Planning Commission endorses ‘plot twist’ for South Central Waterfront Plan

Though the future of Austin’s south shore has been shaken by a court ruling against the proposed tax increment reinvestment zone, members of the Planning Commission last week took their turn tackling the South Central Waterfront Plan in a sprawling discussion that spawned a number of novel proposals.

The plan, which has been in the works since about 2015, would serve as a guide to developing and adding density to the south shore of Lady Bird Lake across from downtown. According to the current timeline, the city will have a new bonus program this spring allowing developers to build taller buildings in exchange for community developments, with a rezoning of most parcels to follow in the summer. 

Though commissioners ultimately approved the plan with their recommended amendments, the quick turnaround was a point of contention during the five-hour discussion. The plan was approved in a vote of 8-1, with Commissioner Jennifer Mushtaler voting in opposition and Commissioner Grayson Cox abstaining from the vote. Commissioners Alberta Phillips, Nadia Barrera-Ramirez and Patrick Howard were absent for the vote.

“I don’t think this is ready,” Cox said. “I think we made some really, really good motions … and I would love to work a little bit more collaboratively with staff to craft those things. But we just weren’t given the time today, or ever, to do that.”

The most radical amendment approved by commissioners was a proposal from Commissioner Adam Haynes to replace the proposed bonus program structure with the already-implemented downtown density bonus program. Under the ethos of “keep it simple, stupid,” Hayes explained that extending that bonus program across the river (with some edits like removing references to Rainey Street and revising sections that address music venues) would be more consistent and easier for developers to understand.

Mushtaler, who voted in favor of the amendment but against the overall plan, called the proposal a “plot twist,” noting that they were only forwarding their ideas on to City Council to consider anyway.

“I don’t feel like there’s a lot of ‘stick’ to anything we do. We’ve seen some of our things really get turned a** over teakettle once they get to Council,” she said. “I’m liking the consistency. If we’re looking at a downtown core that’s unified, this begins to make sense. And if there are things we don’t like in our downtown density bonus program that aren’t working, we can change it across the board.”

A visibly upset Commissioner Felicity Maxwell, who has also worked on the plan as a member of the South Central Waterfront Advisory Board, pointed out that there had been probably “tens of thousands of hours” put into the plan.

“We don’t often get this type of investment in my part of town,” she said. “I find it a little frustrating that you all want to scrap what has been clearly made (and) outlined as priorities (as) the things that we care about in South Austin and replace it with the downtown density program, which we do know has specific issues. And I understand the intent here is not necessarily to undermine those thousands of hours, but it certainly doesn’t feel like a vote of confidence.”

The staff-proposed bonus would function much like the city’s other density programs that allow developers more height in exchange for things like affordable housing, environmental benefits and creative space.

 

 

Since February, city staff has adjusted its recommendations slightly after hearing from the public. The changes include adding some height limits, adding bird-friendly design communications, removing flat deck parking requirements, adding creative space as a potential community benefit, requiring public access for open spaces and adjusting the parameters of the affordable housing requirements.

Though it’s unclear how those would work in concert with an extension of the downtown density bonus program, commissioners also approved a number of other amendments aimed at improving the plan, many centered on increasing on-site affordable housing in the district.

The current plan calls for 5 percent on-site affordable housing for rentals, which is expected to result in 481 new affordable units if the district is fully built out to its potential, which is only a bit shy of the 527 in the vision plan for the area. However, it is quite a bit below the vision of 20 percent affordable housing found in the plan.

As for condos, a fee-in-lieu will be allowed. Planner Andrea Bates explained to the commission that the various fees associated with condos makes affordable housing difficult. As a compromise, Bates said, the fee-in-lieu would be higher. 

Commissioner Alberta Phillips pushed back against this with her amendment that would “permit 30 percent of the bonus fee-in-lieu to be used for on-site condos, either through city intervention or through a mechanism similar to other bonuses” in order to encourage affordable condo ownership.

In addition, Commissioner Awais Azhar had two amendments that targeted increased affordability as well. The first would allow the city to further subsidize affordable units through a buy-down program. His amendment would also prioritize affordable housing by giving it more weight in the bonus structure, with 60 percent of fees-in-lieu going to that issue and priority given to spending the fees on preserving affordable housing and homelessness initiatives.

Azhar’s second amendment targeted multifamily development, asking for replacement of any affordable units lost and calling for noticing and relocation requirements.

Commissioners also approved an amendment that would remove subdistrict one and remap the subdistricts into three, instead of four, divisions.  

A full list of the Planning Commission recommendations can be found below. The South Central Waterfront Plan is currently scheduled to go before City Council’s Housing and Planning Committee on April 23 and to the full City Council on May 2.

Photo by Michael Barera, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

The Austin Monitor’s work is made possible by donations from the community. Though our reporting covers donors from time to time, we are careful to keep business and editorial efforts separate while maintaining transparency. A complete list of donors is available here, and our code of ethics is explained here.