Oct 14, 2025 Planning Commission

ON THE CONSENT AGENDA IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM OUR SEPTEMBER 23RD MEETING.

AND I APOLOGIZE.

WE HAVE MS. GARCIA HELPING US WITH SPEAKERS THIS EVENING.

THE FIRST ITEM

[ Consent Agenda]

DOES ANYONE HAVE EDITS TO THOSE MINUTES?

[00:05:03]

OKAY, HEARING NONE THE MINUTES WILL BE ADDED TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.

OUR FIRST ACTIVITY TONIGHT IS TO VOTE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

ITEMS THAT ARE CONSENT APPROVAL, DISAPPROVAL, POSTPONEMENTS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS OR NON-DISCUSSION ITEMS. VICE CHAIR HANEY WILL READ THE PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA AND SPECIFY THOSE THAT ARE CONSENT, POSTPONEMENT AND NON-DISCUSSION.

AND AFTER THIS COMMISSIONERS, YOU'LL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST ANY CONSENT ITEMS BE PULLED FOR DISCUSSION.

SO VICE CHAIR HANEY, COULD YOU READ THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR US, PLEASE? SURE THING.

UM, ITEM NUMBER TWO, WE HAVE PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2 0 24 DASH 0 0 1 8 0.0 1 7 0 0 3 7 0 0 5 AND 7 0 0 7.

GUADALUPE STREET REZONE IN DISTRICT FOUR IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER 19TH.

ITEM NUMBER THREE IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 20 24 7 0 0 3 7 0 0 5 AND 7 0 0 7 GUADALUPE STREET REZONE.

DISTRICT NUMBER FOUR IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER 19TH.

ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 20 0 2 0 2 4 DASH 0 1 6 1 0 0 0 RED RIVER STREET, AND DISTRICT NINE IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO NOVEMBER 13TH.

ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS A REZONING C 14 H DASH 2 25 86 MALCOLM AND MARGARET BADGER REED HOUSE IN DISTRICT NINE IS UP FOR CONSENT.

AND, UH, THAT WILL INCLUDE PROHIBITED USES AS READ BY STAFF CHAIR.

SORRY TO INTERRUPT.

I JUST WANNA CLARIFY THAT ITEMS TWO AND THREE ARE GONNA BE IN APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO DECEMBER 9TH.

THANK YOU MS. GARCIA.

WE HAVE MS. HORI TO READ SOME PROHIBITED USES ON ITEM FIVE FOR US.

HI, CYNTHIA HURI AUSTIN PLANNING, UH, FOR C 14 AGE 20 25 0 0 86.

UH, MALCOLM AND MARGARET BADGER, REHOUSE.

THESE ARE THE FOLLOWING PROHIBITED USES.

UM, AND THE AMENDED REQUEST IS GONNA BE DMUH, TODD, DBE TODD FOR THIS CASE.

UM, USES ARE ALTERNATIVE FINANCIAL SERVICES, AUTOMOTIVE RENTALS, AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SERVICES, AUTOMOTIVE SALES, AUTOMOTIVE, WASHING OF ANY TYPE BAIL BOND SERVICES, COMMERCIAL OFF STREET PARKING, EXTERMINATING SERVICES, FUNERAL SERVICES, INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT, INDOOR SPORTS AND RECREATION, OFFSITE ACCESSORY PARKING, OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT, OUTDOOR SPORTS AND RECREATION, PAWN SHOP SERVICES, PETTY CAB STORAGE AND DISPATCH, SERVICE STATION, THEATER VEHICLE STORAGE, LIMITED WAREHOUSING AND DISTRIBUTION, COMMUNITY RECREATION, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION TERMINAL.

THANK YOU MS. AUDREY.

AND THANK YOU VICE CHAIR HANEY.

AND I WANNA RECOGNIZE THAT WE HAVE COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE WITH US VIRTUALLY DO ANY COMMISSIONERS NEED TO RECUSE OR ABSTAIN FROM ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? OKAY.

SEEING NONE, MS. GARCIA, DO WE HAVE SPEAKERS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THE CONSENT ITEMS? YES.

CHAIR.

WE HAVE SPEAKERS FOR ITEM FIVE.

THIS ITEM IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT.

OUR PRIMARY SPEAKER IS DAVE ANDERSON.

DAVE WILL BE RECEIVING THREE MINUTES OF DONATED TIME FROM ANIL NI ANIL, ARE YOU PRESENT? LOOKS LIKE MR. ANDERSON IS WAIVING HIS TIME.

OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS MEGAN MEISENBACH.

MEGAN, YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES.

MS. MEISENBACH IS WAIVING HER TIME CHAIR.

THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.

ON TO OUR CODE AMENDMENT CASE ITEM SIX.

DO ANY COMMISSIONERS WANT TO PULL ANY OF THE CONSENT ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION OR OTHERWISE HAVE QUESTIONS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? OKAY.

IS THERE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AND APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM OUR LAST MEETING? I'LL MOVE MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER POWELL SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.

WITHOUT OBJECTION, THIS ITEM PASSES.

AND THAT CONCLUDES THE CONSENT AGENDA.

SO WE WILL MOVE

[6. Code Amendment: C20-2025-010 - CBD Amendments]

AND JUST BECAUSE WE HAVE SOME NEW COMMISSIONERS AND WE HAVEN'T HAD A CODE AMENDMENT IN A LITTLE WHILE, I JUST KIND OF WANNA RUN THROUGH HOW THE PROCESS WILL WORK.

SO FIRST WE'LL HEAR FROM STAFF ON THIS ITEM, AND THEN WE'LL HEAR FROM OUR SPEAKERS IN FAVOR AND OPPOSE.

WE'LL VOTE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN WE'LL DO A ROUND ROBIN AS WE USUALLY DO.

UM, WE WILL HAVE OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL COMMISSIONERS ASK QUESTIONS FOR FIVE MINUTES EACH.

UM, AT THAT POINT WE'LL TAKE A BASE MOTION.

SO THAT WILL BE EITHER STAFF RECOMMENDATION OR SOMETHING ELSE.

AND THEN WE WILL MOVE INTO OUR AMENDMENTS.

SO WE'LL START WITH ANY AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN SHARED IN ADVANCE, AND WE DIDN'T HAVE A WORKING GROUP ON THIS ITEM.

BUT, UH, IN FUTURE, IF WE HAD HAD A WORKING GROUP, WE WOULD START WITH THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS, THEN WE'D MOVE TO THE AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN SHARED INDIVIDUALLY BY COMMISSIONERS IN ADVANCE.

AND THEN WE WILL MOVE TO OUR DAY OF AMENDMENTS.

AMENDMENTS THAT ARE COMING UP ON THE DAAS.

WE'LL HAVE ONE ROUND WHERE EVERY COMMISSIONER WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT AN AMENDMENT.

AND THEN IF WE WANNA MODIFY OUR RULES, UM, TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS, WE CAN DO THAT.

AND WE'LL, WE WILL TALK THROUGH THIS AS WE GO.

BUT AS WE PRESENT

[00:10:01]

AMENDMENTS AS COMMISSIONERS, THE WAY THAT GENERALLY WE'VE DONE THIS IS THAT FIRST A COMMISSIONER WILL PRESENT KIND OF THE BACKGROUND BEHIND THEIR AMENDMENT, WHY THEY WANNA MAKE THIS AMENDMENT.

WE'LL OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS FROM OTHER COMMISSIONERS, AND THAT CAN BE QUESTIONS FOR THE AMENDMENT MAKER OR QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

AND THEN WE'LL TAKE A MOTION, LOOK FOR A SECOND AND MOVE INTO OUR USUAL DEBATE.

UM, AND THEN ONCE WE'VE GONE THROUGH ALL, ALL OF OUR AMENDMENTS, WE'LL RETURN TO THE BASE MOTION.

WE'LL MOVE THROUGH DEBATE ON THE BASE MOTION, AND THEN WE'LL VOTE ON THE BASE MOTION.

ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT PROCESS? WE'LL GO GO THROUGH IT.

UM, ONE PIECE AT A TIME, BUT JUST KIND OF WANTED TO TALK THROUGH THAT SINCE WE HAVEN'T HAD A CODE ITEM IN A SECOND.

UM, SO LET'S START WITH OUR STAFF PRESENTATION.

AND IF WE, UH, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT 271,000 WAS PAID, UH, AND THAT WAS THE PORTION THAT'S ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE BASELINE FAR OF UNITS THAT WERE CREATED AND 577,000 FOR THE BONUS FAR.

HELLO, COMMISSIONERS.

MY NAME IS ALAN PANIO.

I'M A PRINCIPAL PLANNER WITH AUSTIN PLANNING.

UM, AND I AM HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE CENTRAL BUS BUSINESS DISTRICT AMENDMENTS.

SO I WILL WALK YOU THROUGH BACKGROUND, UH, THE PROPOSED CHANGES AND NEXT STEPS.

UM, SO, UH, EARLIER THIS YEAR, TEXAS SENATE BILL EIGHT 40 WENT INTO EFFECT, UM, ON SEPTEMBER 1ST.

UH, THE STATE BILL ALLOWS FOR MULTIFAMILY OR MIXED USE IN ANY COMMERCIAL ZONE UNDER THE STATE BILL.

MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THESE COMMERCIAL ZONES ARE BY RIGHT ABLE TO REACH A HEIGHT THAT IS GREATER OF 45 FEET, OR THE HEIGHT THAT APPLIES TO THAT COMMERCIAL USE FOR THE SITE REACH A NEW DENSITY OF UP TO 54 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

IT INCLUDES SETBACKS THAT ARE NO LESSER, OR SORRY LESSER THAN 25 FEET, OR THE SETBACKS IMPOSED ON COMMERCIAL USES, WHICH, UM, FOR MOST OF OUR COMMERCIAL ZONES ARE SMALLER THAN 25 FEET.

UM, BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY FOR THIS AMENDMENT THAT WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT TODAY, UH, IT ALLOWS THESE SITES TO DEVELOP WITH UNLIMITED FLOOR TO AREA RATIO.

UM, SO THE CITY CANNOT LIMIT FAR THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT.

CBD, UH, IS OUR DESIGNATION FOR OFFICE, COMMERCIAL, RESIDENTIAL OR CIVIC USES LOCATED IN OUR DOWNTOWN AREA.

UH, CBD CURRENTLY IS REGULATED, UH, REGULATES DEVELOPMENT BASED ON FLORIDA AREA RATIO.

THE ALLOWED FAR IS 8 2 1.

UH, THE ZONING OF CBD DOES NOT HAVE A MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT.

SO AS OF SEPTEMBER 1ST, THE CITY CAN NO LONGER REGULATE FAR IN DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE UTIL UTILIZING THE SENATE BILL EIGHT 40.

UH, SIMULTANEOUSLY OUR DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS EXISTS IN THE AREA.

IT PRODUCES SOME OF OUR HIGHEST DENSITY AND HEIGHTS IN THE CITY, PRODUCES THE MOST AFFORDABLE HOUSING FEES IN LOOP FOR THE CITY, AS WELL AS GREAT STREET STANDARDS FOR THE DOWNTOWN AREA, BOTH CBD AND OUR DOWNTOWN MIXED USE.

UH, DMU ZONING CAN PARTICIPATE.

AS I MENTIONED.

CBD ZONING DOES NOT HAVE A HEIGHT LIMIT, BUT HAS A FAR LIMIT OF EIGHT TO ONE.

UM, AND MEANWHILE, DMU HAS BOTH A HEIGHT LIMIT AND FAR LIMIT A HEIGHT LIMIT OF 120 FEET AND AN FAR LIMIT OF FIVE TO ONE.

THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS ALLOWS FOR DEVELOPMENTS TO GO ABOVE THEIR BASE ENTITLEMENTS.

UM, AND THESE ADDITIONAL ENTITLEMENTS ARE MAPPED, BUT IN GENERAL, THE DOWNTOWN BEN DENSITY BONUS, UH, CAN INCREASE CVD AND DMU SITES UP TO 25 TO ONE FAR AND UP TO UNLIMITED HEIGHT ADMINISTRATIVELY.

TO EXCEED THESE, UH, APPLICANTS CAN REQUEST, UH, COUNSEL FOR ADDITIONAL ENTITLEMENTS.

SO AS WE LOOKED AT THE PROPOSED CHANGES, UH, STAFF ANALYZED SITES IN THE PARTICIPATING IN THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS TO FIND WHAT AN HEIGHT EQUIVALENT WAS FOR THAT EIGHT TO ONE FAR THAT CURRENTLY REGULATES CBD.

UM, AS WE DID OUR ANALYSIS, WE FOUND THAT THE MEDIAN HEIGHT FOR THIS EIGHT TO ONE FAR EQUIVALENT WAS AROUND 207 FEET.

THE AVERAGE WAS AROUND 230 THREES.

UM, SO SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, IS WHAT MOST SITES ARE HITTING WHEN THEY HAVE THAT EIGHT TO ONE.

SOMEWHERE AROUND THE 2 22 30.

AS WE WERE LOOKING, UM, AT THESE DEVELOPMENTS, WE FOUND THAT THE MEDIAN HEIGHT IN GENERAL FOUR DEVELOPMENTS IN CBD HAS BEEN INCREASING OVER TIME.

SO SINCE 2010 HEIGHTS HAVE BEEN INCREASING FOR PROJECTS IN DOWNTOWN AND IN CBD SPECIFICALLY SIMULTANEOUSLY, UH, THE LOT SITES FOR THESE DEVELOPMENTS HAS BEEN GOING DOWN.

UM, AS YOU WOULD IMAGINE, MOST OF OUR DOWNTOWN FULL BLOCK SITES HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED, AND A LOT OF THE OLDER UNDEVELOPED SITES ARE, UH, LOWLY DEVELOPED SITES, UM, ARE THE SMALLER ONES THAT REMAIN IN THE AREA.

SO AS WE LOOKED AT THIS, UH, PATTERN OF, OF CHANGE, OUR PROPOSED AMENDMENT WAS TO CREATE A NEW MAXIMUM BY RIGHT HEIGHT LIMIT OF 350 FEET FOR THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT.

SO THIS HEIGHT OF 350 WOULD FOLLOW THAT TREND WE SAW OF ALLOWING TALLER BUILDINGS IN DOWNTOWN TO HELP SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH IN OUR CITY CENTER.

UM, IT ADDRESSES THE EFFECTS OF THE REMOVAL F-A-F-A-R LIMITS FOR RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS UNDER THE SENATE BILL EIGHT 40.

IT WOULD STILL CONTINUE TO ALLOW DEVELOPERS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM TO EXCEED THIS NEW MAXIMUM HEIGHT

[00:15:01]

WITH COUNCIL APPROVAL.

UM, AND ADDITIONALLY, THE NEW HEIGHT THAT IS BEING PROPOSED INCLUDES PARKING AND ANY OTHER ABOVE GRADE STRUCTURE, WHEREAS PREVIOUSLY IN THE, OR THE WAY THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS WORKS FOR FAR, IT DOES NOT COUNT PARKING AS PART OF THAT FAR.

SO THE EIGHT TO ONE WOULD NOT HAVE INCLUDED PARKING VERSUS THIS BUILDING HEIGHT WOULD.

SO IT ACCOUNTS FOR THAT AS WELL.

UH, JUST FOR SOME REFERENCE, WE HAVE SOME, UH, BUILDING HEIGHT EXAMPLES FOR THE THREE NUMBERS WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT.

SO THE CURRENT CVD 8 2 1 FAR MEDIAN HEIGHT EQUIVALENT OF 207 FEET.

WE HAVE THE CITIZEN M HOTEL, WHICH IS AROUND 204 FEET OF HEIGHT.

UH, WHAT OUR PROPOSED MAX BASE HEIGHT WOULD BE OF 350, WE HAVE WINDS AROUND THE LAKE AND THAT IS AROUND 330.

AND THEN THE ALLOWABLE HEIGHT UTILIZING THE DENSITY BONUS, WHICH IS ANY HEIGHT ABOVE THREE 50 VIA ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OR COUNCIL APPROVAL.

AND WE HAVE 44 EAST AVENUE AS AN EXAMPLE.

UH, IN LINE WITH THESE CHANGES TO CBD, WE ARE ALSO PROPOSING SOME AMENDMENTS TO THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS TO IMPLEMENT THE PROPOSED CBD HEIGHT.

UH, THIS INCLUDES AMENDING THE HEIGHT MAPS, UH, THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS AND RAINY SUBDISTRICT LANGUAGE TO JUST ENSURE THAT THE CBD HEIGHT LIMIT CAN BE INCORPORATED INTO THE PROGRAM AND ADMINISTRATED.

UM, AS I MENTIONED, OUR NEXT STEPS, UH, WE ARE, WE HAVE BEEN TO CODES AND ORDINANCES JOINT COMMITTEE IN SEPTEMBER.

WE ARE AT PLANNING COMMISSION TONIGHT, OCTOBER 14TH.

WE WILL BE AT DOWNTOWN COMMISSION ON OCTOBER 15TH AND CITY COUNCIL, UH, TO BE HEARD ON OCTOBER 23RD.

I WILL ALSO ADD THAT THERE IS A SCHEDULED UPDATE OR, UH, COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM THROUGHOUT NEXT YEAR, WHICH WILL ALSO BE ACCOMPANYING THE CENTRAL CITY, UH, DISTRICT PLAN, WHICH WILL ALSO BE HAPPENING THROUGHOUT NEXT YEAR.

WELL, THAT IS ALL I HAVE FOR PRESENTATION, BUT READY FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. PONEY.

MM-HMM .

UM, WE WILL FIRST HEAR FROM OUR SPEAKERS IN FAVOR.

MS. GARCIA, COULD YOU CALL OUT OUR SPEAKERS PLEASE? WE DO NOT HAVE ANY SPEAKERS SIGNED UP IN FAVOR.

SO WE'LL GO TO THOSE SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION.

OUR PRIMARY SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION IS ROGER CALVIN.

ROGER, YOU WILL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS.

I'M A DIRECTOR ON THE BOARD OF THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, AND, UH, WE, UH, RECENTLY SENT A LETTER, UH, EXPRESSING OUR OPPOSITION TO THE BASE HEIGHT LIMIT THAT'S BEEN PROPOSED.

UH, WE GENERALLY OPPOSE HEIGHT LIMITS AND OTHER EXCLUSIONARY ZONING DOWNTOWN NEXT FIVE, PLEASE.

UH, SO WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE INTENTION BEHIND THIS, UH, PROPOSED BASE HEIGHT LIMIT AND THAT IT WILL RESTORE THE INCENTIVE TO PARTICIPATE IN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS. HOWEVER, UH, WE SEE SOME FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS WITH DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

THERE WAS A STUDY DONE IN, UH, LOS ANGELES BY THE TURNER CENTER, AND THEY STUDIED, UH, THE ORIENTED COMMUNITIES PROGRAM, WHICH IS A VOLUNTARY DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM IN LOS ANGELES.

AND THEY FOUND THAT IN SHORT, NO MATTER HOW YOU CALIBRATED THE PROGRAM, YOU ALWAYS LOST MARKET RATE UNITS AT, UH, A RATIO OF FIVE TO ONE FOR EVERY BELOW MARKET RATE UNIT CREATED.

SO THAT'S A HUGE, UH, REDUCTION IN HOUSING SUPPLY RELATIVE TO WHAT YOU WOULD GET BY JUST GRANTING THE BONUS ENTITLEMENTS UNCONDITIONALLY.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

SO, UH, IN CONCLUSION FROM THE, THE CONCLUSION OF THAT, UH, STUDY WAS THAT 38% GREATER HOUSING PRODUCTION WOULD OCCUR OVER A 10 YEAR PERIOD WITHOUT THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT AND JUST BY GRANTING THE ENTITLEMENTS BY RIGHT.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

SO THAT HAS AN IMPACT ON PROPERTY TAX REVENUE AND ON UNITS CREATED.

HERE I HAVE AN EXAMPLE OF HANOVER REPUBLIC SQUARE, WHICH IS A PROJECT THAT WENT THROUGH THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM AND PAID A FEE IN LIEU OF $3 MILLION.

AND, UH, WHAT I'VE SHOWN HERE IS THE PROPERTY TAXES JUST FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN, NOT FOR THE OTHER JURISDICTIONS, JUST FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN IN 2024.

[00:20:02]

NOW, IF YOU ADD 38% MORE HOUSING FOR EACH PROPERTY, LIKE THIS ONE, WE'RE TALKING IN THIS CASE, 322,000 ADDITIONAL REVENUE THAT WE DO NOT GET WITH A DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

SO HOW CAN WE LEVERAGE THE FACT THAT WE HAVE MORE HOUSING AND WE HAVE A LARGER TAX BASE? NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

SO THERE IS A PRECEDENT FOR HOW TO LEVERAGE ADDITIONAL TAX REVENUE, AND ONE EXAMPLE OF IT, UH, OCCURRED IN THE YEAR 2000 TO INITIALLY, UH, FUND THE HOUSING TRUST FUND, UH, WITH MONEY THAT CAME FROM INCREMENTAL TAX REVENUE DERIVED FROM PROPERTIES THAT WERE REZONED FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT.

WE CAN DO THAT HERE TOO.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

SO, THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, WHILE OPPOSING THE IMPOSITION OF THESE HEIGHT LIMITS, ALSO CALLS FOR REPLACING THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM WITH A MECHANISM THAT CAPTURES THAT EXTRA PROPERTY TAX REVENUE THAT RESULTS FROM HAVING NO FAR CAPS OR HEIGHT LIMITS AND ALLOCATES A PORTION OF IT TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND OTHER COMMUNITY BENEFITS.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, IF THERE IS ONE.

