENTY OF DEMAND FOR THE LARGER HOUSES.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SEEING, UM, IN MY DISTRICT, UM, IN AND PLENTY OF THAT EVEN WHERE THERE ARE THE OPPORTUNITIES TO DO THE TWO UNITS.

SO, SO I DON'T KNOW THAT I AGREE WITH THAT, BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR PERSPECTIVE.

I HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, UNLESS YOU WANT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE QUESTIONS FIRST, PLEASE.

LET'S, LET'S, LET'S GO AHEAD AND COMPLETE THOSE.

OKAY.

SO I HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

DOES ANYBODY THANK YOU ANYBODY.

I DON'T HAVE ANYBODY ELSE WRITTEN DOWN AS HAVING QUESTIONS, SO IF YOU'LL, I THINK NATASHA HAS QUESTIONS TOO.

OKAY.

DO YOU WANT FIRST, UM, VERY MUCH LIKE COUNCIL MEMBER, UM, OFFICER, I HAVE QUESTIONS AND OR COMMENTARY THAT, UH, PARTICULARLY GOOD DEAL.

I'LL CALL ON YOU AFTER SHE COMPLETES OUR QUESTIONS.

APPRECIATE IT.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

SO FOR STAFF, UM, YOU KNOW, A LOT HAS CHANGED SINCE WE HAD A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING.

UM, AT THAT TIME THE STAFF PROPOSAL WAS FOR A DUPLEX AND TWO UNIT TYPOLOGY.

NOW WE'RE JUST GONNA HAVE A TWO UNIT AND A THREE UNIT.

UM, AND AT THAT TIME THERE WAS NO MCMANSION AND NO FAR LIMIT FOR MOST OF THE POSSIBLE PERMUTATIONS.

BUT NOW WE SEE THAT PLANNING COMMISSION HAS RECOMMENDED SOME FAR LIMITS.

MY QUESTION IS, WHAT IS THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR FAR LIMITS AFFORDABILITY INCOME IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PREVIOUS PROPOSAL STATED WITHOUT UNIT SIZE RESTRICTIONS, EITHER BY SUB CHAPTER FIE, THE MCMANSION STANDARDS OR ANOTHER FLOOR AREA RATIO LIMITATION, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS MAY RESULT IN UNITS WITH SIMILAR SIZE AND PRICE TO CURRENT SINGLE FAMILY UNITS, WHICH WOULD NOT ACHIEVE THE RESOLUTION'S GOAL OF FACILITATING THE AVAILABILITY OF SMALLER, MORE DIVERSE HOUSING TYPES FOR MIDDLE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS.

SO I'M GLAD THAT WE CAN NOW ALL AGREE THAT SIZE SETTING SIZE LIMITS HAS A ROLE IN OUR PREFERRED POLICY OUTCOME OUTCOMES.

BUT, UM, DO OUR PROFESSIONAL STAFF BELIEVE THAT THE FAR RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS THE BEST WAY FOR US TO ACHIEVE OUR DESIRED OUTCOMES? SO WE, UH, ERICA LEAK PLANNING DEPARTMENT, UM, WE ARE STILL ASSESSING THAT QUESTION.

WE HAVE, WE KNOW WE'VE RECEIVED IT, UM, THROUGH COUNCIL Q AND A AND, AND WE WILL GET A RESPONSE BACK TO YOU AS SOON AS WE CAN.

THANK YOU.

AND CAN STAFF PLEASE CLARIFY, IT APPEARS THAT THOUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION ONLY RECOMMENDED THAT THESE FIRE LIMITS APPLY TO UNITS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN OUR CURRENT MCMANSION BOUNDARIES.

[01:00:01]

THAT'S HOW I READ ITEM SEVEN ON PAGE FOUR OF SEVEN IN THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

DECEMBER 7TH DOCUMENT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE WOULD BE NO FIRE LIMITS OUTSIDE OF OUR CURRENT MCMANSION BOUNDARIES FOR THESE MULTIPLE UNITS.

CORRECT.

THAT IS WHAT IS PROPOSED AT PRESENT, CORRECT.

OKAY.

DO STAFF BELIEVE THIS WILL HELP US ACHIEVE OUR GOALS FOR MORE SMALLER UNITS? THE, AS YOU'VE HEARD THROUGH BOTH PRESENTATIONS, FAR LIMITATIONS, UM, DO HELP CONTROL SIZE.

SO WITHOUT THE FAR LIMITATION YOU'D BE ABLE TO BUILD, UM, WHAT WOULD BE ALLOWABLE PER BUILDING COVER, IMPERVIOUS COVER SETBACKS, ET CETERA.

SO AS YOU DO THE MODELING THAT YOU GIVE US, CAN WE MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE SEEING, YOU KNOW, WHAT DOES THIS LOOK LIKE OUTSIDE OF THE MCMANSION AREA LIMITS? UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOME FAIRLY INTERESTING CONSEQUENCES TO THIS.

UM, FOR SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS HOODS THAT MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES REPRESENT, PARTS OF MY, UM, DISTRICT AS WELL, WHERE THE MCMANSION, UM, RESTRICTIONS DON'T APPLY, UM, THEN YOU HAVE NO FAR LIMITS.

UM, AND AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, YOU WOULD HAVE NO NOTHING THAT WOULD BE INCENTIVIZING SMALLER HOUSES IN THOSE AREAS.

WE CAN CERTAINLY SEE WHAT, WHAT TYPE OF INFORMATION WE CAN PULL TOGETHER.

YES.

AND I WILL JUST POINT OUT THAT THAT MAKES IT EXTREMELY COMPLICATED AS YOU MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE YOU'RE NOW GOING INTO AREAS THAT DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE <