Thoughts on the new design standards...

The design standards can be found here or I've mirrored them on the bottom of this entry.

Well, this week saw the release of the new design standards and with it our chance to see, at least in the Council Member's eyes, how Austin will try to handle it's explosive growth. I haven't gone through the document with a fine-tooth comb yet but I have read the document thoroughly (by that I mean I didn't follow any of the references to external ordinances and the like but have read the document in its entirety). But before I get into my take on the design standards, I'd like to make a quick follow-up on a few posts I've made previously.

My last few posts have centered on the "trickle down" theory of housing which was started by a fellow blogger, M1EK, when he made a few comments on my blog and then made a similar comment on another blog. I wrote up a rather lengthy couple of posts on why I felt that the "trickle down" effect was not at work in M1EK's anecdotal example he put forth. For that, I got a few guffs from M1EK as well as some generally constructive comments from others. What I attempted to show could be summed up by the following: "The markets are segmented and demand will outpace supply for the forseeable future." I then attempted to explain through metaphor and links to outside sources that, at least for the forseeable future, it wouldn't matter how much supply in any market will be added, demand will still be greater and overall affordability would not move down. Now, I also said in a follow-up comment that I didn't plan on bringing up this topic again but as fate would have it, someone in a position of authority weighed in and so I'm making this brief mention of it.

Now I've had my differences with Council Member McCracken in the past about his seemingly overzealous tilt towards pro-growth and development and to be fair, I was seriously questioning his motives behind the Prop 1 & 2 voting run-up. But one thing that can be said about Council Member McCracken is that he is always at the forefront when it comes to development within Austin and is very clear about his vision. Which is what surprised me when I ran across this quote (my emphasis):

Rather than exasperating chic development and steep prices, McCracken contends the ordinance strives to balance density goals with affordability. By focusing growth along major corridors and away from neighborhoods, the hope is to keep taxes affordable on single-family homes. But, "affordability doesn't happen organically," McCracken says. "It is untrue that the market produces affordability due to supply." Therefore, 10% of VMU rental properties must be set at 80% median family income. Ten percent might not sound like much, but McCracken says the neighbors can set lower MFI if they wish, and the 10% reserve can double with city assistance, if the developer desires. "As density comes," he says, "we don't want to turn into San Francisco – a great urban environment for rich people."

In this one quote, Council Member McCracken has addressed the core issues I've been posting about over the last few months. First off, he upholds my view that affordability will not come through supply alone; there must be other ways to that goal and it appears, from the design standards, they want to mandate a way through ordinance. He also seems to be echoing my fears of losing the economic and hence, the cultural diversity of Austin through gentrification and thus, has tried to promote some sort of control mechanism through the new standards (using mandated median income levels and neighborhood association input). As an example, the design standards, starting on page 72 under Section E. Affordability Requirements for the new VMUs (Vertical Mixed Use), states the following (I'm quoting the full section in its entirety):

5. Affordability Requirements
   To be eligible for the dimensional standards exemptions in subsection D.2. above, the residential units in a VMU building shall meet the following requirements.
   1. Affordability Requirements for Owner-Occupied Units
      1. Five percent of the residential units in the VMU building shall be reserved in perpetuity for ownership and occupancy by residents earning 80 percent of the median family income.
      2. In addition, five percent of the residential units in the VMU building shall be reserved in perpetuity for ownership and occupancy by residents earning 100 percent of the median family income.
      3. The homeowner association fees for the owner- occupied affordable units shall be subsidized by the entire membership of the homeowner association, pursuant to procedures and criteria established by the Director.
   2. Affordability Requirements for Rental Units
      1. Ten percent of the residential units in the VMU building shall be reserved for a minimum of 40 years for rental by residents earning 80 percent of the median family income.
      2. As part of the one-time opt-in/opt-out process described in Section 4.3.5. below, a neighborhood association may request that some or all of the affordable rental units be available for renters earning a lower percentage of the median family income, to as low as 60 percent of the median family income. VMU projects that file zoning or site plan applications prior to August 9, 2006, will not be subject to this neighborhood affordability customization; and instead ten percent of the residential units in the VMU building shall be reserved for a minimum of 40 years for rental by residents earning 80 percent of the median family income.
      3. The city may elect to subsidize an additional ten percent of the residential units in the building for rental purposes for residents at any level of affordability pursuant to criteria and procedures established by the Director.
   3. Fee for Upper-Level Nonresidential Space The developers of VMU buildings that contain non- residential uses above the ground-floor shall pay a fee as set by the City Council for all climate- controlled nonresidential space above the ground floor.
   4. Parkland Dedication Fee VMU buildings not located on greenfield sites that meet the affordability standards of this Section 4.3.3.E. are exempt from the parkland dedication requirements in Chapter 25-4, Article 3, Division 5.