OKAY, I THINK THAT'S IT.

BUT I WOULD LOVE TO SEE OR HAVE SOME INDICATION THAT CBD AND DMU ARE BEING LOOKED AT TOGETHER IN THIS EXERCISE.

OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS PHILIP WILEY.

PHILIP, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.

I, PHIL WILEY, DOWNTOWN RESIDENT.

I HAVE A LITTLE PIECE OF PAPER WITH BARRY CAREFULLY PREPARED NOTES SO THAT I COULD READ THEM PRECISELY.

IF YOU SEE THEM, LET ME KNOW.

, THIS CHART MAY LOOK FAMILIAR.

I I BORROWED IT FROM ALLEN'S DECK.

UM, I PUT A RED LINE IN IT, THAT RED LINE.

AS YOU MAY RECALL, I CAME IN A COUPLE MONTHS AGO AND TOLD YOU THAT TEXAS HAD THE A, A SECTION THAT HAD THE HIGHEST TRANSIT SUPPORT.

UM, RIGHT HERE IN AUSTIN.

WE HAVE THE HIGHEST TRANSIT SUPPORT SECTION IN THE ENTIRE STATE OF TEXAS BETWEEN THE UT MALL AND REPUBLIC SQUARE.

SO IF YOU COULD GET TO THE NEXT CHART, PLEASE.

UM, JUST AS A REMINDER, YOU SAW THIS 1200 BOARDINGS A DAY YOU CAN GET FROM, UH, THE UT MALL.

IF YOU WANT TO GET DOWN TO REPUBLIC SQUARE, THAT'S ONE EVERY TWO MINUTES.

IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE, BUT THEY STACK UP AND IF YOU LOOK AT IT, IT'S REAL, IT'S REAL.

AND, UH, I, I CAN'T SWEAR BY THE NUMBERS, BUT THEY'RE SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN ANYTHING ELSE WE HAVE IN THE STATE OF TEXAS.

SO, UM, ANYWAY, AND HERE'S SOME, AGAIN, REFERENCES FOR HOW THAT COMPARES WITH OTHER, UH, WEST COAST CITIES.

IF YOU WOULD, UH, PLEASE GO BACK TO THE PRIOR CHART.

SO MY BIGGEST CONCERN WITH THIS, UM, AND, AND THERE ARE A LOT OF LEGITIMATE, UH, CAUSES FOR, FOR, UM, CAUTION HERE.

MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS THE CBD MAP IS BASICALLY A RELIC OF THE TROLLEY CAR ERA.

WE USED TO HAVE A TROLLEY CAR RUNNING DOWN CONGRESS, AND IF YOU LOOK AT IT, IT'S SPLIT ALMOST EQUIDISTANT.

UM, OTHER THAN RAINY, THAT WAS OBVIOUSLY A LATE EDITION.

AFTER THE FLOODING SITUATION GOT UNDER CONTROL, UH, IN 2014, WE MOVED THE TRANSIT SPINE TO GUADALUPE AND, AND I'M GLAD MY NEIGHBORS ARE HERE, AT LEAST A FEW OF THEM TO, SO THAT THEY UNDERSTAND.

PART OF THE CHALLENGE THAT WE'RE FACING IS THAT IF WE WERE TO DO A GROUND ZERO BUILD AND, AND PUT THE HIGHEST ENTITLEMENT, WHICH IS NOW CBD, WE WOULD MAP IT AROUND GUADALUPE.

THAT IS WHAT YOU WOULD DO IF YOU WERE PLAYING SIM CITY.

YOU WOULD HAVE HALF MILE AROUND GUADALUPE FROM THE UT MALL TO REPUBLIC SQUARE AND THEN FIGURE OUT WHAT ELSE YOU WANNA DO.

SO PART OF THE CHALLENGE THAT I'M SEEING, WHICH PROBABLY OTHER PEOPLE AREN'T GONNA BRING UP, IS THAT DMUI THINK IS REALLY THE FUTURE OF DOWNTOWN BECAUSE THERE ARE DIFFERENT USES AND THERE ARE REASONS FOR DMU AND CBD TO COEXIST.

UH, AND CBD IS GONNA CONTINUE TO BE OBVIOUSLY VERY IMPORTANT,

[00:25:01]

OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS MEGAN MEISENBACH.

MEGAN, YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES.

GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.

OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS HANNAH WRANGLE.

HANNAH, YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES.

UM, A POINT OF CLARIFICATION WHEN YOU, IF YOU DON'T MIND JUST TURNING YOUR MICROPHONE ON, PLEASE.

CAN YOU HEAR ME? NOW WE CAN.

GOOD EVENING.

ONE POINT OF FOOT CLARIFICATION.

WHEN YOU SIGN UP, THEY MAKE YOU CLICK A BUTTON, WHETHER YOU'RE IN SUPPORT OR IN OPPOSITION.

AND TONIGHT I'M ACTUALLY HERE TO REQUEST A DELAY.

SO THERE WAS THIS THIRD BOX THAT I DIDN'T FEEL LIKE FIT MY CIRCUMSTANCES.

SO, UM, SO ON BEHALF OF THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN ALLIANCE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, I'M SPEAKING TONIGHT TO REQUEST A 120 DAY DELAY ON ITEM 63 TO ALLOW SUFFICIENT TIME FOR THE CITY TO CONDUCT FINANCIAL ANALYSIS AND MODELING, TO TEST THE IMPACTS OF THE AMENDMENT, TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE TIME FOR STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK.

AND IMPORTANTLY, TO EXPLORE ALTER, ALTER ALTERNATIVE METHODS TO FUND AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND OTHER COMMUNITY BENEFITS.

HOWEVER, THE FULL ECONOMIC AND BUILT FORM IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED HEIGHT LIMIT ARE NOT WELL UNDERSTOOD ENOUGH TO PASS THIS AMENDMENT AT THIS TIME.

FURTHER, DOWNTOWN AUSTIN IS ONE OF THE MAIN ECONOMIC ENGINES OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, PRODUCING REVENUES, NOT JUST FEES THAT FUND MANY IMPORTANT PROGRAMS CITYWIDE.

IF WE DO NOT TAKE THE TIME TO DEVELOP A WELL CONSIDERED REGULATORY RESPONSE TO SB EIGHT 40, WE MAY FURTHER STIFLE GROWTH AT A TIME WHEN ADDITIONAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUE IS NEEDED MOST.

THE CHALLENGES RESULTED FROM RESULTING FROM REDUCED FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT, PERSISTENCE OFF PERSISTENT OFFICE VACANCIES, EXCUSE ME, IT'S THESE EVENING MEETINGS.

GUYS.

AND RISING BUSINESS COSTS REQUIRE ALL OF US TO WORK TOGETHER TO FIND CREATIVE POLICY AND FUNDING SOLUTIONS TO SUPPORT ROBUST ECONOMIC CENTERS LIKE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN.

ITEM 6 63 DOES NOT ADDRESS THE COMPLEXITY OF THE SITUATION.

INSTEAD, IT IS ONLY REACTING TO SB EIGHT 40.

SB EIGHT 40 WAS DESIGNED TO UNLEASH THE MARKET TO SUPPLY HOUSING IN VOLUME SOMETHING DESPERATELY NEEDED STATEWIDE.

AND HERE IN AUSTIN TO HELP ADDRESS OUR ONGOING AFFORDABILITY CRISIS AND ITS EFFECTS SHOULD BE SEEN AS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR FRESH THINKING ABOUT HOW WE FUND CITY PROGRAMS. WE BELIEVE A 120 DAY DELAY WILL PROVIDE CITY STAFF AND KEY STAKEHOLDERS SUFFICIENT TIME TO FULLY UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.

AND AS I SAID EARLIER, TO EXPLORE ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO FUNDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND OTHER COMMUNITY BENEFITS IN THE NEW REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT AND THE CHALLENGING ECONOMIC CLIMATE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF DOWNTOWN AUSTIN.

THE CITY SHOULD INSTEAD APPLY A CONSISTENT HEIGHT BASELINE TO COST THE DOWNTOWN CORE, ALLOWING AUSTIN CENTER TO EVOLVE AS A COHESIVE MIXED USE DISTRICT RATHER THAN A MOSAIC APART HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS.

OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS ZACHARY FADI.

ZACHARY, YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES.

UH, HOW DO YOUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS? MY NAME IS ZACH FADI.

UH, I'M THE PRESIDENT OF AURA.

I'LL BE READING A LETTER THAT THE, UH, THAT THE BOARD HAS APPROVED, AND IF I HAVE TIME, MAYBE ADD SOME PERSONAL COLOR.

UM, UH, CHAIR WOODS AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS LOCAL STAKEHOLDERS WHO CARE DEEPLY ABOUT THE VIBRANCY AND AFFORDABILITY OF OUR CITY.

WE ARE WRITING TODAY TO SHARE OUR CONCERNS REGARDING THE PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE CURRENT DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM.

WE APPRECIATE CITY STAFF'S TIMELY RESPONSE TO SENATE BILL EIGHT 40 AND THE ONGOING EFFORT TO MAINTAIN A FUNCTIONING DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM OR SHARES THE BROAD GOAL OF KEEPING THIS PROGRAM SUCCESSFUL.

BUT WE STRONGLY URGE THE CITY TO CONSIDER ALL OPTIONS OF BEGIN AS IT BEGINS THIS REVISION PROCESS IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, SPECIFICALLY IN STAFF'S OWN ANALYSIS, MEDIAN HEIGHT OF NEW DOWNTOWN TOWERS HAS RISEN FROM ROUGHLY 200 FEET AND 2010 TO OVER 520 FEET.

TODAY.

WE BELIEVE THAT SETTING A NEW 350 FOOT CAP WOULD THEREFORE SET THE BONUS THRESHOLD HEIGHT FAR BELOW WHAT THE LOCAL MARKET ALREADY BUILDS.

BECAUSE OF THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY.

BONUS INCENTIVES WOULD THEN START WELL BENEATH EXISTING MARKET HEIGHT.

IT MAY FAIL TO FUNCTION AS A TRUE INCENTIVE AND INSTEAD ACT AS A CONSTRAINT ON HOUSING SUPPLY IN THE CORE OF OUR CITY.

GIVEN THAT SENATE BILL EIGHT 40 REMOVED FAR LIMITS FOR MIXED USE AND MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS AND COMMERCIAL ZONES, WE BELIEVE AUSTIN'S RESPONSE SHOULD REFLECT THAT BY SETTING BASELINE ENTITLEMENTS THAT MATCH ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS, THE CITY WISHES TO PRESERVE A DENSITY BONUS STRUCTURE.

IT MUST ENSURE THAT PARTICIPATION GENERALLY PROVIDES ADDITIONAL CAPACITY AND PUBLIC BENEFIT, NOT MERELY PERMISSION TO BUILD PROJECTS.

WE ARE ALSO CONCERNED BY THE EXTREMELY PRESCRIPTIVE HEIGHT MAP PRESENTED BY STAFF.

RATHER THAN REFLECTING THE ORGANIC PATTERN OF DOWNTOWN GROWTH, IT PROPOSES A PATCHWORK OF ARBITRARY LINES THAT WOULD LOCK IN EXISTING DISPARITIES BETWEEN BLOCKS.

[00:30:01]

UM, THERE'S MORE AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS, BUT MY TIME'S UP.

UH, THANK YOU ALL.

OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS CONNIE BALLOU.

CONNIE, YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES.

YOU'LL TAP IT UNTIL IT TURNS GREEN.

SO I'M CONNIE BALLOU.

I LIVE DOWNTOWN AND I, UM, HAVE BEEN TO VANCOUVER MANY TIMES AND I WANT TO SAY THE BUILDING THAT THEY'RE BUILDING THAT HE SAID SO WONDERFULLY, THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE DON'T AGREE WITH THAT.

SO IF I CAN ASK JUST A SHOW OF HANDS, WHO LIVES DOWNTOWN THAT'S ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

DOES ANYBODY LIVE DOWNTOWN? OKAY, SO A SHOW OF HANDS WHO TOOK FIVE MINUTES TO GET HERE? 10 MINUTES, 15 MINUTES, 20 MINUTES.

I JUST WANNA SAY THAT PLANNING DOES NOT INCLUDE ONLY MONEY AND HOW MUCH WE CAN MAKE OFF OF IT.

IT DOES NOT INCLUDE ONLY HEIGHT AND HOW BIG WE CAN MAKE OUR BUILDINGS.

IT INCLUDES WHEN WE INCREASE THE DENSITY, IT CHANGES MANY THINGS.

HAVE WE TALKED ABOUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE? HAVE WE PLANNED ON THE INFRASTRUCTURE? HAVE WE TALKED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC AND PARKING? IT'S A LITTLE EMBARRASSING THAT PARKING WASN'T CONSIDERED BEFORE WHEN HE TALKS ABOUT PUBLIC TRANSIENT BEING THE HIGHEST IN AUSTIN THAN ANY PLACE IN TEXAS.

THAT JUST SPEAKS OF HOW POORLY TEXAS HAS MASS TRANSIT.

WE JUST DON'T HAVE ANY.

UM, WHAT ABOUT WATER CONCERNS OR CONCERNS? WHAT ABOUT THE QUALITY OF LIFE? I WANT YOU TO THINK ABOUT HOW TALLER BUILDINGS DON'T JUST INCREASE THE VALUE OF THE BUILDING, THEY ALSO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE.

THE NUMBER OF CARS THAT DRIVE THERE, THE NUMBER OF BUSES THAT ARE NEEDED THERE, THE NUMBER OF MASS TRANSIT LINES THAT ARE NEEDED.

SO I THINK WE SHOULD BE HERE PLANNING ABOUT A LIGHT RAIL THAT GOES TO BUTTA AND TO GEORGETOWN AND TO BASTROP SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE SO MUCH TRAFFIC HERE.

AND MAYBE SOME OF THAT LOW INCOME HOUSING OR AFFORDABLE HOUSING COULD BE BUILT OUTSIDE THE CITY AND EASILY ACCESS THE CITY.

WE DON'T HAVE TO LIVE RIGHT THERE TO HAVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

UM, I ALSO WANT TO ASK ALL OF YOU TO REFLECT ON WHY DO YOU LIVE IN AUSTIN? IF YOU WANT AUSTIN TO KEEP ITS SOUL, YOU CAN'T JUST THINK LET'S PLAN IT BIGGER, BIGGER, BETTER, BIGGER.

LET'S THINK ABOUT WHAT WE HAVE HERE AND WHAT ARE WE GIVING UP BY GIVING IT UP TO SAY WE JUST NEED MORE TALLER BUILDINGS AND MORE PEOPLE IN TOWN.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS CHAIR.

THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.

AND I WANNA RECOGNIZE COMMISSIONER HOWARD WHO'S HERE WITH US VIRTUALLY.

UM, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM.

IT'S THE MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER MAXWELL SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR HANEY.

WITHOUT OBJECTION, THAT ITEM PASSES.

SO NOW WE'LL MOVE INTO OUR ROUND ROBIN AND AS A REMINDER, WE WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL COMMISSIONERS TO ASK QUESTIONS ON THIS, UM, AT FIVE MINUTES EACH.

WHO WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THE FIRST QUESTIONS THOUGHT? YES.

COMMISSIONER POWELL.

AND I WILL ADD A LITTLE BIT CONTEXT TO THAT.

I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.

UM, FIRST OFF, THANKS FOR PREPARING THE PRESENTATION.

I RECOGNIZE THERE'S A, A VERY TIGHT TIMELINE TURNAROUND FOR YOU.

ALSO VERY GRATEFUL FOR THAT WORK.

UM, SO SPECIFICALLY ON GREAT STREETS, UM, I WAS AWARE THAT BASICALLY WE COULDN'T, FOR INSTANCE, MANDATE GREAT STREETS IMPROVEMENTS, UH, ACROSS THE BOARD FOR ANY DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT.

WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR US TO DO SO AT SAY A CERTAIN HEIGHT, MAYBE EVEN SOMETHING LOWER THAN THREE 50 TODAY? UM, OUTSIDE OF THE DENSITY BONUS OR PARTICIPATING IN THE DENSITY BONUS? I GUESS TECHNICALLY IT WOULD BE OUTSIDE.

SO SAY FOR EXAMPLE, MATING GREAT STREET DEVELOPMENT, UM, OR GREAT STREETS FOR DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE TWO 50 OR HIGHER.

UM, THAT IS, I KNOW IT COULD BE A BROAD QUESTION.

I APPRECIATE YOU STEVIE GREATHOUSE, DIVISION MANAGER.

UM, AND I'LL ATTEMPT TO TAKE A STAB AT THAT.

THAT WOULD DEFINITELY BE SORT OF ADDING NEW CONTENT IN TERMS OF THE STRUCTURE OF HOW THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ZONE WORKS RIGHT NOW.

UM, AND ADDING NEW CONTENT IN TERMS OF HOW OUR KIND OF TITLE SIX, UM, UH, STREETSCAPE AND TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENTS WORK RIGHT NOW.

MM-HMM .

UM, AND THE, THE BIGGEST SORT OF, UM, THING THAT NEEDS TO BE DEALT WITH WITH APPLYING STREETSCAPE REQUIREMENT REQUIREMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT IS REALLY MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE KIND OF STAYING TRUE TO THE ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY WORK THAT TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS, UM, HAS TO KIND OF MANAGE WHEN THEY'RE REQUIRING EXACTIONS, UM, OF STREETSCAPE REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT.

DON'T, LIKE WE WOULD NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT WITH OUR PARTNER DEPARTMENTS TO FIGURE OUT IF THERE'S A STRUCTURAL WAY WITHIN THE CODE TO ACHIEVE THAT KIND OF OUTSIDE OF THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM.

[00:35:01]

GREAT STREETS, FOR EXAMPLE, THING INCLUDES THINGS LIKE TREES AND STUFF THAT ARE OTHER.

RIGHT.

UH, DON'T, SO IT WOULD ALSO BE POTENTIALLY DIFFERENT IN THAT SENSE.

GOT IT.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT CONTEXT.

NOW THAT WAS A BROAD ONE, SO I APPRECIATE Y'ALL.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER POWELL? NO, THAT'S IT FOR MY QUESTIONS.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES, COMMISSIONER ROJAN.

UH, HELLO.

UH, ANOTHER QUESTION FOR STAFF.

WHEN IT COMES TO THE, UH, PROPOSED CAP AT 350 FEET AT THAT POINT, A DEVELOPER WOULD NEED TO, TO EXCEED THAT, THAT HEIGHT.

IS IT PURELY ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE DOWNTOWN DOWNTOWN DENSITY PROGRAM, BONUS PROGRAM? OR DO THEY ACTUALLY HAVE TO GO TO COUNCIL AT THAT POINT? UH, IF THEY'RE CBD ZONED AND THEY'RE TRYING TO GO ABOVE THE 350 FEET, UH, DEPENDING ON WHERE THEY ARE IN THE SUBDISTRICT MAP, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO TO COUNCIL IN MOST SITUATIONS.

THERE'S A FEW SCENARIOS WHERE THE HEIGHT MAP HAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF 400 FEET OF HEIGHT.

AND IF YOU ARE CVD IN THAT SUBDISTRICT THAT EXISTS WITH 400 FEET, YOU COULD GO ADMINISTRATIVELY UP TO 400 AND THEN HAVE TO GO TO COUNCIL FOR ANYTHING ABOVE THAT.

SO IT WOULD DEPEND A LITTLE BIT WHERE YOU'RE MAPPED.

UM, BUT YES, YOU WOULD LIKELY HAVE TO GO TO COUNCIL FOR, FOR APPROVAL AS MOST OF MENTS DO.

AND THAT WOULD BE THE SAME AS IT WAS BEFORE WITH THE EIGHT TO ONE FAR.

SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT IN, IN SOME SENSE.

SO THERE'S, THERE'S AGAIN, A SUB-DISTRICT MAP FOR WHAT IS APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY, AND THAT GOES FROM EIGHT TO ONE TO 15 TO ONE TO 25 TO ONE DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, AREAS.

THOSE CAN BE APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY.

AND THEN IF YOU WANNA EXCEED THOSE, YOU WOULD GO TO COUNCIL.

UM, YEAH.

ALRIGHT.

UM, AND JUST A QUICK QUESTION.

IS IT FEASIBLE FOR AN AMENDMENT LIKE THIS TO HAVE AN EXPIRATION DATE? YOU WOULD NEED TO SPECIFY WHAT'S HAPPENING AT THAT EXPIRATION DATE, , UM, WHICH IS THE BIGGER CHALLENGE.

AND I, IN TERMS OF, UM, REGULATIONS THAT ACTUALLY APPLY ON THE GROUND TO PROPERTIES, THERE'S VESTING RIGHTS AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT GET MIXED IN THERE TOO, THAT WOULD AFFECT YOUR ABILITY TO KIND OF TURN BACK THE CLOCK ON ENTITLEMENTS THAT SOMEBODY, UM, HAS.

SO, UH, UH, I CAN, I CAN COME OUT WITH IT IF THAT'S EASIER.

UM, BASICALLY THE QUESTION IS RELATED TO THE FACT THAT THERE IS A PUSH TO INSTALL A TRIGGER TO REINSTATE THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM RIGHT NOW.

AND THAT'S WHAT THIS AMENDMENT IS ADDRESSING.

THERE IS ALSO PRESSURE FROM THE COMMUNITY, UM, AND FROM, UH, OTHER, UH, CONSTITUENTS TO REVISIT THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY PROGRAM IN GENERAL.

AND THAT THIS STOP GAPP MEASURE FEELS LIKE A RUSHED MEASURE.

AND THE QUESTION IS, WE CAN ASSUME THAT IN THE BACKUP THAT WE RECEIVED, THAT THERE IS GONNA BE A REVISITING OF THIS IN 2026, BUT THAT ALSO COULD GET PUSHED DOWN THE ROAD AS THINGS DO.

SO THE PUTTING A TIME LIMIT ON THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT WOULD TRIGGER STAFF TO NEED TO REVISIT THIS WITHIN A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME.

YEAH, AND I THINK IN TERMS OF AMENDMENTS TO OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT APPLY TO ENTITLEMENTS, SO IF YOU WANT IT TO PUT A, YOU KNOW, PUT 350 FEET ON THE BOOKS AS A CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AMENDMENT, AND THEN I DON'T THINK YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO DO AN AUTOMATED TRIGGER THAT REPEALED THAT.

I THINK WE WOULD STILL NEED TO, YOU COULD PROVIDE DIRECTION, UM, TO COME BACK, BUT I THINK THE AMENDMENT TO REMOVE THAT 350 FOOT HIGH LIMIT BACK OUT OF THE CODE WOULD NEED TO GO THROUGH THE NOTIFICATION AND CODE AMENDMENT PROCESS BECAUSE IT'S A LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT RELATED TO ENTITLEMENTS.

THANKS COMMISSIONER ROEN.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES, COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE.

SO, SO THE STATUS QUO RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE IT WENT INTO EFFECT SEPTEMBER 1ST RIGHT, EXACTLY.

UH, A QUESTION FOR STAFF.

THANK YOU, CHAIR OF I, UH, LISTENING TO THE PRESENTATION AND, AND COMMUNITY INPUT.

UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE EMBARKING ON A MORE COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO THE DOWNTOWN PROGRAM, AND I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT WE NEED, SOUNDS LIKE WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING, THIS IS WHY IT'S COME TO US TODAY IMMEDIATELY.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN SORT OF THE PROCESS FOR ME AND I THINK FOR OTHER FOLKS IN THE COMMUNITY TO UNDERSTAND THAT IF WE DO NOTHING, IS THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM DEAD BECAUSE OF SB EIGHT 40? UM, IT WOULD NO LONGER FUNCTION FOR CBD BASED ZONE.

UM, YES, YOU WOULD HAVE NO REAL REASON TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS IF YOU HAD CBD ZONING.

UM, THERE ARE STILL DMU SITES AS PART OF THE DOWNTOWN AREA THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE, BUT THEY COULD ALSO REQUEST CBD ZONING.

UM, SO IT COULD ESSENTIALLY, UH, MAKE THE DENSITY BONUS NOT VERY USEFUL.

[00:40:01]

IS THAT THERE'S, THERE'S NO INCENTIVE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY TO PARTICIPATE.

CORRECT.

UH, THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR NOW, CHAIR.

COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE? YES, COMMISSIONER LAN.

THANKS.

GOOD AFTERNOON.

I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.

UM, I WANT TO KNOW A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

ONE IS, HOW DID THE STAFF ARRIVE AT THE 350 FEET? HAS THIS BEEN, HAS THIS BEEN VETTED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY? AND THE SECOND QUESTION IS, HOW MUCH WOULD THE HOUSING TRUST FUND STAND TO LOSE IF, LIKE, UH, COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE SAID IF WE DO NOTHING OVER FROM NOW UNTIL 2026 WHEN THE CITY UPDATES THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN PLAN AND THE DENSITY BONUS? UM, SO THE, THE NUMBER WAS SELECTED AGAIN BY LOOKING AT WHAT DEVELOPMENTS WERE WERE OCCURRING AND TRYING TO CREATE A LITTLE BIT OF THAT BUFFER THAT I MENTIONED TO ACCOUNT, FOR EXAMPLE, PARKING NOT BEING EXISTED.

AND ALSO ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THIS IS A, A DIFFERENT TYPE OF HEIGHT LIMIT.

IT DOESN'T, YOU KNOW, A MEDIAN IS NOT A MEDIAN FOR EVERYONE, SO IT VARIES A LITTLE BIT.

SO WE WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF GROWTH THERE THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN AND TO ALLOW FOR THAT DEVELOPMENT TO CONTINUE TO FUNCTION.

UM, AS FAR AS FEE AND LOSE, THAT WOULD BE LOST.

IT IS OBVIOUSLY HARD TO QUANTIFY BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PROJECTS OR WHICH PROJECTS WOULD BE PARTICIPATING.

UM, BUT IT WOULD BE ESSENTIALLY ANY PROJECT THAT SUBMITS AN APPLICATION FOR, FOR, UH, A DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN NOW AND WHENEVER, SAY A NEW PROGRAM WAS CREATED IN 2026 WOULD NOT HAVE TO, UH, YOU KNOW, WOULD BE VESTED AND WOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY THE FEE IN NEW.

AND THERE IS, UM, INFORMATION AND I BELIEVE THE AFFORDABILITY IMPACT STATEMENT IS IN BACKUP FOR THE MEETING THIS EVENING, HAS SOME INFORMATION ON KIND OF A PROTOTYPE BUILDING AND WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IN FEE AND LOU WOULD BE, UM, BASED ON THESE REGULATIONS FOR A SINGLE BUILDING.

UM, BUT TO ALAN'S POINT, WE HAVEN'T DONE ANALYSIS ON WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE, UM, WRIT LARGE ACROSS REDEVELOPMENT OF DOWNTOWN.

'CAUSE YOU'D HAVE TO MAKE A LOT OF ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT SORT OF REDEVELOPMENT OF DOWNTOWN TO GET TO THAT ANALYSIS.

AND JUST TO FOLLOW UP, HAS THIS BEEN REVIEWED WITH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOP OR THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY? UM, THERE HAVE BEEN CONVERSATIONS AT THE EXECUTIVE LEVEL SO THAT IT IS HOPEFULLY NOT A SURPRISE TO SOME OF THE SIGNIFICANT PLAYERS IN THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY.

UM, WE HAVE NOT, AND WE DO HAVE HAD A SPEAKUP PAGE, UM, THAT HAS, HAS BEEN OUT THERE.

WE DID SEND AS REQUIRED UNDER, UM, STATE LAW AND KIND OF OUR OWN, UH, LEGAL INTERPRETATION OF BASED ON PAST COURT CASES.

WE DID SEND PROPERTY SPECIFIC NOTIFICATION, UM, MAILED NOTIFICATION OUT TO FOLKS.

UM, ALSO, ACTUALLY THIS WAS OUR FIRST POST HOUSE BILL 24, UH, NOTIFICATION.

SO THERE WAS A SIGN THAT WAS POSTED JUST OUTSIDE THIS BUILDING, UM, WHEN THAT NOTICE WENT UP AS WELL.

UM, SO THAT INFORMATION HAS BEEN OUT THERE.

WE DID NOT DO SORT OF AN EXTENSIVE ITERATIVE REVIEW PROCESS LIKE WE MIGHT DO WITH CODE AMENDMENTS WHERE WE HAVE A BIT MORE TIME.

UM, BECAUSE FRANKLY STAFF'S POINT OF VIEW IS WE NEEDED TO HAVE HAD THIS IN EFFECT PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 1ST.

UM, AND IF WE, IF WE DELAY THE WORK, I THINK OUR RECOMMENDATION WOULD LIKELY BE TO, TO HANDLE, UM, THE CONVERSATION AS PART OF THE LARGER, MORE COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS, UM, THAT WILL HAVE ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS AND CONSIDERABLE STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT, UM, THROUGH THE WORK ON THE CENTRAL CITY PLAN.

COMMISSIONER LON? YES, COMMISSIONER AHMED.

THANKS.

I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS HERE.

UM, FIRST OF ALL, CHANGING THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY PROGRAM FROM, UH, EIGHT TO ONE, UM, OR, UM, YEAH, GOING FROM, UH, UH, EIGHT TO ONE FAR BASE ZONING TO A 350 FOOT, UH, MAX HEIGHT, UH, BASE ZONING.

UH, HAVE YOU GUYS DONE ANY ANALYSIS IN TERMS OF THE PROPO, UH, THE, UM, PROJECTED IMPACT ON HOUSING SUPPLY FROM THESE CHANGES? BECAUSE I CAN SEE ARGUMENTS BOTH WAYS WHERE, UM, YOU KNOW, RELAXING THE BASE ZONING A BIT MIGHT, UH, CAUSE MORE CONSTRUCTION, UH, POTENTIALLY, BUT ALSO, UH, THE FACT THAT, UH, NOW YOU CAN BUILD UP TO 350 FEET WITHOUT, UM, HAVING TO, UH, GET, WITHOUT HAVING TO USE THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM.

YOU MIGHT HAVE A LOT OF DEVELOPERS INCENTIVIZED TO JUST BUILD UP TO THAT IF THAT IS ENOUGH TO MAKE THE, UH, NUMBERS WORK.

WHEREAS THE PREVIOUS, UH, UH, EIGHT TO ONE FAR WAS NOT ENOUGH, UH, TO KIND OF MAKE THE NUMBERS WORK.

SO I'M WONDERING, UH, IF YOU GUYS HAVE DONE ANY STUDIES TO SEE HOW THIS MIGHT END UP IMPACTING HOUSING SUPPLY OVERALL.

UM, WE, WE DIDN'T DO ANY KIND OF COMPREHENSIVE STUDY FOR THE AREA ABOUT

[00:45:01]

THAT.

HOWEVER, WE AGAIN LOOKED AT KIND OF THAT BUFFER OF INCLUDING PARKING WITH THE BASE EQUIVALENT OF 220.

UM, AND FOR MEDIUM PARKING, IT ENDS UP BEING AROUND 300 FEET WOULD BE THE EQUIVALENT.

REALLY.

WE FIND THAT THE DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE OCCURRING WOULD LIKELY CONTINUE TO OCCUR AT WHATEVER HEIGHT THEY WERE ALREADY PLANNING.

THE FEE IN LIEU FOR THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS IS QUITE MINUTE IN COMPARISON TO THE BUDGET OF A ACTUAL MASSIVE DEVELOPMENT, UH, IN THE AREA.

AND SO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SAY A $2 MILLION FEE THAT MIGHT HAVE OCCURRED ON AUGUST 31ST AND SAY NOW A $1 MILLION FEE IN LIEU THAT MIGHT OCCUR WITH A NEW PROPOSED HEIGHT IS ONE ALREADY A LITTLE BIT OF A BENEFIT FOR THE DEVELOPER, BUT IT'S NOT A GRAND SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN THE, THE SCHEME OF THEIR, THE, THE BUDGET OF A, OF A PROJECT OF THESE SCALE.

SO WILL THERE BE SOME PROJECTS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN BUILDING TO 375 OR, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND DECIDE TO SCALE BACK A LITTLE BIT MAYBE.

BUT IF YOU WERE ALREADY PLANNING ON GOING TOLERATE IT IS UNLIKELY YOU WILL STOP AT THREE 50, UM, BASED ON THE FEE AND LIEU THAT YOU, YOU KNOW, YOU WOULD HAVE TO PAY.

YEAH, AND I WOULD JUST ADD TO THAT JUST BASED ON THE OBSERVATIONAL INFORMATION FROM WHAT WAS HAPPENING IN DEVELOPMENT WITH USING THE DENSITY BONUS PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 1ST OF THIS YEAR, AND THE CHART THAT ALAN SHARED IN THE SLIDE DECK SHOWING KIND OF HEIGHTS CONTINUING TO INCREASE THE AVERAGE BUILDING HEIGHTS THAT WE WERE SEEING WERE MORE LIKE 5, 6, 700 FOOT HEIGHTS.

THE PREVIOUS LIMITATION IN CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PRIOR TO APRIL OR PRIOR TO AUGUST 31ST WAS EIGHT TO ONE, WHICH WAS EQUIVALENT TO ABOUT 220 FEET OF HEIGHT.

WE WOULD EXPECT, UM, WITH PUTTING A 350 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT AS THE THRESHOLD THAT WE WOULD CONTINUE TO SEE THE KINDS OF DEVELOPMENT THAT WE WERE SEEING, UM, PRIOR TO AUGUST 31ST, UH, ONCE THE MARKET IS SUPPORTING THAT DEVELOPMENT.

BUT JUST TO REITERATE TO THE QUESTION THAT COMMISSIONER LAMB HAD, UH, YOU HAVEN'T ACTUALLY CHECKED WITH DEVELOPERS TO CONFIRM THAT, RIGHT? CORRECT.

UH, THE NEXT QUESTION THAT I HAVE IS, UM, THE RECOMMENDATION THAT, UH, I BELIEVE, UH, MR. ROGER COVIN HAD, UH, ABOUT, UM, MOVING AWAY FROM THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY PROGRAM AND INSTEAD, UH, HAVING NO HEIGHT RESTRICTION AND HAVING ADDITIONAL PROPERTY TAX DOLLARS THAT ARE GENERATED FROM THAT, UH, FUNNELED IN PART, UH, TO, UH, FUNDING FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

UM, I BELIEVE THAT WAS A HOUSING TRUST FUND THAT HE WAS REFERRING TO, UH, THAT HE SAID HAD A PRECEDENT FROM A COUPLE DECADES AGO.

HAS THE CITY LOOKED INTO THE POSSIBILITY OF THAT, UH, ON WHETHER SOMETHING LIKE THAT COULD WORK? SO THE CITY CURRENTLY UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE, UM, IS LOOKING AT KIND OF ALL OF OUR TOOLKIT OF HOUSING INCENTIVES AND WHAT WE MIGHT DO TO, UM, ADD TOOLS TO THE TOOLBOX MOVING FORWARD.

UM, AND EXPECTS TO BE ABLE TO, TO, UM, DO SORT OF ANALYSIS AND ENGAGEMENT AND POTENTIALLY BRING BACK SOME RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE SPRING.

UM, I WILL SAY THAT WE HAVE DEFINITELY IN THE PAST LOOKED AT KIND OF NOTIONS OF WHAT, HOW MIGHT YOU, UM, UH, USE INNOVATIVE FUNDING TOWARDS AFFORDABILITY.

AND THERE IS NO MAGIC BULLET.

THERE MAY BE, UM, AND WE HOPE THAT THERE WILL BE TOOLS THAT WE CAN RECOMMEND AND THAT WE WOULD MOVE FORWARD TO POTENTIALLY DEVELOP IN THE FUTURE, BUT THERE'S, THERE IS NOTHING THAT WE COULD DO RIGHT NOW TO KIND OF PUT IN PLACE, UM, THAT KIND OF INNOVATIVE FUNDING WITHOUT QUITE A BIT OF WORK.

THANKS, COMMISSIONER AHMED.

OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER BRETTON, GO AHEAD.

OKAY, I HAVE A COUPLE.

UM, SO FOR FIAN LU, UH, LOOKING AT THE BACK VERY BRIEFLY, UH, I NOTICED THAT, UH, THERE WAS A CALL OUT THAT SAID THAT THIS HAD PRODUCED THE MOST, UH, FUNDING OUT OF ALL OF OUR DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS. UM, IS THAT JUST A REFERENCE TO THE ACTUAL DOLLAR AMOUNT OR IS THAT IN REFERENCE TO PER UNIT? IT CREATES THE MOST, UH, FEE IN LIE OR OVER THE PROGRAM'S HISTORY.

IT'S CREATED THE MOST FUNDING OVER THE HISTORY, BUT TOTAL, TOTAL DOLLAR AMOUNT.

UM, AND OBVIOUSLY A BIG COMPONENT OF THAT IS THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS ALLOWS FOR FEE AND LU IN MOST PLACES EXCEPT FOR RAINY.

YOU HAVE A VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE THAT IS REQUIRED ON SITE VERSUS A LOT OF OUR OTHER PROGRAMS ARE A LOT MORE INCLINED TOWARDS REQUIRING, UH, UNITS ON SITE.

SO THAT OBVIOUSLY CHANGES A LITTLE BIT.

THE DYNAMIC OF HOW MANY FEES IN LIEU ARE WHEN YOU'RE COMPARING TO DIFFERENT PROGRAMS IS, BUT IT HAS GENERATED THE MOST IS THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM, OUR LONGEST LASTING CONTINUOUS DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM THAT ALLOWS FOR FEE IN LIEU.

I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK BACK AT THE HISTORY FROM PROBABLY WHAT

[00:50:01]

I, FROM, FROM WHAT I SAW IN THE BACKUP.

IT'S BEEN IN EXISTENCE IN 2006.

YEAH, I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT IF THERE'S ANYTHING OLDER THAN THAT, WHICH I HONESTLY DON'T RECALL.

UM, OKAY.

I HAVE A, UH, QUESTION ABOUT GREAT STREETS.

UH, WHEN DO WE REQUIRE GREAT STREETS TODAY FOR WHAT DEVELOPMENTS? SO GREAT STREETS IS A GATEKEEPER REQUIREMENT TO GAIN ACCESS TO THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM.

SO IF YOU ARE A PROJECT GOING THROUGH THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM, YOU NEED TO PROVIDE GREAT STREETS COMPLIANT WITH THE GREAT STREETS PLAN IN ORDER TO ACCESS THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM.

UM, IN OTHER CASES, GREAT STREETS IS, UM, THE REQUIREMENTS IF FOLKS ARE PARTICIPATING WITH THE CITY AND A CITY CONTRIBUTED PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP, STREETSCAPE ENHANCEMENT, UM, AND THOSE GREAT STREET STANDARDS APPLY TO THAT.

THE GREAT STREET STANDARDS ARE ALSO GUIDANCE FOR CITY CIP PROJECTS, BUT WE DON'T TYPICALLY REQUIRE GREAT STREETS CURRENTLY OF ANY PROJECTS THAT AREN'T PARTICIPATING IN THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS.

AND JUST TO REFRESH MY MEMORY, THAT, UH, THE, UH, THRESHOLD FOR THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM IS IF YOU WANT TO GO OVER EIGHT TO ONE FAR FOR CBD ZONED, UH, CORRECT, YES.

I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.

UM, UH, OR NOW, UH, IF THESE AMENDMENTS WERE TO PASS, WHEN WOULD WE REQUIRE GREAT STREETS? IT WOULD BE ABOVE THE 350 FOOT REQUIREMENT OR, UH, MAX FOR CBD ZONED LOTS, CORRECT? CORRECT, YES.

IF YOU'RE CBD DOING A RESIDENTIAL OR MUL, OR SORRY, RESIDENTIAL OR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, YOU WOULD BE ABOVE THREE 50 FEET.

IF YOU WERE FULLY COMMERCIAL, YOU WOULD STILL HAVE THE EIGHT TO ONE FAR TRIGGER AS WELL.

SO IT WOULD BE EITHER OR WHICHEVER YOU HIT FIRST PER SE.

UM, UH, OKAY.

SEPARATE TOPIC.

UH, HOW WAS THE SUBDISTRICT MAP FOR THE FAR UH, DEVELOPED? IT WAS CREATED WITH THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM YEARS AGO.

WE DID NOT REVISE IT EXCEPT FOR THERE WAS THREE SUB-DISTRICTS THAT HAD NO LIMIT LIST LISTED AS THE HEIGHT.

UM, LAW HAD SOME CONCERNS ABOUT HAVING NO LIMIT LISTED ON THOSE, AND SO WE ADDED THE 350 FEET, WHICH IS THE, THE PROPOSED HEIGHT FOR THOSE SUBDISTRICTS.

SO YOU WOULD GO TO COUNCIL TO GO ABOVE THAT.

20 10, 20 11, 20 11 SOMEWHERE.

AND THAT MAP WAS DEVELOPED WHEN EXACTLY THAT MAP WAS DEVELOPED AS PART OF THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS, AS PART OF OUR ORIGINAL CREATION OF THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN PLAN, WHICH IS WHAT WE WILL BE DOING OVER THE NEXT YEAR, IS HOPEFULLY UPDATING THAT THE CENTRAL, THE CENTRAL CITY PLANNING DISTRICT COMING UP WITH NEW SUB-DISTRICTS THAT REFLECT THE REALITY OF AUSTIN TODAY.

THAT WILL THEN, UM, BE WHAT WE WOULD USE, ASSUMING WE ARE CONTINUING WITH THE NOTION OF A DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS, WHAT WOULD WE WOULD BE USING IN THE REGULATORY WORK FOR THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS MOVING FORWARD.

UH, WELL, IT IS USED CURRENTLY AS OUR SUBDISTRICT MAP, UH, TODAY OR WELL BEFORE SEPTEMBER 1ST.

UM, IT WAS DEVELOPED BACK WHEN WE FIRST DID THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN PLAN IN 2010.

RIGHT, RIGHT AHEAD OF IT.

IT WAS PREDATED IMAGINE AUSTIN.

WHICH IS ALREADY, YOU KNOW, 13 YEARS OLD.

UM, YES, YES.

UM, OKAY THEN THAT ANSWERS THE FOLLOWING QUESTION I HAD ABOUT THE SPREAD OF THE DIFFERENT FAR UH, REQUIREMENTS.

I BELIEVE, THIS IS MY LAST QUESTION.

SO THE 350 FEET HEIGHT LIMIT SEEMS TO BE THE MEDIAN HEIGHT FOR THE BUILDINGS OF THE 2010S.

UM, GATHERING THAT THIS IS, YOU KNOW, THIS DECADES BUILDINGS GET TO AROUND 500 FEET IS SORT OF THE MEDIAN.