My only problem with this part of the standards is I would like to see a greater percentage of units offered at a lower percentage of median income. Currently for homeowners, the standard sets 5% of units at 80% of median income and another 5% of units at 100% median income. I would like to see Austin follow some other cities suggestions and offer 10% at 70% and maybe an additional 5% at 80-100% median income. Anything we can do to offer incentives to middle-class ownership will only benefit Austin's cultural diversity otherwise we really do run the risk of becoming what Council Member McCracken states -- "a great urban environment for rich people." I don't think that's what most Austinites want. Well, I should clarify. That's not what most of us Southies want... :-)

The only other thing that really stuck out at me came from section 2.7 Private Common Space and Pedestrian Amenities. I won't quote the entire section (I've linked to the document below) but here's the section I found interesting:

2.7. PRIVATE COMMON OPEN SPACE AND PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES²²

[...]

2.7.2. Applicability
The following table summarizes the applicability of this section:

Standard	Applies if the Principal Street is:	Applies to the Following:
2.7: Private Common Open Space and Pedestrian Amenities	All roadway types	All site plans five acres in size or larger

2.7.3. Standards

1. Amenity Required
   All development subject to this section shall devote a minimum of two percent of the net site area to one of the following types of private common open space or pedestrian amenities:
   1. A natural and undisturbed private common open space, for use of the residents, employees, and visitors to the development.
   2. A landscape area other than one required by Subchapter C, Article 9 (Landscaping), provided such landscaped area has a minimum depth and width of 10 feet and a minimum total area of 650 square feet. The area shall include pedestrian amenities to support these places as gathering areas.
   3. A playground, patio, or plaza with outdoor seating areas, provided the playground, patio, or plaza has a minimum depth and width of ten feet and a minimum total area of 300 square feet. The area shall include pedestrian amenities to support these places as gathering areas.
   4. A combination of the above-listed amenities. (See Figure 42.)

[...]

F. Fee In Lieu
Instead of providing private common open space or pedestrian amenities as required in this section, the developer of a property located within the urban roadways boundary (as defined in Article 5 of this Subchapter) may request approval to deposit with the city a nonrefundable cash payment, based on a formula established by the council. The Director shall review the request and accept or deny the request no later than 15 days following its receipt.

Personally, I would like to see that final section dropped as I would rather see public amenities instead of a payment to a slush fund to the City. This exemption only applies to the "urban roadways boundary" (which is pretty much all of the urban core of Austin) so I don't know how many 5 acre sites are still left down here but I would much rather see places where people can gather then have the space devoted to a few extra sq. ft. of building or parking. Maybe the "exemption" should be a smaller percentage of the site (maybe 1% instead of 2% devoted) but I really like the idea of the city promoting open, green spaces rather than a pavement exemption. I'll be honest, there could be reasons for this payment that I'm not aware of but based on this document, I don't see how making a payment to the City helps with livability. It just seems to be a convenient loophole for developers to not add that enhancing green space to their development.

But overall, the document reads sensible and I feel this is a plan that most of the Austin residents can settle on. To be completely honest, I was *really* looking for the developer loopholes in this document and I was quite surprised by the relative lack of them. I need to go back over the document with that fine-tooth comb I mentioned earlier but in the meantime, I say "Well Done!" to those involved on trying to give Austin a coherent development direction.