DO WE EXPECT DEVELOPMENT OF BUILDINGS ABOVE 500 FEET TO BE CHILLED, UH, FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS? SORRY, DID YOU SAY CHILLED? CHILLED? CAN YOU CLARIFY WHAT THAT MEANS? LESS LIKELY TO HAPPEN? UH, I WOULD SAY IT'S REALLY MARKET CONDITIONS THAT ARE GONNA DRIVE, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPMENT MOVING FORWARD.

UH, WE HAVE SEEN THAT THE TREND TOWARDS HIGHER HEIGHTS AND DEVELOPMENTS, UM, I WOULD ANTICIPATE THAT TO CONTINUE, OBVIOUSLY CURRENT MARKET CONDITIONS IN GENERAL ARE NOT VERY CONDUCIVE FOR DEVELOPMENT AT ALL.

UM, BUT AS DEVELOPMENT DOES OCCUR, I WOULD ANTICIPATE THERE WOULD CONTINUE TO BE ABOVE, YOU KNOW, OR CONTINUING TO GROW IN HEIGHT.

THANKS COMMISSIONER BRETTON.

AND THANK YOU FOR Y'ALL'S WORK.

COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? YES.

UM, SO I WAS WONDERING IF I COULD HAVE THE MAP PULLED UP THAT COMMISSIONER BRENTON WAS JUST REFERRING TO, IT'S IN THE PRESIDENT STAFF PRESENTATION, BUT THE, OR ACTUALLY I THINK IT'S IN THE BACKUP, MAYBE IN THE ORDINANCE.

UM, AND THE SPECIFIC QUESTION I WAS GONNA ASK TWO THINGS.

FIRST OF ALL, I WANTED TO CLARIFY THE GATEKEEPER REQUIREMENTS AS THEY CURRENTLY EXIST ARE NOT CHANGING AND NONE OF THAT IS TOUCHED IN THE ORDINANCE, IT'S NOT IN THE RED LINES.

AND I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF WE FELT LIKE THAT THAT NEEDED TO BE CONFIRMED IN THE RED LINES SO

[00:55:01]

THAT IT WAS CLEAR THAT UNDER THE NEW RULES, THE GATEKEEPER REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT CHANGING.

YEAH, THE GATEKEEPER REQUIREMENTS ARE ABSOLUTELY STAYING IN AND NOT CHANGING.

THE RED LINE IS HIGHLIGHTING WHAT WOULD BE CHANGING.

UM, AND WE CAN WORK WITH LAWS, THEY PREPARE THE FINAL ORDINANCE MOVING FORWARD TO CLARIFY WHAT IS STILL STAYING, I, I THINK IT WOULD JUST MAKE US FEEL A LITTLE SAFER.

AND THEN I GUESS RELATED TO THIS IS, UM, I'M ACTUALLY LOOKING FOR A DIFFERENT, IT'S IN THE ORDINANCE, IN THE BACKUP, IT HAS ALL THE DIFFERENT SUBDISTRICT MAPS AND IF I, HOPEFULLY YOU CAN FIND IT.

I THINK THAT CAUSES A LOT OF CONCERNS FOR FOLKS, ESPECIALLY AS WE DO MAYBE HAVE SOME BUILDINGS THAT WOULD END UP DOING JUST BELOW THREE 50 AND THEREFORE WOULDN'T HAVE TO DO GREAT STREETS BECAUSE THAT'S INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WE JUST CAN'T GET BACK.

IS THERE A CONCERN THAT, IS THERE A GOOD WAY THAT WE COULD POTENTIALLY ADDRESS THAT? I THINK THAT THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HAVE DURING THE CENTRAL CITY UPDATE, THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WILL BE ONGOING DURING THE KIND OF UPDATE OF THE GREAT STREETS PLAN AND KIND OF OUR DISCUSSIONS AS PART OF AUSTIN CORE TRANSPORTATION PLAN.

LIKE THERE IS A, A VENN DIAGRAM OF ALL OF THREE OF THOSE EFFORTS, UM, THAT WE COULD LOOK AT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE, UM, PUTTING IN PLACE, UH, SORT OF MORE GREAT STREETS, COMPLIANCE STREETS AND MORE PLACES IN DOWNTOWN.

UM, BUT I MEAN, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS THAT THAT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN AGAIN FOR A YEAR.

SO THEN WE MIGHT GET 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 PROJECTS THIS YEAR THAT WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO DO GREAT STREETS BECAUSE WE DIDN'T ADDRESS THE DELTA.

YEAH, THAT IS A RISK.

AND THEN I GUESS RELATED TO THIS QUESTION, SO THIS IS MOVING ON TO ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS.

UM, I, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE IF YOU ARE IN THE, SOME OF THESE SUBDISTRICTS, AND I KNOW IT'S PROBABLY HARD TO READ, BUT SAY YOU ARE IN THE 25 TO ONE CURRENTLY THAT'S THREE 50 IS LISTED UNDERNEATH THERE, THAT MEANS YOU HAVE TO GO TO SPEAK TO, TO, YOU HAVE TO GET COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR YOUR, YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS ABOVE THREE 50.

IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT, YES.

IF YOU ARE, YOU KNOW, GOING ABOVE YOUR HEIGHT WITH A RESIDENTIAL OR MIXED USE PROJECT AND YOU, I GO ABOVE THREE 50, WOULD GO TO COUNCIL AND, UH, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT IN SOME OF THESE SITES YOU WOULD ACTUALLY BE LOOKING AT MORE LIKE SIX OR 700 FEET CURRENTLY WITH ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL, NOT COUNCIL REQUIRED APPROVAL.

YEAH, THE, THE EQUIVALENT FOR A 25 TO ONE FAR RATIO IS SOMEWHERE IN THE 650 TO 700, YOU KNOW, RANGE.

SO AGAIN, WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS DELTA BETWEEN WHAT EXISTS CURRENTLY AND WHAT'S GONNA BE APPROVED IF WE'D MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS AS PROPOSED IN THE RED LINES.

I GUESS THERE'S JUST A CONCERN THAT WE'RE INSERTING COUNCIL REQUIREMENT INTO SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL.

IS THERE SOME FLEXIBILITY TO LOOK AT THAT DELTA AGAIN BETWEEN THREE 50 AND SAY SIX 50? SO WE WOULD DEFINITELY NEED TO CONSULT WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT BECAUSE THEY WERE WHO WE SORT OF CONSULTED WITH TO DEVELOP THIS PROPOSAL.

AND, AND THE, THE ISSUE IS JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE SORT OF, UM, MODIFYING AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE WHILE STILL PROVIDING, UH, LIMITS TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL.

UM, BUT WE COULD CERTAINLY KIND OF ENTERTAIN AN AMENDMENT AND WORK WITH LAW DEPARTMENT TO SEE IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE, THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO INCLUDE IN THE ORDINANCE.

YEAH, I MEAN I GUESS I JUST AM CONCERNED BECAUSE SOME FOLKS HAVE BEEN THINKING THEY HAVE 25 TO ONE AND THAT THEY WOULDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO GET COUNCIL APPROVAL IF THEY, IF THEY DID THE GATEKEEPER REQUIREMENTS AND PARTICIPATED AND PAID THE FEE IN LIEU AND NOW SUDDENLY THEY'RE LOOKING AT WHAT BASICALLY COULD BE CONSIDERED A DOWN ZONING.

AND THAT SEEMS CONCERNING, ESPECIALLY AGAIN, IF WE MIGHT GET SIX OR SEVEN PROJECTS IN THE NEXT YEAR.

YEAH, WE UNDERSTAND THAT FEEDBACK , UM, AND ARE DEFINITELY HAPPY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A, A ADDITIONAL CONVERSATION PRIOR TO WORKING WITH LAW AND ORDINANCE DEVELOPMENT.

OKAY, GREAT.

UM, AND THEN I GUESS THE LAST QUESTION IS THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE THE CENTRAL, I GUESS THE CORE AUSTIN CORE PLAN THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, UM, AND THAT'S GONNA REDO A LOT OF THESE DISTRICTS.

IS IT ALSO, AS YOU SAID, GOING TO BRING TOGETHER SORT OF ALL OF THESE DENSITY BONUS? I GUESS I'M JUST CURIOUS, WHAT ARE WE LOOKING AT FOR NEXT YEAR? WILL IT ACTUALLY SOLVE ALL THE ISSUES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ? AND SORT OF GETTING THAT REASSURANCE I THINK MIGHT HELP A LOT OF FOLKS.

UM, WE, WE ARE LOOKING AT A COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO THE PROGRAM ITSELF.

UM, AND SO THAT WILL BE LOOKING AT THE SUB-DISTRICTS, THE HEIGHTS, THE BONUSES, THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THE COMPONENTS ESSENTIALLY OF THE, THE PROGRAM AND, AND ANY OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS THAT MIGHT BE AVAILABLE FOR THE PROGRAM ITSELF.

UM, SO YEAH, AND, AND THAT WOULD BE DONE IN CON IN CONCERT WITH SOMETHING LIKE THE ACT PLAN, THE PROJECT CONNECT WORK, ALL OF THAT.

BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THAT'S THE OTHER THING IS THIS IS NOT LOOKING AT ANY, WE'RE TRYING TO FIX ONE SPECIFIC THING, BUT THERE'S LOTS OF OTHER ISSUES WE'RE LOOKING AT IN DOWNTOWN.

THANKS, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.

THE GOAL WOULD BE TO BE ALIGNING THE UPDATE WITH EVERYTHING ELSE GOING ON IN THE AREA AS WELL AS LIKE THE CENTRAL CITY WILL BE DOING THE SAME, UH, VISION PLANNING FOR THE AREA, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE OTHER PROGRAMS THAT ARE OCCURRING.

AND, SORRY, NOT TO GIVE YOU A BUT TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT, BUT I ASSUME THAT THERE'S GONNA BE PUBLIC INPUT AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK MORE ABOUT THIS .

YES, AND THERE, THERE WILL BE OUR FIRST OPEN HOUSE FOR THE DISTRICT PLAN, UH, COMING UP IN THE MIDDLE OF NOVEMBER.

I DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC DATE QUITE YET.

UH, ISHA CAN PROBABLY ANSWER THAT AT SOME POINT, , UH, BUT THERE WILL BE COMMUNICATION GOING OUT TO STAKEHOLDERS IN THE AREA, UM, ABOUT KIND OF THE, THE START OF THAT PROGRAM FOR

[01:00:01]

THE DISTRICT.

WELL, I THINK THAT IS GREAT TO HEAR THAT YOU GUYS ARE ALREADY STARTING TO WORK ON THE NEXT PHASE OF THIS.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE APPRECIATE IT.

OTHER QUESTIONS? DID YOU HAVE SOME ? OKAY.

I WILL JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION THAT KIND OF PIGGYBACKS OFF OF COMMISSIONER MAXWELL'S QUESTIONS, WHICH IS, IS THERE A REASON THAT WE NEED TO REMOVE THE CURRENT THRESHOLD IN THE CBD, WHETHER IT'S 25 TO ONE OR I KNOW IT'S DIFFERENT IN DIFFERENT SECTIONS THAT MAKES THIS SWITCH FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL PROCESS TO A COUNCIL APPROVAL PROCESS? OR COULD WE, COULD WE NOT LEAVE THAT THRESHOLD IN PLACE AND STILL HAVE THE 350 FOOT HEIGHT CAP? SO YOU, THE, THE MAP WHERE IT SAYS THREE 50 NOW, THE CURRENT VERSION SAYS NO LIMIT.

SO THAT IS DEFINITELY A BIG CONCERN FOR LAW OF HAVING STAFF BE ABLE TO APPROVE A, A UNLIMITED, UH, HEIGHT ADMINISTRATIVELY.

SO THERE DOES NEED TO BE A CAP.

I THINK THE NUMBER CAN BE DISCUSSED.

I KNOW LAW HAD SOME CONCERNS ABOUT A, ANY DIS, UH, ABILITY FOR, FOR STAFF TO DO ADMINISTRATIVELY, WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE THE 350 LISTED.

HOWEVER, YOU KNOW, WE'RE HAPPY TO CONTINUE THAT CONVERSATION WITH LAW.

IF, IF THERE IS A RECOMMENDATION TO PROVIDE A DIFFERENT LIMIT FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE RULE THAT'S HELPFUL.

DOES IT, DOES THAT CAP NEED TO BE A HEIGHT CAP OR COULD IT BE AN FAR CAP? NO, SO FAR WOULD NO LONGER, WELL, 2025 TO ONE REMAINS BECAUSE THAT WILL STILL APPLY TO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS.

IF YOU'RE RESIDENTIAL OR MULTIFAMILY, YOU ESSENTIALLY IGNORE FAR AT THIS POINT BECAUSE STENT BILL EIGHT 40 DOES NOT ALLOW THE CITY TO REGULATE FAR SO FAR DOES NOT MATTER FOR A RESIDENTIAL OR MIXED USE PROJECT.

ALL THAT MATTERS IS, IS THE HEIGHT.

SO THAT'S WHY THERE IS BOTH NUMBERS AND BOTH NEED TO REMAIN IN SOME SENSE.

BUT THAT 25 TO ONE ISN'T NECESSARILY A, AN ENTITLEMENT, IT'S A THRESHOLD BETWEEN, IT'S A, IT'S A PROCESS THRESHOLD.

IT'S HOW FAR YOU CAN GO ADMINISTRATIVELY.

AND THEN BEYOND THAT, YOU WOULD GO TO COUNCIL AS WELL.

BUT IS OUR INTERPRETATION OF SB EIGHT 40 THAT WE CAN'T HAVE THAT.

IT JUST DOESN'T APPLY TO YOU? YOU PER SE, THERE'S, YEAH, THERE'S SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IN SB EIGHT 40 RELATED TO DENSITY BONUSES, AND THE LANGUAGE IN EIGHT 40 THAT RELATES TO DENSITY BONUSES ESSENTIALLY SAYS YOU CAN'T PROVIDE, UM, MORE RESTRICTIVE THAT YOU, YOU ARE ALLOWED TO PUT IN PLACE A DENSITY BONUS.

THOSE CONTIN YOU CAN CONTINUE TO EXIST.

SB EIGHT 40 ACKNOWLEDGES THAT.

UM, BUT THEY, THEY NEED TO BE, UM, LESS RESTRICTIVE AND SB EIGHT 40, UH, PROJECTS CURRENTLY DON'T HAVE AN FAR LIMIT.

UM, SO OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE CANNOT APPLY AN FAR LIMIT THROUGH THE DENSITY BONUS TO THOSE PROJECTS BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE MORE RESTRICTIVE.

I THINK WHAT I'M, WHAT I'M GETTING AT, AND I MIGHT BE MISUNDERSTANDING IT, IS THAT THAT 25 TO ONE, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE EIGHT TO ONE IS AN FAR LIMIT.

AND SO WE'RE REPLACING THAT WITH WHAT IS AN EQUIVALENT LITTLE BIT BUFFERED HEIGHT LIMIT.

BUT THE 25 TO ONE ISN'T NECESSARILY A LIMIT, IT'S JUST A KIND OF PROCESS TRIGGER.

AND I'M WONDERING IF SB EIGHT 40 SPEAKS TO THAT KIND OF TRIGGER OR IF WE COULD JUST LEAVE IT IN PLACE.

WE COULD CERTAINLY HAVE THAT CONVERSATION.

I DON'T, I'M NOT GONNA ATTEMPT THE, THE ANSWER HERE, BUT WE CAN DEFINITELY HAVE THE CONVERSATION.

I WOULD JUST NOTE THAT I DON'T THINK WE'RE NOTICED TO AMEND FAR, UM, FOR EITHER CBD OR THE DENSITY BONUS.

WE ARE THE ONLY NOTICE FOR THE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR BOTH OF THOSE.

SO JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT AS WELL.

YES, FOR SOME OF IT, BUT NOT ALL OF IT, WHICH IS WHY WE DID PROVIDE FOR A LITTLE BIT OF A GAP FOR THAT ADDITIONAL HEIGHT THAT WE WERE RECOMMENDING.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

APPRECIATE ALL OF YOUR WORK AND TIME ON THIS.

UM, IF WE HAVE NO OTHER QUESTIONS, I WANNA MAKE SURE, ARE THERE ANY COMMISSIONERS THAT FEEL LIKE WE NEED A SECOND ROUND OF QUESTIONS OR ARE WE READY TO MOVE INTO OUR BASE MOTION AND AMENDMENTS? CAN I ASK ONE MORE QUESTION? UM, SO YES, BUT I WANNA ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE'RE GONNA JUST WITH WITHOUT OBJECTION, WE'RE GONNA CHANGE OUR RULES TO ALLOW, UM, A SECOND ROUND OF QUESTIONS.

NOT SEEING ANY OBJECTION.

COMMISSIONER ROSN, GO AHEAD.

THANK YOU, CHAIR.

UH, JUST A QUICK CLARIFICATION.

THE ROUGHLY 207 220 FEET THAT WAS RELATED TO THE EIGHT TO ONE CURRENT, UH, ZONING, THE EIGHT TO ONE DOES NOT INCLUDE PARKING.

CORRECT.

DOES THAT 220 FEET ROUGHLY, DOES THAT INCLUDE THE PARKING AT THE BASE OF THE STRUCTURE IN THAT HEIGHT? UM, IT, IT, IT DOES AND IT DOESN'T.

WE USE BOTH THE BUILDING, UH, FAR TO CALCULATE AND THEN LOOKED AT THE HEIGHT AND UH, UH, ACCOUNTED FOR IT PROPORTIONATELY.

SO IT REALLY ACCOUNTS FOR SOME OF THE PARKING, BUT NOT ALL OF IT BECAUSE THE PARKING WAS DISTRIBUTED EVENLY BETWEEN THE WHOLE HEIGHT AND THE FAR RATIOS WE WERE DOING.

SO A LITTLE BIT COMPLICATED, I KNOW, BUT

[01:05:01]

AND WE ARE CURRENTLY NOTICED TODAY AS TO THE RE THE REDUCTION IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL FOR THE HEIGHT IN THE CBD, WE ARE CREATING A, A HEIGHT FOR CBD BECAUSE THERE IS CURRENTLY NO HEIGHT LIMIT FOR CBD.

UM, SO WE'RE NOTICED TO AMEND THAT AND TO AMEND THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS AND RAINY SUBDISTRICTS AND MAPS, UH, TO INCORPORATE THAT INTO THE PROGRAM.

AND SO THAT INCLUDES, FOR EXAMPLE, THE MAP THAT WAS AMENDED TO ADD THE 350, WHICH CAN BE AMENDED OR THE NUMBER ITSELF OF THE CBD HEIGHT, WHICH IS OUR PROPOSAL THAT THREE 50.

AND IS IT POSSIBLE TO CREATE AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEIGHT THAT IS HIGHER THAN THREE 50 FOR THE CBD? YEAH, IT CAN BE, YES.

PROPOSE AS AN AMENDMENT, IT CAN BE PROPOSED AS AN AMENDMENT, BUT I'LL JUST, UM, REITERATE AGAIN, WE WILL NEED TO WORK WITH OUR PARTNERS AT THE CITY OF LAW DEPARTMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT WE'RE BRINGING BACK FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL, UM, HAS THEIR LEGAL STAMP OF APPROVAL.

THANKS, COMMISSIONER PETROSIAN.

ANY OTHER SECOND ROUND QUESTIONS? OKAY, SEEING NONE, I AM LOOKING FOR A BASE MOTION ON THIS.

SO THIS IS JUST TO GET US STARTED ON OUR AMENDMENT DISCUSSION.

COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.

UH, CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO MOVE, UM, STAFF, UH, PRESENTATION AS THE DRAFT CBD AMENDMENT AS PROVIDED IN BACKUP FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

COMMISSIONER LON SECONDS.

A SECOND? YES.

OKAY, SO WE DID NOT HAVE A WORKING GROUP ON THIS, UH, MS. GARCIA.

DID WE HAVE ANY AMENDMENTS THAT WERE SHARED BY COMMISSIONERS IN ADVANCE? NO.

CHAIR.

SO WE'RE GONNA MOVE INTO THEN OUR DAY OF AMENDMENTS.

AND I'M JUST GONNA GO ALPHABETICALLY, AND IF YOU ARE, IF YOU HAVE AN AMENDMENT BUT YOU'RE NOT READY, FEEL FREE TO TELL ME TO COME BACK TO YOU.

UM, BUT I WILL START WITH COMMISSIONER AHMED, DO YOU HAVE ANY AMENDMENTS YOU'D LIKE TO BRING? NOT AT THIS TIME.

COMMISSIONER BARRE RAMIREZ? NO.

COMMISSIONER ROJAN? NOT AT THIS TIME.

ALRIGHT.

COMMISSIONER POWELL? YEAH, NOT YET.

, WOULD YOU LIKE WHEN YOU'RE SAYING NOT AT THIS TIME.

WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO COME BACK TO YOU? YEAH, COME BACK.

UH, COMMISSIONER BRETTON? NOT AT, UH, NO.

I'VE REALLY STOPPED GOING IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER HERE.

APOLOGIES.

UM, COMMISSIONER LAW ON ANY AMENDMENTS? NO.

COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE? UH, NOT AT THIS TIME.

WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO COME BACK TO YOU? I, I THINK SO, YES.

UH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? YES.

UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, VICE CHAIR? HANEY, ANY AMENDMENTS PASS? NOT AT THIS TIME.

? NO.

YOU DON'T HAVE ANY? OKAY.

COMMISSIONER CHAIR.

IT WAS JUST NEEDED TO GET TO THE SI THINK, UM, CHAIR.

I ACTUALLY HAVE SEVERAL, BUT I CAN JUST START WITH AN EASY ONE.

GREAT.

UM, SO I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FROM PLANNING COMMISSION THAT WE ENCOURAGE THE INCLUSION OF, UH, CONFIRMATION THAT THE GATE BASE GATEKEEPER REQUIREMENTS ARE STILL REQUIRED FOR THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS IN THE UPDATE AS PROVIDED TO THE, UM, TO CITY COUNCIL.

UM, ALRIGHT.

ANY QUESTIONS? SO THAT IS NOT THE OFFICIAL MOTION, WE'RE JUST GONNA SPEAK TO IT A LITTLE BIT.

ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION BEFORE COMMISSIONER MAXWELL MAKES HER MOTION? OKAY.

SEEING NONE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO REPEAT THAT FOR US ONE MORE TIME, PLEASE? YES.

I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CLARIFY THE, UH, FINAL ORDINANCE FOR COUNSEL.

UM, CONFIRM THAT THE GATEKEEPER REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS ARE STILL REQUIRED AND REMAIN UNCHANGED.

SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BRETTON.

LOOKING FOR A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION FOR OR AGAINST? WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO IT ANY FURTHER? I, I THINK IT'S JUST A CLEANUP PIECE JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE MAKING THIS CLEAR AS WE ADD IN THIS NEW LANGUAGE INTO THE ORDINANCE.

ANYONE SPEAKING AGAINST THE AMENDMENT? OKAY.

UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THAT AMENDMENT.

THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HANDS.

THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.

COMMISSIONER HOWARD, ANY AMENDMENTS FROM YOU? I DO NOT HAVE ANY.

DID NOT HAVE ANY AT THE MOMENT.

I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE THERE'S NOBODY I MISSED ON MY FIRST ROUND.

VICE CHAIR.

HANEY? NO, YOU DID NOT HAVE ANY, SORRY.

OR YOU

[01:10:01]

COMMISSIONER POWELL.

ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONER POWELL, I'M READY FOR YOU.

I'LL NEED A LITTLE HELP WORKSHOPPING THIS ONE.

UM, BUT I, I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT WITH A, A TIME LIMIT ON THIS.

UM, SPECIFICALLY I WAS THINKING AROUND MARCH, 2027.

BY THAT TIME, I THINK THAT'S WELL WITHIN THE REALM OF, UH, THE DOWNTOWN PLANS AND THE, THE, BASICALLY THE RE-IMAGINING OF THIS DENSITY BONUS WRIT LARGE.

I, I BRING THIS UP BECAUSE MY MAIN CONCERN IS THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS, I THINK THERE'S A SOMEWHAT OF A CONSENSUS ON THE DAIS AND COMING FROM STAFF THAT THIS IS MEANT TO BE A BANDAID, A QUICK FIX FIX IN RESPONSE TO SOMETHING FROM THE LEGISLATURE.

AND I JUST KINDA LOOK AT SOME OF THE DIFFERENT PRECEDENTS AND MOMENTS WE'VE HAD IN OUR LAND USE OF OUR CODE WHERE PRECEDENTS AND OR A A BANDAID ENDS UP STICKING AROUND FOR 20, 30, 40 YEARS.

SO, I DON'T KNOW THE BEST WAY TO PHRASE THIS, BUT SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF, UM, ON MARCH 15TH, 2027, UH, THIS LANGUAGE WOULD REVERT TO ITS PRIOR STATUS OR THIS LANGUAGE WOULD BE DISSOLVED.

SOMETHING THAT BASICALLY PUTS A, A FIRM TIMELINE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE DOING THE WORK WE ARE DOING, UH, THE LONGER CONVERSATIONS WE HAVE TO HAVE, FRANKLY, ABOUT, UM, OPTIMIZING THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PAST THE, YOU KNOW, AS WE'VE ALL BEEN SAYING, REFLECTING THE CURRENT DOWNTOWN, IT'S ALREADY PLANNED.

I JUST KIND OF WANT TO HOLD OUR FEET TO THE FIRE BY THAT, UM, FOR, FOR US AS WELL AS THE COMMISSION.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR COMMISSIONER POWELL ON THE AMENDMENT? YES.

COMMISSIONER LAN, CAN WE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION? ABSOLUTELY.

UM, GIVEN THAT THESE PROJECTS IN THE CITY USUALLY KIND OF GET DELAYED AND TAKEN TIME, I RECOMMEND GIVE THE CITY BEYOND THEIR ESTIMATE AT LEAST ADDITIONAL YEAR TO COMPLETE THEIR WORK AND HAVE SOMETHING TO THE TUNE OF UNTIL THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT OR, OR LIKE THE START OF THE NEW AMENDMENT.

BUT IF WE SAY, BASED ON THE MEMO LOOKS LIKE IT'LL BE THROUGH 2026, SO I RECOMMEND AT LEAST THROUGH 2027 TO GIVE THE STAFF MORE TIME.

HOW ABOUT WE SPLIT THE DIFFERENCE IN 2.4 MONTHS? NO, BECAUSE I, I LIKE IT.

I LIKE MORE TIME.

I ALSO, I, I DON'T, I WOULD FEEL BAD SAYING 2028 ON THIS.

'CAUSE IT FEELS LIKE, UH, IF WE'RE THINKING IT'LL TAKE 2027, MAY, WE COULD SAY JUNE 1ST, 2027, I'M EVEN MAYBE FEELING IT JULY.

I KNOW WE COULD GO COMPETING.

THIS IS JUST A, AND I'LL ALSO SAY IN MY MINDSET, UM, IF WE'RE SITTING HERE IN THE COMMISSION AND WE GET TO SAY JUNE 1ST, 2027 AND THE PLAN IS STILL UNDERWAY, IT'S STILL HAPPENING, I WOULD SAY, HEY, LET'S VOTE AND JUST CHANGE THAT DATE.

GIVEN, YOU KNOW, A FEW OF US WORK IN PUBLIC SECTOR AGENCIES.

I KNOW JUST THE PROCESS TO PROCURE ADVISORS, THEY TAKE TIME AND IT'S NOT REALLY SOMETHING YOU CAN CONTROL AND PLAN.

AND SO I WOULD STILL ADVISE GIVING THE CITY JUST A LITTLE BIT EXTRA TIME JUST TO GET THROUGH THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS TO GET THIS CONVERSATION STARTED.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR COMMISSIONER POWELL? YES, MR. HANNEY, COMMISSIONER POWELL, WOULD IT BE YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT, UM, WE'RE MOST LIKELY PROPERLY NOTICED FOR THIS BECAUSE, UM, PUTTING A REPEAL IN WOULD TAKE US BACK TO SOMETHING THAT IS LESS RESTRICTIVE AS OPPOSED TO MORE RESTRICTIVE? IS THAT, IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING? YEAH, I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE.

AND I MEAN, TO ME IT'S, UM, IT'S LESS ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF IF WE DON'T MEET THE STATE, BUT MORE SO JUST MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE A REASON TO HOLD OURSELVES ACCOUNTABLE AS A COMMISSION TO MEET IT.

COMMISSIONER POWELL, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU, WHICH IS KIND OF BASED ON WHAT WE HEARD FROM STAFF THAT WE DON'T NECESSARILY WANNA GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF RE NOTICING FOR THIS.

WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO AN AMENDMENT THAT PROVIDES DIRECTION TO STAFF TO COME BACK AT A CERTAIN DATE, MAYBE IN EARLY 2027 TO PROVIDE A, AN UPDATE ON HOW THIS HAS GONE AND HOW THE PROCESS FOR THE MORE HOLISTIC CHANGES TO THE, UH, DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS ARE GOING? I, I THINK ME PERSONALLY, I'D BE OKAY ADDING THAT ONTO THIS.

UM, AND I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S GOOD TO HAVE THAT DIRECTION, THAT TIMELINE.

I, I STILL KIND OF WANNA KEEP THE EXPLODING DATE.

I WANNA AND I, I APOLOGIZE.

I KNOW THIS IS KIND OF A CUT AND DRY WAY TO DO IT, BUT TO ME, I JUST, UH, TOO MANY INSTANCES OF THE BEST INTENTIONS OF PUTTING A BANDAID ON SOMETHING.

UM, BUT THEN WE GET TO THAT POINT OR A DECADE OR TWO DECADES IN THE FUTURE AND IT JUST KIND OF KEEPS GOING.

SO I JUST REALLY WANNA MAKE SURE WE GET THIS DONE RIGHT.

UM, OKAY.

'CAUSE THE DISCUSSION IS STEERING US ALL IN THE DIRECTION WHERE WE KNOW WE NEED TO DO THIS, WE HAVE THE WORK PLAN TO DO THIS NEXT YEAR AND WE WANT TO DIG INTO THE PROCESS, BUT IT'S URGENT, WE GOTTA DO THIS.

RIGHT.

[01:15:01]

AND THEN I'LL JUST DIRECT A QUESTION TO STAFF QUICKLY, WHICH IS, CAN YOU TALK TO US ABOUT THE NOTIFICATION PROCESS FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS? SO WE WOULD NEED TO WORK WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT ON HOW SOMETHING LIKE THIS GOES IN THE ORDINANCE.

UM, MY KIND OF NATURE UNDERSTANDING, BASED ON MY UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE NEEDS TO BE AMENDED AND WHAT OUR REQUIREMENTS ARE THERE, IS THAT THIS WOULD MORE LIKELY BE DIRECTION IN THE ORDINANCE THAT WE WOULD COME BACK WITH A CODE AMENDMENT ON A PARTICULAR DATE AS OPPOSED TO LANGUAGE THAT GOES, PUTS A DATE IN THE ACTUAL LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ITSELF.

I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT.

I THINK THIS WOULD BE KIND OF DIRECTION IN THE ORDINANCE, UM, TO EITHER, TO YOUR POINT, BRING BACK, UM, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FEEDBACK REPORT TO COUNCIL.

WE PUT THAT KIND OF LANGUAGE IN OUR ORDINANCES ALL THE TIME, UM, WITH SORT OF ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE TO, TO BRING BACK AN AMENDMENT THAT REVERTS THE LANGUAGE.

UM, THANK YOU.

BUT WE WOULD NEED TO WORK WITH LAW ON WHAT THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE LOOKS LIKE BASED ON THAT AMENDMENT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR COMMISSIONER POWELL OR FOR STAFF ABOUT THIS AMENDMENT? OKAY, COMMISSIONER POWELL, WOULD YOU LIKE TO STATE YOUR AMENDMENT? OKAY, LEMME MAKE SURE I'M PHRASING THIS RIGHT.

UM, FIRST OFF, COULD YOU RESTATE WHAT YOU SAID IN TERMS OF THE RECOMMENDATION PIECE? UH, I WAS, I WAS ASKING IF YOU MIGHT CONSIDER MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO, TO REQUEST THAT STAFF RETURN AT A CERTAIN DATE TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON THIS ORDINANCE AND AN UPDATE ON THE PROCESS OF CHANGING THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS MORE HOLISTICALLY.

GOTCHA, GOTCHA.

SO ON THAT FRONT THEN, I THINK IT'S GONNA BE CLEANEST TO DO THIS AS TWO SEPARATE AMENDMENTS, IF THAT'S ACCEPTABLE BY THE PROCESSES HERE.

THAT'S FINE.

UM, SO I'LL MOVE TO ADD A RECOMMENDATION INTO THIS, UM, INTO THIS AMENDMENT.

UH, DIRECTING STAFF TO GIVE US A REPORT, A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BY FEBRUARY 1ST, 2027 IN TERMS OF THE STATUS OF THE DENSITY BONUS, UH, REVIEW AND REVITALIZATION.

SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BRENTON.

LOOKING FOR A SECOND? YES.

UH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO YOUR AMENDMENT FURTHER? COMMISSIONER POWELL? YES.

I THINK IT'S A GREAT SUGGESTION.

UM, IT, IT, IT IS GOOD TO BUILD IN THESE MILESTONES.

ANYONE SPEAKING AGAINST THE AMENDMENT? ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING FOR? OKAY, LET'S TAKE A VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT TO ADD A RECOMMENDATION DIRECTING STAFF TO PROVIDE A REPORT BY FEBRUARY 1ST, 2027 ON THE STATUS OF THE DENSITY BONUS REVIEW THOSE IN FAVOR? OKAY.

THOSE AGAINST AND THOSE ABSTAINING, IS THAT GREEN COMMISSIONER HOWARD? YES.

THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

UH, MAYBE YOU NEED TO EXPLAIN IT TO ME 'CAUSE I'M STILL LOST ABOUT WHAT THIS 25 TO LOSING THE 25 TO ONE GETS YOU.

OKAY, I'M COMING BACK TO YOU.

COMMISSIONER AHMED, DO YOU HAVE ANY AMENDMENTS THAT YOU'D LIKE TO BRING? NO, NOT AT THIS TIME.

UH, COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE, I AM COMING BACK TO YOU.

YEAH, I THINK SO.

I THINK I'M PREPARED TO TAKE A STAB AT ONE.

UH, AND THIS WOULD BE OF AN AMENDMENT TO PAGE FOUR FOR THE DRAFT ORDINANCE, THE MAP FOR THE DOWNTOWN CORE THAT HAS SHOWN THE 25 TO ONE FAR AND 350 FOOT, UM, TRIGGER, IF YOU WILL, OR OF BASE ENTITLEMENT.

UH, I, WE'VE HEARD FROM STAKEHOLDERS AND EVEN CITY STAFF THAT ARE SORT OF CURRENT AVERAGE BUILDING HEIGHT IS GREATER THAN 350 FEET.

AND IT ALSO SOUNDS LIKE THIS MOVING FORWARD WITH STAFF'S PROPOSAL HERE WOULD RESULT IN AN ADDITIONAL REQUIRED APPROVAL FOR PROJECTS DOWNTOWN, UH, COUNCIL APPROVAL.

THAT IS, THAT THAT DOESN'T CURRENTLY EXIST AND I DON'T THINK WE WANNA CREATE, I MEAN, ANOTHER APPROVAL CREATES MORE UNCERTAINTY IN DEVELOPMENT, LEAST SLOW DEVELOPMENT.

PETER, YOU DON'T NEED TO CRITIQUE IT ALREADY.

SO I, UM, I PROPOSE REVISING THAT THE DOWNTOWN FOUR FROM 350 FEET TO 600.

UH, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE OR STAFF FROM THE COMMISSION? COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? UH, COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE, WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO DOING A SLIGHTLY HIGHER NUMBER OF SIX 50 OR 700? YEAH, I'M PERFECTLY, UH, ACCEPTABLE WITH THAT.

SO I CAN RESTATE MY A AMEN AMENDMENT OF, WE WILL DOUBLE IT TO 700 FEET.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER BARR RAMIREZ, I JUST, I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND THE, THE BACKGROUND ON THE WHY.

SO, BECAUSE THIS IS JUST THE BASE AND IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR MORE THAN THE BASE,

[01:20:01]

SO EITHER, EITHER OF YOU CAN EXPLAIN IT.

I'M HAPPY TO JUMP IN.

COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE, IF THAT HELP.

IS THAT HELPFUL? YEAH, THAT, I MEAN WE'VE LOST THE 25 TO ONE RIGHT? BECAUSE OF THE, THE SENATE BILL EIGHT 40.

RIGHT.

BUT IT'S STILL LIKE AN ADMINISTRATIVE PASS THROUGH, IS MY UNDERSTANDING RIGHT? IT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENT.

NO.

NO, IT'S NOT RIGHT.

I MEAN, I THINK THAT THE, THE GRAPHICS WERE A LITTLE CONFUSING.

I MEAN, I THINK WE SAW THE COMPARISON BETWEEN EXISTING AND I APPRECIATE THE WORK OF STAFF TO TRY TO CALIBRATE TO SORT OF MATCH EXISTING.

BUT LIKE, IT SEEMS LIKE A BIG CHANGE.

IT, IT, MAYBE THIS ISN'T TRUE FOR ALL THE SUBDISTRICTS, BUT FOR THE DOWNTOWN CORE IS THAT WE'RE KIND OF CREATING NOW WITH THIS 350 THRESHOLD, THIS NEED FOR, WE'RE LIMITING WHERE BEFORE THEY WERE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS, WE'RE NOW REQUIRING COUNCIL ACTION.

AND I, I KNOW WE'RE TRYING TO BALANCE NOT GIVING UP ON THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM AND ALL THE BENEFITS IT PROVIDES, RIGHT? SO WE WANNA FIND A NUMBER, BUT IF WE WANT TO INCENTIVIZE THE CITY, ALL OF US TO COME UP WITH A NEW BETTER PROGRAM QUICKLY, THEN I THINK HAVING A HIGHER BASE ALLOWABLE, YOU KNOW, AND, AND WE START TO RECOGNIZE THAT MAYBE WE'RE MISSING OUT ON SOME DENSITY BONUS THAT WE MIGHT OTHERWISE HAVE HAD.

UM, I THINK A HIGHER ALLOWABLE BASE IS JUST OF, UH, MOST FAIR.

QUITE FRANKLY, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD MAKE THINGS MORE DIFFICULT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY.

I MEAN, THE SENATE BILL WAS CREATED TO STREAMLINE THIS PROCESS AND IT SOUNDS LIKE DOWNTOWN WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED BY STAFF IS ADDING AN ADDITIONAL STEP.

SO THAT'S MY, THAT'S MY LOGIC BEHIND IT.

AND, AND COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, IF YOU WOULD ADD OTHER CONTEXT, I'D BE THRILLED.

YEAH, I THINK THE, THE KEY ISSUE IS JUST ON THAT 25 TO ONE, BECAUSE OF THE SHAPE OF THE PLOTS OF THE LAND, YOU MIGHT GET A NUMBER THAT'S ACTUALLY MUCH HIGHER THAN THREE 50.

AND SO CURRENTLY IF YOU WERE GOING TO GO INTO THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS, SAY YOUR 25 TO ONE GOT YOU TO 600, WELL NOW AT THREE 50 YOU AUTOMATICALLY HAVE TO GO INTO DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS AND YOU HAVE TO GET COUNCIL APPROVAL, WHICH HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN ADMINISTRATIVE.

SO IT JUST CREATES THIS WEIRD SORT OF HOLE FOR FOLKS WHO HAD SITES THAT POTENTIALLY COULD HAVE GOTTEN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL ALL THE WAY UP TO 600.

SO IS THE AMENDMENT JUST TO REMOVE THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL? IT, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE MAP BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE MAP IS TIED TO.

BUT I THINK THAT'S ACTUALLY A GREAT QUESTION FOR STAFF IS TO CONFIRM THAT WE'RE DOING THIS THE THEORETICALLY THE RIGHT WAY.

SO I, I'LL TRY TO PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE FOR HOW COMMERCIAL, LIKE TODAY YOUR BASE FAR IS EIGHT TO ONE.

FOR CBD, YOU CAN GO UP TO 25 TO ONE.

ADMINISTRATIVELY, IF YOU'RE IN THAT SUBDISTRICT, IF YOU WANNA GO ABOVE 25 TO ONE, YOU GO TO COUNCIL, WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING IS THREE 50 WOULD BE THE BASE THAT YOU GET BY RIGHT UP TO 700.

YOU WOULD GET ADMINISTRATIVELY AND TO GO ABOVE 700, YOU WOULD GO TO COUNCIL.

SO IT'S JUST MAKING THOSE THREE STEPS EQUIVALENT OR EQUAL FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT PARTICIPATING IN THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM.

COMMISSIONER , SORRY, MORE QUESTIONS.

NO PROBLEM.

SO I, THE SUBDISTRICTS CONFUSE ME.

I FEEL LIKE IT SHOULD ALL BE THE SAME.

SO UNFORTUNATELY WE'RE, WE CAN'T REVISE THE SUBDISTRICTS AS FAR AS MAPS OR, OR FAR OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

THEY WERE CREATED PREVIOUSLY.

THAT IS HOW THE, THE PROGRAM HAS, YOU KNOW, FUNCTIONED FOR YEARS.

UM, OKAY, ALL WE ARE DOING IS ADDING THAT HEIGHT LIMIT.

SO, BUT IT'S ONLY THREE 50 IN SOME PLACES.

'CAUSE SOMEPLACE IT'S 400.

SO WHAT IS THE AMENDMENT? WE REVISED THREE AND, AND I GUESS I WISH I HAD THE OLD MAP AS WELL.

SO THERE IS THAT COURSE SUB DISTRICT OF 25 TO ONE IN THE MIDDLE AND IT USED TO SAY NO LIMIT.

AND THEN YOU HAD RAINY, WHICH IT SAYS 50 TO ONE AND THREE 50 AND 15 TO ONE AND THREE 50.

THOSE WERE THE THREE THAT SAID NO LIMIT FOR HEIGHT.

WE HAVE TO PUT IN A HEIGHT LIMIT TO, TO MAKE THE PROGRAM CONTINUE TO WORK.

IT'S A QUESTION ABOUT WHAT NUMBER WOULD GO THERE.

AND THAT'S THE SAME THING I WAS TALKING ABOUT.

OF THREE 50 IS YOUR BASE, THERE CAN BE A STEP THAT COULD BE ADMINISTRATIVE AND THEN ABOVE THAT YOU WOULD GO TO COUNCIL.

SO IN SOME CASES, 400 IS THE BASE.

'CAUSE THERE'S TWO, IT'S NOT THE BASE, IT'S WHAT YOU GET ADMINISTRATIVELY IN THE DENSITY BONUS.

SO WHERE IT SAYS 15 TO ONE IN 400, FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOUR BASE ZONING IS THREE 50, THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE AT BASE FOR CBD.

ALWAYS WHEN YOU PARTICIPATE IN THE DENSITY BONUS, YOU CAN GO TO 400 ADMINISTRATIVELY AND TO GO ABOVE 400 YOU GO TO COUNCIL.

AND THE PLACES WHERE THE MAP SAYS 400 ARE NOT PROPOSED FOR CHANGE.

SO THOSE ARE ON THE EXISTING MAP.

THE ONLY THING THAT WE ARE PROPOSING TO CHANGE ABOUT THAT MAP IS REPLACING THE WORD UNLIMITED IN THE SUBDISTRICTS THAT HAD UNLIMITED HEIGHT WITH 350.

WE ARE NOT PROPOSING ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS

[01:25:01]

TO THAT MAP.

UM, IN ORDER TO MAKE THE KIND OF THE PROPOSAL BE AS NARROW AS POSSIBLE, I THINK.

I THINK SO.

CLEAR THAN I WAS OTHER QUESTIONS FOR COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE OR STAFF ABOUT THIS AMENDMENT? UM, SO I WANT TO, SORRY, I'M JUST MAKING SURE I SEE EVERYONE.

GO AHEAD.

COMMISSIONER BRETTON.

YOU CAN THANK YOU CHAIR.

UH, SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THE AMENDMENT THAT IS BEING PROPOSED IS TO ADJUST THE NUMBER ON THOSE SUBDISTRICTS THAT CURRENTLY HAVE BEEN CHANGED FROM UNLIMITED, UH, HEIGHT.

THE PROPOSAL FROM STAFF IS 350.

THIS AMENDMENT IS TO CHANGE THAT TO SIX 50 OR 700 OR WHATEVER NUMBER WE LAND ON.

BUT THAT WOULD CHANGE NOT THE OTHER NUMBERS THAT ARE 400 OR SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT HAVEN'T CHANGED FROM, WELL, THE AMENDMENT SO FAR IS ONLY FOR THAT MIDDLE SUBDISTRICT, WHICH HAS 25 TO ONE AND THREE 50.

PERFECT.

THERE ARE TWO OTHER SUBDISTRICTS THAT WERE CHANGED.

THERE ARE THE ONES NEAR RAINY ON THE RIGHT OR THE EAST SIDE, UM, THAT ARE SMALL AND THEY HAVE 50 TO ONE AND THREE 50 LISTED CURRENTLY ON THE MAP.

COMMISSIONER LA JUST A CLARIFICATION.

SO IF WE TAKE COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE'S RECOMMENDATION, WE GO FROM THREE 50 TO LIKE SIX 50.

DOES THAT MEAN ANY BUILDING BELOW SIX 50 WOULD NOT HAVE TO DO ANY FEE IN LIE? SO THE CITY, THEY ARE, THEY'RE PARTICIPATING IN THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM.

SO THEY HAVE FEE IN LIEU.

THEY HAVE GRADE STREET STANDARDS, ALL THE GATEKEEPER REQUIREMENTS.

SO 350 FEET IS JUST WHAT YOU HAVE BY RIGHT AS A CBD ZONED SITE.

IF YOU WANT TO GO ABOVE THREE 50, YOU PARTICIPATE IN THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM AND THAT'S WHEN YOU HAVE ANY FEE IN LIE, ANY OTHER REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE PART OF THE PROGRAM.

IT'S JUST A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GETTING THAT ADMINISTRATIVELY VERSUS WITH COUNCIL APPROVAL.

DEPENDING ON HOW TALL YOU WANT TO GO WITHIN THAT.

GOT IT.

COMMISSIONER ROSN.

UH, SO A QUICK QUESTION AS REGARDS TO THE, UH, THREE 50.

I THINK THE CONFUSION COMES IN THE FACT THAT THESE NUMBERS ARE NOW SITTING ON TOP OF EACH OTHER AS OPPOSED TO THE ORIGINAL FAR.

IS THERE A REASON THAT STAFF ELECTED BECAUSE 25 TO ONE GETS US SOMEWHERE IN THAT SIX 50 TO 700 FEET.

IS THERE A REASON STAFF DECIDED TO DROP THAT HEIGHT? UH, IT WAS WITH THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE LAW DEPARTMENT OF MAKING, MAKING THE CHANGE FROM ANY ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL TO ALL COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR WITH THIS, THIS AMENDMENT.

SO IF THESE AMENDMENTS GO THROUGH FROM 300 TO 650 OR 700, WE WILL STILL HAVE TO COMMUNICATE WITH LAW AND MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS STILL LEGALLY FEASIBLE, UM, FOR THE PROGRAM TO CONTINUE TO FUNCTION.

AND IT, IT, IT HAS SEEMED FROM SOME OF THE RESEARCH I'VE DONE THAT THERE ARE DEVELOPERS THAT ARE AVOIDING THAT COUNCIL TRIGGER AND TRYING TO FIND PROJECTS THAT SLIDE IN UNDERNEATH.

SO THE CONCERN I WOULD HAVE IS THAT THERE IS, WE ARE DE INCENTIVIZING ANY TALL BUILDINGS IN THESE AREAS RIGHT NOW.

UM, IS THERE ANY MOVE TO IN, TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT ALSO IN THE OTHER TWO SUBDISTRICTS? I I THINK THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION FOR THE MOTION MAKER COM COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE, WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO ADDING IN THE TWO RAINY DISTRICTS THAT WERE ALSO AMENDED ON THIS MAP? UM, UH, YEAH, I HADN'T THOUGHT ABOUT THAT SPECIFICALLY, BUT I WOULD ENTERTAIN A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

I MEAN, I GUESS MY RATIONALE WAS LOOKING AT THE 25 AT THE DOWNTOWN, RIGHT, WITH THE 25 TO ONE FAR, THAT WAS, IT FELT LIKE THAT'S WHERE WE HAD THE SORT OF LOSS OF, UH, ENTITLEMENT OR HOWEVER WE WANNA DESCRIBE IT, RIGHT, WHERE WE SENT SET FOLKS INTO A COUNCIL PROCESS WHEN THEY WERE IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS BEFORE I HAD THE 15 TO ONE RATIO.

WHEN I LOOK AT THE TWO RAINY DISTRICTS, I HAVEN'T CONSIDERED HOW THAT, WHAT HEIGHT THAT TRANSLATES TO ON THOSE BLOCKS.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? IT ABSOLUTELY DOES.

AND I MIGHT SUGGEST JUST BECAUSE IT SHOULD BE POTENTIALLY A DIFFERENT HEIGHT THAT WE MIGHT DO IT, DO IT AS TWO SEPARATE AMENDMENTS, IF THAT'S FAIR.

SO I THINK OF, I'M NOT PREPARED TO ADD THOSE TWO DISTRICTS AT THIS POINT.

I'VE THOUGHT A BIT ABOUT DOWNTOWN THE CORE, BUT NOT THOSE DISTRICTS.

LIKE, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO IT NECESSARILY.

I JUST HAVEN'T LIKE DRAWN A PICTURE IN MY HEAD YET TO UNDERSTAND IT CLEARLY.

SO COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESTATE YOUR AMENDMENT? YEAH, I THINK OF MY AMENDMENT IS TO, UH, CHANGE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT IN THE, I'M SORRY, I DON'T KNOW THAT DISTRICT NAME.

I'M JUST CALLING IT DOWNTOWN CORE.

RIGHT? FROM 350 FEET PER POST HEIGHT FROM 350 TO 700 FEET.

THREE 50 IS STILL THE BASE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM WITH ADMINISTRATIVE

[01:30:01]

APPROVAL.

I THINK THAT'S KIND OF YES.

WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW.

SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.

UH, LOOKING FOR A SECOND.

UH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO YOUR AMENDMENT COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE? UM, I THINK WE'VE COVERED IT, UH, PRETTY WELL, BUT I, A COUPLE POINTS THAT, UH, SOME WE ARE, WE'RE BUILDING A MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR TRANSIT PROGRAM, RIGHT? OUR TRANSIT CORE KEY CORRIDOR IN OUR CORE.

IT GOES RIGHT THROUGH THIS PART OF DOWNTOWN ALONG LONG LOOP AND THIRD STREET.

AND IT JUST, IT, IT IS FOOLISH FOR US TO DISINCENTIVIZE, UH, BUILDING THE, YOU KNOW, THE TALLEST BUILDINGS WE CAN IN THE CORE OF OUR CITY.

SO, I MEAN, THAT'S JUST ONE REASON.

AND, AND, YOU KNOW, AMONG MANY, BUT THAT ALONE FOR ME IS I DON'T WANNA SEE US SPEND A COUPLE YEARS MISSING OUT ON, UH, ADDITIONAL, YOU KNOW, DENSITY, MORE RIDERS FOR TRANSIT AND ADDITIONAL, HONESTLY TAX REVENUE AND MORE NEIGHBORS, QUITE FRANKLY, FOR US.

SO, UH, THAT'S WHY I THINK WE SHOULD ERR ON THE SIDE OF BEING MORE PERMISSIVE IN THAT DISTRICT.

ANYONE SPEAKING AGAINST THE AMENDMENT? ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR IT? OKAY.

I HAVE AN AMENDMENT BY COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE TO CHANGE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DOWN IN THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM WITH ADMINISTRATIVE, WITH ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL IN THE DOWNTOWN CORE FROM 350 TO 700 FEET, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.

THOSE IN FAVOR? THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE.

ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONER BRETTON, I'M COMING BACK TO YOU.

DO YOU HAVE ANY AMENDMENTS? NO.

I DO NOT HAVE ANY AMENDMENTS.

UH, WOULD WE LIKE TO CHANGE OUR RULES TO HAVE A SECOND ROUND OF AMENDMENTS? ARE THERE COMMISSIONERS THAT HAVE ABSOLUTELY, YES.

AND WITHOUT OBJECTION, WE'RE GONNA GO THROUGH A SECOND ROUND OF AMENDMENTS.

I'M GONNA GO DOWN THE LINE THIS TIME.

, UH, COMMISSIONER ROEN, I'M GONNA NEED SOME HELP HERE.

UM, I AM, I HAVE GRAVE CONCERNS ABOUT LOSING THE GREAT STREETS TRIGGER AT A LOW ELEVATION, UM, OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY, UM, IN THE TIME PERIOD THAT IT WOULD TAKE TO REPLACE THIS AMENDMENT WITH, UH, WITH DUE CODE.

UM, AND I FEEL LIKE THERE'S, THERE'S MORE THAT WE COULD DO THERE, AT LEAST THERE WE SHOULD DO THERE.

UM, BECAUSE I THINK WE, WE'D LOSE SOME BLOCKS TO DEVELOPMENT, UH, WHICH WE COULDN'T GET BACK LATER, WHICH I THINK IS A, IS A SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM IN OUR CITY.

SO THE AMENDMENT WOULD BE TO, AND I KNOW THAT WE'VE HEARD FROM STAFF ON THIS ALREADY, BUT I THINK THERE'S AN, THERE'S A, THE QUESTION IS, IS THERE AN AVENUE WHERE WE CAN LOWER THE HEIGHT AT WHICH THAT GREAT STREETS PROGRAM IS TRIGGERED, UM, WHILE STILL FALLING UNDER THE CURRENT NOTICE THAT'S BEEN RELEASED? YOU, WHAT YOU COULD DO IS, UM, PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO LOWER THE BY RIGHT HEIGHT.

SO THAT WOULD MEAN YOU WOULD ENTER THE DENSITY BONUS AT A LOWER HEIGHT OR, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WOULD HAVE TO IF THEY WANTED TO GO HIGHER WITH A LOWER BASE.

BUT THAT'S ESSENTIALLY THE ONLY MECHANISM AT, AT THIS TIME.

YOU KNOW, KIND OF RIFFING OFF OF THAT, TELL ME IF THIS WORKS, .

UM, LET'S, LET'S STICK WITH THIS AMENDMENT AND WITH QUESTIONS RELATED TO THIS AMENDMENT.

UM, AND IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE AMENDMENT MAKER YES.

AND A SUGGESTION IN THE FORM OF A QUESTION, YOU'RE, YOU'RE WELCOME TO .

UM, SO COMMISSIONER POWELL, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU HAVE A QUESTION.

THAT'S THE WAY I LOVE IT.

SO, UM, WHAT WOULD YOU THINK ABOUT THE POTENTIAL OF THEN SHIFTING IT SO THAT THIS MIGHT NOT FLY LEGAL, BUT SHIFTING IT SO THAT IT WOULD BE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR THE DENSITY BONUS WOULD BE 200 OR TWO 50, SAY, UM, WITH THE ONLY REQUIREMENT BEING THE GREAT STREETS GATEKEEPER REQUIREMENT AND THEN THREE 50 FOR THE FULL SUITE OF GATEKEEPER REQUIREMENTS FEE IN LIEU AND EVERYTHING ELSE, IS IT POSSIBLE TO TIER THE SYSTEM IN THAT WAY? I, I DON'T THINK WE'RE NOTICED FOR THAT AMENDMENT.

THAT'S ESSENTIALLY AN OVERHAUL TO THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS AND WE'RE NOT NOTICED FOR THAT AS PART OF THIS.

UM, I WILL SUGGEST ONE POSSIBILITY IS JUST TO PROVIDE KIND OF GUIDANCE TO STAFF TO LOOK FOR A SOLUTION TO THE GREAT STREETS ISSUE FASTER THAN WE WERE COMING BACK WITH THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS OVERHAUL IS PROBABLY THE CLEANEST WAY TO DO IT.

I KNOW THAT MAY NOT BE ENTIRELY SATISFYING, BUT ALAN'S POINT, UM, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD ALSO MOVE APPROVAL OF A LOWER

[01:35:01]

HIGH LIMIT.

UH, OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE AMENDMENT? COMMISSIONER BRETON? I, I THINK SO WHAT, UH, STAFF HAS JUST PROPOSED SOUNDS TO ME, AND I'M WONDERING IF IT SOUNDS TO YOU LIKE A RECOMMENDATION TO STAFF TO INITIATE, UH, OR, OR MOVE FORWARD WITH NOTICING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS AS IT RELATES TO THE GREAT STREETS, UH, PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.

BUT I WILL LEAVE THAT UP TO YOU TO WORK OUT.

AND DOES THE, THE TRIGGER FOR GREAT STREETS, IS THAT INCLUDED IN THE GREAT STREETS, UH, PROGRAM ITSELF OR IS THAT ONLY INCLUDED IN THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM? UM, THE WAY THE CODE IS STRUCTURED, THE TRIGGER NEEDS TO BE ACTUALLY IN THE KIND OF REGULATORY SECTION OF THE CODE.

SO THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM IS IN OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

IT HAS A TRIGGER THAT INVOKES GREAT STREETS AS PART OF A REGULATORY, UM, GATEKEEPER REQUIREMENT FOR THE PROGRAM.

SO YOU WOULD NEED TO ACTUALLY HAVE REGULATORY LANGUAGE, UM, IN THE APPROPRIATE PORTION OF THE CODE TO INVOKE THOSE REQUIREMENTS.

I'LL JUMP IN WITH A QUESTION FOR COMMISSIONER REEN.

WOULD YOU CONSIDER MAYBE A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION TO STAFF TO CONSIDER HOW THE GREAT STREETS REQUIREMENT COULD BE TRIGGERED AT A LOWER HEIGHT THAN 350 FEET AS PART OF THIS ORDINANCE? YES.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE AMENDMENT MAKER? YES, COMMISSIONER POWELL, GO AHEAD.

WOULD YOU CONSIDER WITHIN THAT RECOMMENDATION NAMING A SPECIFIC HEIGHT, SAY 200, 2 50, SOMETHING LIKE THAT? SURE.

OTHER, OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE AMENDMENT MAKER? YES.

VICE CHAIR HANEY.

UM, WOULD YOU CONSIDER, UH, ALLOWING STAFF JUST TO MAKE A BLANKET REQUIREMENT THAT NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN DOWNTOWN MUST PARTICIPATE IN GREAT STREETS WITHOUT A HEIGHT? I WOULD CONSIDER THAT .

THE CBDI ALSO TO JUSTIFY A BIT OF THE 200 OR 250 FOOT DISCUSSION POINT EARLIER, IN MY MIND I'M THINKING LIKE SMALL, HISTORICALLY PROTECTED BUILDINGS, LET'S NOT HAVE THEM GO THROUGH A LARGER OUTSIZE INVESTMENT THAT MAY ULTIMATELY DAMAGE THAT TYPE OF SITUATION, FOR EXAMPLE.

COMMISSIONER, THIS IS FOR STAFF.

THERE IS A GREAT STREETS PLAN HAPPENING RIGHT NOW.

WE'RE IN THE GREAT STREETS PLANNING PROCESS.

CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THAT? YOU HAVE A PLUG TO THE PLAN? YEAH, WE ARE IN THE PROCESS, UM, THROUGH OUR URBAN DESIGN DIVISION TO, UM, WORKING ON UPDATES TO THE GREAT STREETS PLAN IN CONCERT WITH THE AUSTIN CORE TRANSPORTATION PLAN, WHICH HAS, UM, BEEN, I THINK, PAUSED PENDING DIRECTION FROM THE SIXTH STREET PLAN.

AND THEN THERE'S ALSO CONVERSATIONS HAPPENING AS PART OF LIGHT RAIL DESIGN, UM, AND PUTTING TOGETHER A KIND OF PROJECT CONNECT DESIGN CRITERIA ALONG THE CORRIDOR.

SO THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF CONVERSATION HAPPENING IN, IN SEVERAL DIFFERENT INTERRELATED PROGRAMS RIGHT NOW.

UM, I AM NOT CASE MANAGING ANY OF THOSE PROGRAMS, SO I'M GONNA BE A REALLY DO A BAD JOB OF DESCRIBING THE SCOPE OF ANY OF THEM.

BUT WE ARE DEFINITELY, UM, IN PROGRESS WORKING WITH STAKEHOLDERS AS WE SPEAK.

SO IT'S GREAT TIME TO GET INPUT ON, UM, UPDATES THAT NEED TO BE MADE TO GREAT STREETS.

SO THE BASE, IF SOMEONE DOESN'T PARTICIPATE IN THE DENSITY BONUS AND THEY'RE NOT, YOU MENTIONED ALSO PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP AS ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR WHEN GRADE STREETS ARE BUILT.

UM, IS THE BASE DESIGNED FOR SIDEWALK SUB CHAPTER E? LIKE THERE IS A BASIC DESIGN BUT IT DOESN'T MEET? YEAH, AND DOWNTOWN ACTUALLY ISN'T SUBJECT, UM, SUB CHAPTER E IN A LOT OF CASES.

UM, THE BASE DESIGN IS REALLY THE TRANSPORTATION CRITERIA MANUAL AND THEN THE PUBLIC MOST, A LOT OF OUR STREETS HAVE COME IN THROUGH GREAT STREETS THROUGH THE PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP ROUTE.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR COMMISSIONER PETROSIAN? OTHERWISE, COULD YOU RESTATE YOUR AMENDMENT PLEASE? COULD I PLEASE HAVE A QUICK CLARIFICATION FOR A NEW COMMISSIONER? AM I MAKING RECOMMENDATION TO STAFF OR TO COUNCIL , YOU'LL BE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO STAFF.

SO I WOULD STATE THE, THE MOTION AS, UH, RECOMME MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO STAFF TO REVISIT THE GREAT STREETS PROGRAM AND WHAT HEIGHT IT IS TRIGGERED AT.

AND CONSIDER THAT THERE WOULD BE A, UH, NO HEIGHT TRIGGER, THAT IT WOULD BE A REQUIREMENT ACROSS THE BOARD FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CBD.

LOOKING FOR A SECOND? YES.

SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BREER RAMIREZ.

UH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK FURTHER TO YOUR MOTION? COMMISSIONER BEREN? UM, I DON'T FEEL LIKE I NEED TO SPEAK FURTHER.

I FEEL PRETTY STRONGLY.

I FEEL LIKE I HAVE, UH, SOME FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS THAT WERE PROVIDED TO ME, WHICH I'VE VERY THANKFUL FOR.

GREAT.

UH, ANYONE SPEAKING AGAINST THE AMENDMENT? ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK FOR? YES.

COMMISSIONER POWELL? YEAH, I DON'T WANT TO, YOU KNOW, BELABOR THE POINT.

I, I DO WANNA CLARIFY.

I LOVE THIS RECOMMENDATION.

I THINK WE SHOULD GET AN ANSWER IN TERMS OF, UH, ALL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN

[01:40:01]

SO, UM, ALL THAT TO SAY, LOVE THE RECOMMENDATION, LOVE EXPLORING IT, AND, UH, EXCITED TO SEE IT COME BACK AND POTENTIALLY THROW A HEIGHT ON THERE THAT KIND OF ADJUSTS FOR THAT SPECIFIC SCENARIO.

THANKS, COMMISSIONER POWELL.

ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST THE AMENDMENT? OKAY, I HAVE AN AMENDMENT BY COMMISSIONER PETROSIAN.

IT'S A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION TO STAFF TO REVISIT AT WHAT HEIGHT THE GREAT STREETS PROGRAM IS TRIGGERED AND CONSIDERED THAT IT COULD BE REQUIRED FOR ALL DEVELOPMENTS REGARDLESS OF HEIGHT.

SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BARR RAMIREZ.

THOSE IN FAVOR? OKAY, THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONER BEDROSIAN.

I WILL CONTINUE DOWN THE LINE.

COMMISSIONER POWELL, DO YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER AMENDMENTS? YEAH, I WANNA TAKE UP A CONVERSATION WE HAD EARLIER REGARDING THE TIMELINES.

UM, IT WOULD BE A, UH, A MOVE TO RECOMMEND THAT STAFF, UH, CONSULT CITY LEGAL ON THE POSSIBILITY OF HAVING A REPEAL PROVISION, UH, WITH A SPECIFIC DATE AND TIME, UH, AND REPORT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ONCE THEY HAVE AN ANSWER.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR COMMISSIONER POWELL? OKAY.

LOOKING, UH, WOULD, EXCUSE ME, COULD YOU RESTATE THAT JUST ONCE MORE PLEASE? AND WE'LL LOOK FOR A SECOND.

YES, THAT'S A RECOMMENDATION TO STAFF TO CONSULT CITY LEGAL REGARDING, UM, A POTENTIAL REPEAL ON A SPECIFIC DATE AND TIME WITHIN THIS SPECI, UH, WITHIN THIS AMENDMENT.

OKAY, LOOKING FOR A SECOND.

SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK FURTHER TO YOUR AMENDMENT, COMMISSIONER POWELL? ABSOLUTELY.

I MEAN, JUST TO SUM UP WHAT WE SAID EARLIER, UM, THE FOCUS IS KNOWING THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE REVISITING THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS KNOWING THAT WE'RE REVISITING THESE DISTRICTS, KNOWING THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S SLATED FOR 2026.

I JUST REALLY WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE HOLDING OUR FEET TO THE FIRES COMMISSION, UH, AS A CITY IN GETTING THESE CHANGES DONE.

AND, UM, IT'S ALWAYS THE FEAR.

THIS IS VERY MUCH A FEAR DRIVEN AMENDMENT.

THE FEAR OF THE IDEA THAT, UH, WE COULD HAVE THIS IN AS A TEMPORARY BANDAID MEASURE THAT THEN LASTS FOR YEARS, DECADES, UNINTENTIONALLY.

I JUST WANT TO HAVE A A MOMENT THAT REALLY INFORMS US ON, HEY, WE GOTTA GET THIS THING DONE.

SO HOPE, UH, THE LEGALITY COMES THROUGH ON THAT.

IF NOT, I APPRECIATE Y'ALL TAKING THE TIME ON IT.

ANYONE SPEAKING AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT? ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK FOR IT? YES.

COMMISSIONER ROJAN.

UM, I'D JUST LIKE TO STATE FOR THE RECORD THAT WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF GOOD IDEAS FROM CITIZENS TONIGHT, UM, AND OVER THE LAST WEEK AS REGARDS THIS AMENDMENT.

I THINK THAT THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY PROGRAM, UM, AUSTIN'S AFFORDABILITY PROGRAM IN GENERAL NEEDS, UH, TO BE TAKEN A NEW LOOK AT.

UM, AND I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF, UH, IMPROVEMENTS THAT CAN BE MADE.

AND I THINK GETTING TO THAT QUICKLY IS IMPORTANT FOR OUR CITY AS WE GROW TO REALLY FOCUS ON, UH, THE AFFORDABILITY CRISIS THAT WE HAVE HERE.

AND I THINK PUTTING THAT AS A A, AS A PRIORITY, UH, MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.

ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING FOR AGAINST THE AMENDMENT? OKAY, SEEING NONE, I HAVE AN AMENDMENT FROM COMMISSIONER POWELL AS RE A RECOMMENDATION THAT CITY STAFF CONSULT CITY LEGAL ON THE POSSIBILITY OF HAVING A REPEAL PROVISION OF THIS ORDINANCE WITH A SPECIFIC DATE AND TIME SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROJAN.

THOSE IN FAVOR? .

THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

OTHER QUESTIONS FOR COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? OKAY, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESTATE YOUR YES, I WOULD.

MOVING DOWN, COMMISSIONER BRETTON, ANY FURTHER AMENDMENTS? NO.

COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, I GOT A MAP TO LOOK AT.

UM, SO , UM, GOING BACK TO OUR MAP CONVERSATION, I'D LIKE TO MAKE SOME SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THE TWO OTHER SUBSECTION SUBDISTRICTS OF THE MAP THAT WE HAVE SEEN HEARD FROM STAFF WHO ARE AMENDED, AND THAT'S SPECIFICALLY IN THE RAINY DISTRICT AND MAKING A SLIGHT ADJUSTMENT ON THE HEIGHT AS NOTED ON THE MAP FOR BOTH OF THOSE.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? I HAVE A QUESTION.

WHAT HEIGHT WOULD YOU LIKE TO PROPOSE? SO THE HEIGHT I'M GOING TO RECOMMEND, AND I THINK THIS WAS WHY IT WAS GOOD THAT WE DID IT SEPARATELY, IS THAT THE 15 TO ONE IS OBVIOUSLY A LOWER NUMBER THAN THE 25 TO ONE.

SO WE WENT FROM THREE 50 TO 700 WITH 25 TO ONE, AND FOR 15 TO ONE, THAT WOULD BE MORE LIKE 400.

BUT JUST TO GIVE US SOME FLEXIBILITY IN THE RAINY DISTRICT, WHICH AGAIN HAS LIMITED SITES LEFT AND HAS BEEN QUITE AN ENGINE OF GROWTH, PARTICULARLY AROUND HOUSING.

I'D LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT WE GO TO 500 AND IS THIS BOTH OF THE RAINY DISTRICTS OR JUST ONE? YEAH, I BELIEVE THE ONES THAT WERE REFERENCED ARE TOWARDS THE BOTTOM HALF OF THE MAP.

UM, SO THERE'S TWO SECTIONS THAT YOU CAN BOTH SEE.

15 TO ONE AND THREE.

THREE 50 IS NOTED AND STAFF, I THINK IT CONFIRMED THAT THAT'S, THOSE ARE THE CORRECT SUB DISTRICTS.

[01:45:01]

UM, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FROM, FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO STAFF TO, UH, ADJUST THE HEIGHTS NOTED ON THE SUBDISTRICTS FOR RAINY.

UM, CURRENTLY IN EX IN OUR EXHIBIT IS THREE 50 AND 15 TO ONE IN BOTH SUBDISTRICTS.

AND CHANGE THAT TO 15 TO ONE AND 500 FOR BOTH.

SUBDISTRICTS.

LOOKING FOR A SECOND.

SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROEN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK FURTHER TO YOUR AMENDMENT? COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? UM, I THINK WE MOSTLY COVERED THIS, BUT I DO WANNA NOTE THAT I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO ALSO GIVE THE SAME ATTENTION TO THE RAIN HISTORY DISTRICT, WHICH AS I NOTED, HAS, UM, REALLY GIVEN A, A TON OF NEW HOUSING TO DOWNTOWN AND ENCOURAGED THE TYPE OF GROWTH THAT WE'RE SEEING.

SO AGAIN, MAKING IT EASIER TO CONTINUE THAT TYPE OF GROWTH PATTERN AND RAINY AND NOT REQUIRE UNNECESSARY, UM, APPROVAL FROM COUNCIL WHEN IT COULD BE DONE ADMINISTRATIVELY, WHICH THAT PROGRAM HAS OBVIOUSLY BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL.

SO CONTINUING IN THAT VEIN, I THINK THE 500 HEIGHT IS MORE IN LINE WITH WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH IN THE RAINY DISTRICT.

IT'S TOO LATE TO ASK A QUESTION.

IT, IT IS TOO LATE TO ASK A QUESTION.

UM, BUT IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST, YOU'RE WELCOME TO.

I'LL SPEAK FOR IT.

UM, I THINK IT'S GOOD TO OPT, UH, OPT THAT LIMIT IN ORDER TO, UM, YOU KNOW, REDUCE THE NEEDS FOR DEVELOPERS TO REQUIRE COUNCIL VOTE.

UM, HOWEVER, I THINK, UH, IT WOULD BE BEST TO MAKE 'EM AS STANDARD AS POSSIBLE.

AND SO IF WE'RE ALREADY DOING THAT AS 700 IN SOME, UH, DISTRICTS, WHY NOT MAKE THEM MORE STANDARD INSTEAD OF VARYING DEBT FROM ONE DISTRICT TO ANOTHER SUBSTITUTE, I WILL MAKE A SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT WHERE WE'RE MATCHING WHAT WE HAD DONE BEFORE, UH, WHICH IS THE, UH, 700, UH, FEET THAT'S REQUIRED FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL.

UH, JUST FOR CONSISTENCY'S SAKE FOR A SECOND.

FOR THE SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT.

SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FOR RAMIREZ.

UH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK FURTHER TO YOUR SUBSTITUTE? UH, NO, I, I THINK I'VE EXPRESSED MY, UH, MY, UH, UH, REASON, UH, REASON THERE ANYONE SPEAKING AGAINST COMMISSIONER PETROSIAN? JUST A QUICK QUESTION.

ARE WE ALLOWED TO ASK QUESTIONS TO THE SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT SINCE WE HAVE NOT HAD THAT CHANCE YET? I APOLOGIZE.

UH, IT'S OKAY.

FEEL FREE TO ASK QUESTIONS.

UH, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.

DO WE KNOW, UH, SITTING HERE IN THIS HALL RIGHT NOW, WHAT THE HEIGHTS OF THE BUILDINGS, THE TALLEST BUILDINGS ON IN THE RAINY DISTRICT ARE CURRENTLY? UH, NOT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT I COULD FIND THE INFORMATION .

THAT IS WHERE WATERLINE IS BEING BUILT NOW, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.

ALTHOUGH IT'S WORTH NOTING, THE WATERLINE IS NOT A DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROJECT.

DID HAD CURE ZONING.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE AMENDMENT MAKER? BUT IF IT'S A STRICT QUESTION OF TALLEST BUILDING, THAT WOULD DEFINITELY BE THE TALLEST BUILDING HAPPENING IN RAINY AND IT IS WELL OVER A THOUSAND FEET TALL.

YEP.

UM, THE MEDIAN HEIGHT FOR, UH, RAINY, UM, DEVELOPMENTS HAS BEEN 43 STORIES, WHICH WAS AROUND 415 FEET.

SO THAT'S THE MEDIAN.

NOT SEEING ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? UH OH.

DIS DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM AND THERE IS A CERTAIN LEVEL, UM, WHERE YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVE.

COMMISSIONER LON, GO AHEAD.

IF WE MAKE, AND THIS IS QUESTION TO STAFF, SO IF THIS WE MAKE THIS ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS, WOULD STAFF STILL BE ABLE TO ASK THE DEVELOPER FOR ANY KIND OF COMMUNITY BENEFITS VERSUS GOING TO COUNCIL? SO DOWNTOWN DENSITY CITY BONUS PROGRAM SPECIFIES THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS AND IT HAS SPECIFICS ABOUT HOW MUCH, UM, FEE AND LU YOU PROVIDE IN EX OR WHAT KIND OF COMMUNITY BENEFIT YOU PROVIDE IN EXCHANGE FOR THE FAR.

SO WE WOULD NOT BE, OR IN THIS CASE, IT WOULD BE AN EXCHANGE FOR THE HEIGHT.

SO WE WOULD NOT BE MODIFYING ANY OF THE OTHER MECHANICS OF HOW THE DOWNEND DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM WORKS.

THERE WOULD STILL BE COMMUNITY BENEFITS, UM, OTHER THAN AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT FOLKS COULD PROVIDE AN EXCHANGE FOR THE ADDITIONAL ENTITLEMENTS.

THERE'S NOT MUCH NEGOTIATION IN THERE.

CORRECT.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROGRAMS DON'T REALLY, THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF KIND OF SPECIFYING, UM, WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IN EXCHANGE FOR THE ENTITLEMENTS THERE.

IT'S NOT A NEGOTIATED PROCESS.

IT IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.

I'M GONNA CLARIFY IT ONE MORE TIME.

THE BASE HEIGHT IS STILL THREE 50, BUT THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL GOES ALL THE WAY UP TO 700? THAT IS CORRECT.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING.

OKAY, SO I HAVE AN AMENDMENT BY COMMISSIONER AHMED.

OH YES.

I'M SORRY.

GO AHEAD.

I JUST HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION.

SO THE WAY THAT THE PROGRAM WORKS NOW, YOU CAN GET INTO THE

[01:50:01]

YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO GO TO COUNCIL AND AT THAT, SO RIGHT NOW THAT'S AN UNLIMITED LEVEL OR NO, YOU, YOU'RE LIMITED BY FAR.

OH, OKAY.

SO, SO AUGUST 31ST YOU WERE LIMITED BY FAR, RIGHT? SO YOU WOULD GO TO COUNSEL IF YOU WANTED TO EXCEED THAT ADMINISTRATIVE FAR LIMIT.

FAR NO LONGER IS RELATED, SO THIS WOULD BE NOW THE EQUIVALENT WOULD BE THE HEIGHT THAT YOU WOULD BE, SO THE EIGHT 40 SORT OF GOT IT.

I UNDERSTOOD.

UH, THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE AMENDMENT? UH, ONE MORE QUESTION, FAMILY.

SURE.

UM, WHEN IT, WHEN, UH, DEVELOPER GOES TO COUNCIL TO, TO REQUEST HEIGHT IN EXCESS OF THE EXISTING, UH, WHETHER IT WAS PRIOR TO AUGUST AND THE FAR, THE BURDEN FOR THE DEVELOPER AT THAT POINT IS TO PROVIDE COMMUNITY BENEFIT BEYOND TO, TO REQUEST THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT.

IS IT ENTIRELY UP TO COUNCIL'S DISCRETION TO ASK FOR CERTAIN THINGS? WHAT, WHAT IS THE APPROVAL PROCESS WITH COUNCIL FOR THE, FOR EXCEEDING THAT HEIGHT TODAY OR PREVIOUS, UH, BEFORE AUGUST? THERE'S SPECIFIC LANGUAGE, I'M JUST PULLING IT UP.

UH, SO IT IS NOT A ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY EVENTS THAT COUNCIL, UM, REQUIRES OR, OR ANYTHING.

UM, SO CITY COUNCIL DETERMINES ADDITIONAL FAR OR HEIGHT WOULD BE GRANTED BECAUSE THEY HAVE OFFERED ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY BENEFITS AND THERE'S A DESCRIPTION AND A LIST OF THINGS THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO BE PROVIDED.

UM, THE APPLICANT AGREES TO USE THE SAME METHODOLOGY AND BONUS AREA GRANTED FOR EACH COMMUNITY BENEFIT AS DESCRIBED IN DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM TO ACHIEVE THE DESIRED BONUS AREA, CITY COUNCIL DETERMINES THAT AWARDING THE ADDITIONAL FLORIDA AREA RATIO OR HEIGHT SUBSTANTIALLY FURTHERS THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN PLAN AND IMAGINE AUSTIN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

AND THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED THAT ANY RESIDENTIAL PARKING SPACE SHALL BE OFFERED SEPARATELY FROM THE DWELLING UNIT.

SO THERE'S KIND OF A FEW DIFFERENT ITEMS THAT COUNCIL, UM, DETERMINES.

AND IN ORDER TO DO SO, THE APPLICANT HAS TO, UH, SUBMIT A WRITTEN REQUEST AND RATIONALE FOR THE ADDITIONAL FLORIDA AREA RATIO HEIGHT TO THE DIRECTOR.

THE DIRECTOR MAKES A WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION ON THE APPLICATION AND SUBMITS THE RECOMMENDATIONS TO PC FOR ITS REVIEW ON RECOMMENDATION AND THEN CANCEL GRANTS IT BASED ON THAT.

SO, UM, OKAY.

AND THAT'S IT.

WHEN, WHEN I'M LOOKING AT SECTION D HERE, UH, ONE THROUGH FOUR MM-HMM .

THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE NOT REQUIRED.

THEY DON'T HAVE TO SATISFY ALL THOSE REQUIREMENTS.

THEY THEY DO.

THEY DO.

IT IS A, IT IS ALL OF THOSE MM-HMM .

AND IT'S STILL A DISCRETIONARY DECISION BY COUNSEL AT THAT POINT? CORRECT.

THAT'S ALL.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE MOTION MAKER? OKAY.

I HAVE A SUBSTITUTE RECOMMENDATION FROM COMMISSIONER AHMED TO CHANGE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM WITH ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL IN BOTH RAINY SUBDISTRICTS FROM 350 TO 700 FEET, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BARRER RAMIREZ.

THOSE IN FAVOR, THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

SO WE WILL GO ON TO VICE CHAIR.

HANEY, ANY ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS? NO.

I HAVE NONE.

COMMISSIONER AHMED? YES, I DO.

UM, SO I'D LIKE TO, UH, CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT, UH, WHERE WE HAVE THE CITY, UH, LOOK INTO THE SOLUTION THAT HAS BEEN MENTIONED BY A COUPLE OF THE SPEAKERS, UH, OUT THERE, WHICH I THINK SEEMS LIKE A GREAT, UH, SOLUTION, AT LEAST THEORETICALLY.

AND THAT'S A MECHANISM, UM, WITH NO HEIGHT CAPS THAT CAPTURES THE EXTRA PROPERTY TAX REVENUE RESULTING FROM HAVING NO FAR CAPS OR HEIGHT LIMITS AND DEDICATES A PORTION OF IT TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR COMMUNITY BENEFITS.

UH, SO I'D WANT THE, UH, THE CITY TO LOOK INTO THIS AND IN PARTICULAR, I'D WANT STAFF TO EVALUATE THE IMPACT ON HOUSING SUPPLY AND THE IMPACT ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUNDING FROM THIS PROPOSAL VERSUS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, UH, RIGHT NOW WITH THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY, UH, BONUS PROGRAM AMENDMENTS.

AND I CAN SEND YOU THAT LANGUAGE.

UH, POTENTIAL SOLUTION, UH, GIVEN THAT I THINK IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE, UH, AND THE FACT THAT WE'VE HAD, UH, SEVERAL, UH, YOU KNOW, CONSTITUENTS AND GROUPS, UH, BRING UP THAT SOLUTION AS WELL.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE MOTION MAKER? COMMISSIONER POWELL? GO AHEAD.

WOULD IT BE HELPFUL TO MAYBE SPECIFY THAT THAT IS, YOU KNOW, PART OF THE REFRESH OF THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS OR I'M JUST THINKING ABOUT LIKE, WOULD THEY COME BACK AT A SPECIFIC TIMEFRAME OR JUST EXPLORE GENERALLY? UH, I WOULD BE ALL FOR THAT.

I JUST WANTED TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIC.

I KNOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EVALUATING DIFFERENT TOOLS OUT THERE.

UM, I WANTED TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIC ABOUT LOOKING INTO THAT SPECIFIC, UH, UH, PARTIC,

[01:55:01]

ABSOLUTELY.

COMMISSIONER BRITTON.

UH, WOULD YOU BE INTERESTED IN MAYBE AMENDING THAT SLIGHTLY? UH, I THINK THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF GREAT WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE, UH, GREAT RESEARCH THAT HAS BEEN DONE BY SOME CONSTITUENTS WHO ARE PROPOSING A VERY SPECIFIC WAY IN WHICH THAT ADDITIONAL REVENUE MIGHT BE CAPTURED THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE FEASIBLE, BUT SOMETHING WITHIN THAT GENERAL STRUCTURE OF CAPTURING ADDITIONAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUE THAT MAY NOT BE THE EXACT ONE THAT HAS BEEN MENTIONED MAY, MAY BE FEASIBLE.

SO WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO, UM, UH, CHANGE THAT LANGUAGE AROUND A LITTLE BIT TO SAY SOMETHING SIMILAR TO, OR, OR THE THING THAT THEY HAVE SAID, , I'M OPEN TO ANY MECHANISM THAT DOESN'T DISINCENTIVIZE TALLER BUILDINGS, ESSENTIALLY AND STILL PROVIDE SOME WAY WITH ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO FUND AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

AND SO I JUST WANT TO SEE SOME SOLUTION WHERE WE'RE NOT INCENTIVIZING AND PENALIZING, UH, BUILDINGS THAT ARE ABOVE A CERTAIN HEIGHT, WHICH IS MY PROBLEM, UH, HERE.

SO, UM, YEAH, ANY WAY THAT WE CAN DO THAT, UH, TO FIND A SOLUTION THERE.

I'M OPEN TO OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE MOTION MAKER.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESTATE YOUR MOTION FOR US, PLEASE? UH, I DO WANT TO ASK, UH, COMMISSIONER BRETTON, UH, DO YOU HAVE CERTAIN RECOMMENDATIONS ON EXACTLY, UH, YOU KNOW, WHAT THEY'RE EXPLORING? UH, UH, SO EXACTLY WHAT TYPE OF, YOU SAID TO MAKE THE, UH, MOTION MORE GENERAL IN TERMS OF THE SOLUTIONS THAT STAFF IS, UH, EXPLORING.

CAN YOU, UH, BE MORE SPECIFIC ON HOW TO, UH, YOU KNOW, MAKE THIS, UH, MOTION MORE GENERAL? I THINK WHAT I HEARD WHEN, WHEN YOU WERE PROPOSING, UH, UH, ROUGH LANGUAGE WAS TO, UH, DO ADDITIONAL RESEARCH INTO THE MECHANISM, WHICH HAS BEEN, UH, RESTATED AS A PART OF, UH, THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION'S LETTER TO US.

AND I BELIEVE TO STAFF, UH, THAT IS A SPECIFIC MECHANISM, BUT THERE ARE A, I'M SURE GROUP OF MECHANISMS THAT MAY ALLOW FOR US TO CAPTURE, UH, INCREMENTAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUE.

AND SO INSTEAD OF RECOMMENDING THEY LOOK INTO THAT ONE SPECIFIC MECHANISM, RATHER THAT THEY LOOK INTO THAT GROUP OF MECHANISMS INCLUDING THE SPECIFIC MECHANISM WHICH HAS BEEN STATED.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YES, IT DOES.

SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER POWELL.

LEMME GO AHEAD AND RESTATE IT AND THEN I CAN SEND IT OVER TO YOU.

SO, UH, SO I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THE ME AN AMENDMENT, UH, CALLING FOR THE CITY TO CONSIDER, UH, A MECHANISM WITH NO HEIGHT CAPS, UH, THAT CAPTURE, THAT ONE CAPTURES INCREMENTAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUE RESULTING FROM HAVING NO FAR CAPS OR HEIGHT LIMITS AND TWO DEDICATES A PORTION, UH, OF THAT ADDITIONAL REVENUE TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR OTHER COMMUNITY BENEFITS IN EXCHANGE FOR THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY, UH, PROGRAM.

AND IN PARTICULAR, UH, I WOULD WANT STAFF TO ANALYZE WITH THIS SOLUTION OR THIS MECHANISM, THE IMPACT TO HOUSING SUPPLY VERSUS THE PROPOSED DOWNTOWN DENSITY PROGRAM AND THE IMPACT TO THE AMOUNT OF, UH, DOLLARS RAISED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING FROM THIS MECHANISM.

I'M LOOKING FOR A SECOND.

UH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK FURTHER TO YOUR MOTION? YEAH, SURE.

I CAN.

UM, I HAVE, UM, YOU KNOW, I, I, I KNOW THERE'S, UH, A LOT OF BENEFIT THAT'S COME FROM THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY PROGRAM PREVIOUSLY, UH, AND WE'RE, AND THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO GET FROM THE, UH, FROM THE NEW MECHANISM AFTER SB EIGHT 40, NAMELY, UH, COLLECTING DOLLARS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WHICH IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO OUR CITY.

UM, BUT, UH, I THINK THERE'S MAJOR ISSUES WITH ESSENTIALLY DISINCENTIVIZING, TALLER BUILDINGS AND, UH, UM, PENALIZING BUILDINGS ABOVE A CERTAIN HEIGHT WHERE THERE'S ADDITIONAL COST FOR THEM AND NOT FOR, UH, FOR SHORTER CONSTRUCTION WHEN OUR STATED GOAL OF THE CITY IS TO INCREASE HOUSING SUPPLY AND TO INCREASE DENSITY.

AND SO, UM, I THINK MANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HERE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS AS A SHORT TERM SOLUTION TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T LOSE OUT ON SOME OF THOSE COMMUNITY BENEFITS, NAMELY GREAT STREETS AND AFFORDABLE AND, UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUNDING.

BUT, UH, I'M REALLY GLAD THAT A LOT OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE TALKED ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT THIS, THIS DOES NOT DRAG ON FOR YEARS.

AND IN THE MEANTIME, I WANNA MAKE SURE,

[02:00:01]

UH, STAFF IS, UH, YOU KNOW, WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN TO DIRECT STAFF INTO SPECIFIC THINGS THAT WE WOULD LIKE THEM TO LOOK INTO, UH, AS A SOLUTION THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE IN ANY WAY PENALIZING TALLER CONSTRUCTION THAT DOES MORE TO INCREASE HOUSING SUPPLY FOR OUR CITY.

ANYONE SPEAKING AGAINST THE AMENDMENT? ANYONE ELSE? SPEAKING FOR COMMISSIONER POWELL? I JUST WANNA SAY I, I REALLY APPRECIATE THIS AMENDMENT AND EXPLORING THIS OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE I THINK THAT THE GREAT THING ABOUT THIS POTENTIAL PROPERTY TAX MECHANISM IS IT'S IN PERPETUITY AND THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT THAT CAN COME FROM THAT, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE ARE IN VERY MUCH, UH, THIS, THIS TAX CRUNCH SITUATION.

UM, WE NEED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF DEDICATED REVENUE STREAMS. I THINK THAT NUMBER ONE COMPLAINT THAT I HEAR FROM THE COMMUNITY ABOUT, YOU KNOW, FEE IN LIE OR CONTRIBUTIONS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUNDS IS IT CAN BE KIND OF AN OPAQUE THING FOR COMMUNITY MEMBERS TO UNDERSTAND HOW THAT'S GETTING SPENT, WHEN IT'S GETTING SPENT AND WHY, AND ON WHAT.

UM, AND I THINK IF WE CAN, YOU KNOW, REALLY FIND AN OPPORTUNITY TO ESTABLISH A ROBUST SYSTEM TO CAPTURE THOSE PROPERTY TAXES IN PERPETUITY, THAT WOULD BE FANTASTIC.

I, I HOPE THAT SHIP FLOATS.

ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST THE AMENDMENT? YES.

COMMISSIONER PETROSIAN.

UM, I'D JUST LIKE TO REITERATE, I THINK THE, UTILIZING THE TAX MECHANISM THAT FINDS A WAY TO IN, IN INTUITY FUND, UH, THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND THAT IS NOT BASED ON SINGLE ONE-TIME PAYMENTS INTO THAT FUND, UM, KIND OF SECURES IT FOR THE FUTURE.

WE ARE OBVIOUSLY IN AN UNPRECEDENTED GROWTH STAGE IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN, OR AT LEAST COMING OFF THE TAIL END OF ONE.

UH, THERE'S AN ASSUMPTION WITH OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM THAT'S GONNA LAST FOREVER.

UM, AND I THINK THAT ANOTHER MEANS OF, OF PUTTING MONEY INTO THAT ACCOUNT WOULD HELP TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE IN OUR COMMUNITY MOST IN NEED HAVE THE MONEY WHEN THEY NEED IT, UM, EVEN IF THE CITY FAILS TO GROW AT THE SPEED THAT WE THINK IT SHOULD.

UM, I ALSO AGREE THAT I THINK IN, ESPECIALLY IN THE CBD AREA, THE TALLEST BUILDINGS THAT WE CAN GET TO BE BUILT ON THESE SITES IS THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THESE, UH, PARCELS OF LANDS.

SO I FULLY AGREE.

WE HAVE, UH, MORE SPOTS AGAINST, IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST, OTHERWISE, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT.

UH, WHICH IS A, WHICH IS FROM COMMISSIONER AHMED.

A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION TO CITY STAFF TO CONSIDER A MECHANISM WITH NO HEIGHT CAP THAT CAPTURES INCREMENTAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUE RESULTING FROM HAVING NO FAR CAPS OR HEIGHT LIMITS AND DEDICATES A PORTION OF IT TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND OTHER COMMUNITY BENEFITS.

AND IN PARTICULAR, A RECOMMENDATION THAT STAFF EVALUATE THE IMPACT TO HOUSING SUPPLY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUNDING FROM THIS PROPOSAL, WHICH WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER POWELL.

THOSE IN FAVOR, IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

RIGHT? MOVING DOWN.

COMMISSIONER BRA RAMIREZ, NO AMENDMENTS FROM YOU.

COMMISSIONER LAWN, COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE, ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS? COMMISSIONER HOWARD? NO, MA'AM.

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER WE NEED A THIRD ROUND OF AMENDMENTS, , UH, CHAIR, COULD I POTENTIALLY ASK A STAFF QUESTION JUST TO HELP CLARIFY THAT? YES.

UM, SO I, I, I KNOW THAT WE'VE JUST GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS OF AMENDING THE MAPS THAT NOTED WHEN WE MIGHT POTENTIALLY REQUIRE A NON-ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OR COUNCIL REVIEW FOR SOME OF THESE.

AND I GUESS I'M JUST WONDERING IF WE SHOULD ALSO MAKE A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION THAT SORT OF TOUCHES ON THAT IN CASE THE MAP SOLUTION THAT WE JUST SORT OF AMENDED IS ACTUALLY NOT THE WAY THAT LEGAL WANTS TO HANDLE THAT, OR IF THAT IS A LITTLE BIT BUILT AND SUSPENDERS.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE WERE COVERING THIS CORRECTLY.

I THINK WHETHER YOU MAKE THE GENERAL RECOMMENDATION OR NOT, WE'LL BE RE REVISITING THAT ENTIRE MAP, ALL OF THE THRESHOLDS, ALL OF THE EVERYTHING WITH THE OVERHAUL, THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM AS PART OF THE CENTRAL CITY PLAN.

SO I WOULD, I WOULD SAY THAT IF WE ARE NOT ABLE TO DO THE PROPOSED APPROACH, UM, THAT THE NEXT BEST THING WOULD BE THE OVERHAUL IS PART OF THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM OVERHAUL IN GENERAL OVER THE NEXT YEAR.

THERE'S NOT REALLY, I DON'T THINK THERE'S REALLY A BACKUP PLAN, IF YOU WILL, BETWEEN THOSE TWO THINGS, I DON'T THINK, BUT YOU'RE OKAY.

SO YOU'RE WELCOME, BUT WE WELCOME ALL GENERAL AMENDMENTS.

YEAH, I THINK, I, I THINK THAT THAT MAKES ME FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD ACTUALLY MAKE A GENERAL, UM, AMENDMENT THEN JUST SUGGESTING THAT THIS IS SOMETHING TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR WHAT THE DIRECTION IS THAT WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THAT DELTA IS ADDRESSED.

COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, DO YOU HAVE A AMENDMENT HONEY? I HAVE AN AMENDMENT IF THAT'S OKAY, IF WE DO ONE MORE ROUND.

UM, SO I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO STAFF TO, UM, ENSURE THAT THE, UH, CHANGE IN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW, UM, AS UH, CAUSED BY THE CHANGES OF THE ORDINANCE IS ADDRESSED SUFFICIENTLY IN THIS ROUND OF ADJUSTMENTS TO THE

[02:05:01]

DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? I HAVE A QUESTION.

AS PART OF THAT, CAN WE ALSO, UM, HAVE A REVIEW OF WHETHER WE NEED ANY MAXIMUM FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, LIKE JUST MAKE IT SO THAT YOU CAN PARTICIPATE IN THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY PROGRAM WITHOUT COUNCIL APPROVAL NO MATTER WHAT THE HEIGHT IS? WE, WE DO NEED A, A LIMIT.

OKAY, THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

ALRIGHT.

MAKING IT 2000 FEET.

I CAN TELL LAW WILL SAY THAT, BUT YOU CAN MAKE THE RECOGNITION, BUT I, I KNOW LAW'S ANSWER.

GOT IT.

UM, YEAH, I APPRECIATE THAT.

AND I THINK IT ISN'T ACTUALLY JUST SOMETHING IMPORTANT TO NOTE IS THAT WHEN WE WERE DOING CODE NEXT, THERE WAS ACTUALLY A DESIRE TO MAKE ALL OF THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS COMPLETELY ADMINISTRATIVE.

SO THAT IS IN SOME WAYS GOING BACK TO WHAT WE HAD APPROVED AS, OR THOUGHT ABOUT AS A COMMUNITY ALMOST 10 YEARS AGO.

SO I DO APPRECIATE THAT INPUT, BUT IN THIS CASE, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CHANGING THE DELTA FROM THREE 50 TO WHATEVER THE MAXIMUM OF 25 TO ONE FAR OR 15 TO ONE FAR, THAT THAT IS STILL DONE ADMINISTRATIVELY AND IS NOT AN UNDUE BURDEN ON, UM, APPLICANTS AS THEY COME THROUGH THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY PROGRAM.

COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, I'LL JUST ASK TO, FOR YOU TO CONFIRM THAT THIS LANGUAGE CAPTURES THE SPIRIT OF YOUR AMENDMENT, WHICH IS A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION TO CITY STAFF TO ENSURE THAT THE CHANGE IN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW THRESHOLD IS ADDRESSED SUFFICIENTLY IN THIS ROUND OF ADJUSTMENTS TO THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUSES.

I THINK THAT SOUNDS CORRECT.

THANK YOU, CHAIR.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? I'LL GO AHEAD AND SECOND THAT .

THANK YOU CHAIR IN FAVOR.

ANY FINAL THIRD ROUND AMENDMENTS? OKAY.

SEEING NONE, WE ARE GOING TO MOVE BACK TO OUR BASE MOTION, WHICH WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL AND SECONDED BY, PLEASE REMIND ME WHO SECONDED THAT COMMISSIONER LINE.

I THINK YOU SECONDED OUR BASE MOTION.

ITEM SEVEN, DISCUSSION AND ACTION TO APPOINT A MEMBER TO SERVE ON THE GOVERNANCE RULES AND PROCEDURES WORKING GROUP.

SO WE'RE MOVING BACK TO OUR BASE MOTION AS AMENDED.

WE WILL MOVE INTO DEBATE ON THE BASE MOTION.

SO WE CAN TAKE THREE, FOUR, AND THREE AGAINST IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR THE BASE MOTION AS AMENDED.

COMMISSIONER POWELL? YEAH, I'D LIKE TO SPEAK FOUR WITH, UM, KIND OF TWO REALITIES TO ACKNOWLEDGE.

ONE IS THAT THE CONVERSATION WE'RE HAVING ABOUT CBD IS INFINITELY MORE FUN THAN THE ONE AT THE CAPITOL.

I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE.

THE SECOND ONE THOUGH, MORE IMPORTANTLY, IS THAT THE, THIS IS A GREAT EXAMPLE AND I WANT, I MENTIONED THIS IN THE AMENDMENT PROCESS, BUT WANNA REALLY DIAL IT HOME.

THE FACT THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE'S A CONSENSUS IN THE COMMUNITY ON THIS COMMISSION WITH STAFF THAT THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM IS IN NEED OF THAT REVITALIZATION.

IT'S COMING UP IN THE NEXT YEAR.

AND THAT THIS IS JUST KIND OF THE TEMPORARY MEASURE, THE BANDAID TO GET INTO A COMPLIANCE NOW, MAKE SOME MOTION TOWARDS THE RIGHT PLACES, BUT ULTIMATELY TO REWORK AND REIMAGINE THIS.

AND THAT'S WHY I REALLY WANNA FOCUS IN ON THE, UH, AMENDMENT FROM COMMISSIONER ARMAD ABOUT LOOKING INTO THAT PROPERTY TAX OPTION AND LOOKING INTO ANY OTHER POTENTIAL ROBUST SYSTEM THAT CAN BE LEGALLY SOUND THAT FUNDS OUR COMMUNITY IN PERPETUITY.

THAT IS KIND OF THE NEXT EVOLUTION OF THIS DOWNTOWN DENSITY PROGRAM.

SO ALL THAT TO SAY, I, I'M VOTING YESTERDAY, I FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THE VOTE, BUT IN A, A VERY TEMPORARY MINDSET AS WE ENDEAVOR TO BRING THIS PROGRAM INTO THE COMING DECADES.

ANYONE SPEAKING AGAINST THE BASE MOTION? ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK FOR? OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THE BASE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LON AS AMENDED.

THOSE IN FAVOR, THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

THANK YOU ALL FOR WORKING THROUGH THAT CODE AMENDMENT WITH US AND THANK YOU SO MUCH TO OUR STAFF FOR ALL OF YOUR WORK ON THIS.

WE REALLY APPRECIATE IT.

OKAY, LET'S MOVE INTO OUR DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS. SO WE HAVE

[7. Discussion and action to appoint a member to serve on the Governance, Rules, and Procedures Working Group. (Sponsored by Chair Woods and Commissioner Breton)]

UM, THIS IS A GROUP THAT CURRENTLY CONSISTS OF MYSELF AND COMMISSIONER BREIRA RAMIREZ, AND WE'RE LOOKING FOR A THIRD MEMBER OF THAT WORKING GROUP.

WE TALK THROUGH THE PROCEDURES AND RULES AROUND OUR MEETINGS.

WE'RE CURRENTLY OPERATING UNDER INTERIM RULES, SO WE'RE FINALIZING A NEW SET OF RULES IN TERMS OF, UM, THE AMOUNT OF TIME AND PROCEDURE THAT PUBLIC SPEAKERS GET AND THE PROCEDURES THAT WE WORK THROUGH CODE AMENDMENTS LIKE WE DID TONIGHT.

SO IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN WEIGHING IN ON THAT, UM, IT MIGHT BE A GOOD OPTION FOR A NEWER COMMISSIONER OR ARE YOU INTERESTED VICE CHAIR HANEY? IT COULD BE A GOOD OPTION.

I WOULD BE GLAD TO HAVE A NEWER COMMISSIONER TAKE CARE OF IT, BUT IF NOT, I'D BE HAPPY TO.

ANYONE EXCITED TO JUMP INTO THAT? OKAY.

[02:10:01]

UM, WELL WITH THAT IN MIND, I'M GONNA NOMINATE VICE CHAIR HANEY TO JOIN THE GOVERNANCE.

SECOND.

SECOND RULES AND PROCEDURES WORKING GROUP SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.

WITHOUT OBJECTION, THAT PASSES.

THANK YOU SO MUCH, VICE CHAIR HANEY FOR JOINING THAT GROUP.

WE'LL BE EXCITED TO HAVE YOU WORK WITH US.

LET'S MOVE INTO OUR WORKING GROUP UPDATES.

[ WORKING GROUP/COMMITTEE UPDATES]

SO CODES AND ORDINANCES, JOINT COMMITTEE, UM, WE JUST HAD A MEETING, UH, WHERE WE HEARD THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS IN OUR UPCOMING MEETING HAS BEEN CANCELED FOR LACK OF ITEMS. THANK YOU.

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE.

I'M HAPPY TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE.

WE HAD A MEETING ABOUT A WEEK OR TWO AGO, UH, AND WE PASSED A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THE INITIATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO MODIFY, PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR, UH, SF AND MF ZONING.

UH, IN PARTICULAR TRYING IN EFFORTS OF MAKING IT EASIER TO HAVE CERTAIN COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES THAT PROMOTE WALKABILITY IN NEIGHBORHOODS.

WONDERFUL.

JUST TO ADD ONTO THAT UPDATE AS WELL, THAT'S THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE HADN'T MET QUORUM FOR I THINK THREE, FOUR QUARTERLY MEETINGS BEFORE THAT.

SO, UH, BE ADVISED PLAN COMMISSION THAT WHILE WE'RE EXCITED ABOUT THAT RECOMMENDATION, UH, IT'S MAYBE NOT COMPLIANT WITH ALL THE LATEST THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING AND PROBABLY NEEDS A BIT OF WORK.

UH, ALSO ON A STRUCTURAL LEVEL, UH, WE APPOINTED OR WE VOTED TO HAVE CHAIR HANK SMITH FROM THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE.

UH, AND THANKS TO COMMISSIONER AHMED, I'M SERVING AS VICE CHAIR.

I DO APPRECIATE IT.

JOINT SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE COMMISSIONER BREDEN, DO YOU HAVE ANY UPDATES ON THAT? NO.

SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD.

COMMISSIONER HILLARY IS NOT JOINING US THIS EVENING.

SMALL AREA PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE.

UH, THERE'S NO UPDATE, BUT WE DO HAVE A MEETING SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 10TH.

WONDERFUL.

COMMISSIONER BRETTON, I DON'T HAVE AN UPDATE.

I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A MEETING SCHEDULED FOR, UH, NEXT WEEK, UH, THE 20TH OCTOBER 20TH.

GREAT GOVERNANCE RULES AND PROCEDURES WORKING GROUP.

I'LL SHARE AN UPDATE THAT WE ARE SO EXCITED ABOUT OUR NEW MEMBER AND .

UH, WE'LL BE MEETING OVER THE NEXT COUPLE WEEKS TO FINALIZE SOME OF THE RULES THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING THROUGH PREVIOUSLY AND WE'LL BRING THEM BACK TO THE COMMISSION SOON.

THAT COMMISSIONERS WOULD LIKE TO BRING? YES, COMMISSIONER BRETTON.

ANY FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

[FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]

UH, FOR NEXT AGENDA, I WOULD LIKE TO PLACE, UH, AN INITIATION FOR A SITE SPECIFIC AMENDMENT, UH, OF THE UNO SUBDISTRICT BOUNDARIES.

UH, FOR SITES 900 THROUGH 908, UH, WEST 22ND STREET.

UH, CHANGING THEM FROM THE OUTER WEST SUBDISTRICT TO THE INNER WEST SUBDISTRICT.

OKAY, LOOKING FOR A SECOND.

SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.

OTHER FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS? YES.

COMMISSIONER WORM? YEAH.

UH, I'D LIKE TO REQUEST THAT WE ADD AN ITEM TO OUR NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION.

POTENTIAL ACTION TO MODIFY THE DOWNTOWN PARKS OVERLAY DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS.

GREAT.

LOOKING FOR A SECOND.

SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR HANEY.

ANY OTHER FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS? COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? UM, YES.

I WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND THAT WE, UH, PUT A SITE SPECIFIC ITEM ON THE OCTOBER 28TH PLANNING COMMISSION, WHICH IS RELATED TO, UM, SPECIFIC SITE IS 6 0 1, 6 0 7 WEST MARTIN LUTHER KING, SO MLK BOULEVARD 1818 0 6 NOIS AND 6 0 4 WEST 18TH STREET.

UM, AND BASICALLY THAT WE WOULD BE, UH, REVISITING THE FAR AS PART OF THAT CONVERSATION.

LOOKING FOR A SECOND ON THAT.

SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETROSSIAN.