AURA Endorses On-Street 38th to Oltorf to Yellow Jacket Light Rail Option

AURA’s membership has taken a vote on which options they prefer out of the proposed Project Connect light rail options. Our members voted in favor of the On-Street 38th to Oltorf to Yellow Jacket option, with On-Street: North Lamar to Pleasant Valley coming in a close second. The remaining light rail plans still had strong support among AURA members, especially compared to a “No Build” option which received little to no support. This demonstrates AURA’s continued support of Project Connect and moving forward with building light rail.

As part of Project Connect’s public input process, we wrote a letter to Austin Transit Partnership (ATP) Executive Director Greg Cannally reflecting the endorsements of the Project Connect Working Group and AURA as a whole. Here is the full text of the letter:

Mr. Canally,

On behalf of the membership of AURA, Austin’s largest grassroots, pro-transit organization, we wanted to share our feedback regarding the current ATP Project Connect options.

First, we want to express our appreciation for ATP staff and engineers for their availability and helpfulness during the public input process. Throughout our discussion process, ATP provided detailed information and answered numerous questions. This was crucial for the success of the AURA Project Connect Working Group and allowed us to conduct a comprehensive and holistic evaluation of each Project Connect option. We appreciate their support and engagement.

To analyze all light rail options and the future of transit in Austin, the all-volunteer AURA Project Connect Working Group built a robust evaluation framework. Our goal was to equip Austinites with the necessary information to understand and contextualize each option’s impact on the city. Additionally, we aimed to provide a formal recommendation to inform an official endorsement vote of the AURA membership. After extensive research and investigation, the AURA Project Connect Working Group confidently settled on a specific recommendation: On-Street 38th to Oltorf to Yellow Jacket with the South 1st river crossing.

While all options are undoubtedly better than the current lack of any light rail, the working group has recommended the 38th to Oltorf to Yellow Jacket option because it lays the best foundation for the city overall. It balances every key criterion while providing a foundation that enables us to quickly and iteratively expand the system, achieve our mode shift goals, and connect every part of Austin. Although the lack of grade separation and connections to valuable destinations such as the airport are valid concerns, the working group believes that these issues can be mitigated or resolved while retaining the strengths of this initial build option. You can see the full output of the working group (recommendation, evaluation matrix, and reports) at https://aura-atx.org/project-connect-working-group-recommends-on-street-38th-to-oltorf-to-yellow-jacket-light-rail-option/

The AURA membership also chose to endorse the On-Street 38th to Oltorf to Yellow Jacket rail option, but to also support all of the rail options.This choice shows continued, strong support for Project Connect, and that any of the light rail plans would be vastly preferred to Austin’s current lack of light rail. It’s worth noting that the vote was narrowly won, the On-Street North Lamar to Pleasant Valley option was a very close runner-up. We believe this shows the membership greatly values high ridership and believes that the significant compromises necessary for full grade separation through downtown are not worth it. In making this decision, we recognize that without grade separation our shared responsibility as transit planners and advocates will be even greater to ensure that private vehicles are given as few opportunities as possible to interfere with our more efficient and higher capacity transit options. AURA members also voted with a strong preference for the South 1st crossing and that the Austin Airport connections should not be a high priority for Project Connect’s initial phase.

Thank you for carefully considering our input  and we are excited to collaborate with Austin Transit Partnership, Austin City Council, and CapMetro to make Project Connect an historic success.

Sincerely,
AURA

Cc: Members of the Austin Transit Partnership Board

Project Connect Working Group Recommends On-Street 38th to Oltorf to Yellow Jacket Light Rail Option

The AURA Project Connect Working Group has diligently built an evaluation framework over the past few weeks to analyze all light rail options and the future of transit in Austin. Our goal was to equip Austinites with the necessary information to understand and contextualize each option’s impact on the city. Additionally, we aimed to provide a formal recommendation to inform the AURA membership’s endorsement vote. After extensive research, investigation, and evaluation, the AURA Project Connect Working Group has confidently settled on a recommendation: On-Street 38th to Oltorf to Yellow Jacket. AURA members will consider this recommendation and vote on which option to endorse as an organization.

While all options are undoubtedly better than the current lack of any light rail, the working group has recommended the 38th to Oltorf to Yellow Jacket option because it lays the best foundation for the city overall. It balances every key criterion while providing a foundation that enables us to quickly and iteratively expand the system, achieve our mode shift goals, and connect every part of Austin. Although the lack of grade separation and connections to valuable destinations such as the airport are valid concerns, we believe that these issues can be mitigated or resolved while retaining the strengths of this initial build option.

Before delving further, we want to express our appreciation for ATP’s leadership and engineers for their availability and helpfulness throughout the public input process. Throughout our internal process, ATP provided invaluable information and answered every question we had. This was crucial for the Project Connect Working Group to conduct a comprehensive and holistic evaluation of each option from every key angle. We are excited to collaborate with ATP, City Council, and CapMetro to make Project Connect a massive success.

How Did Each Option Do?

The following infographic presents the grades that each of the proposed light rail options received based on the rubric developed by the Project Connect Working Group. The evaluated options are On-Street 38th to Oltorf to Yellow Jacket, North Lamar Transit Center to Pleasant Valley, Partial Elevated 29th to Oltorf to Yellow Jacket, Partial Underground UT to Yellow Jacket and On-Street 29th to Airport.

The rubric used to grade all proposals (link to the full report of each option below)

While there is significant variability among all the options, each one holds immense potential for Austin’s future as a transit-oriented and sustainable city. The only alternative that receives a failing grade in this assessment is not building anything at all.

Our Reports & Evaluation of Each Option

On-Street 38th to Oltorf to Yellow Jacket

The proposed On-Street 38th to Oltorf to Yellow Jacket rail option is a light rail system that would run through the Guadalupe, East Riverside, and South Congress corridors, connecting major population centers and destinations in Downtown Austin. This option has the potential to significantly improve Austin’s transit infrastructure, with an estimated daily ridership of 30,000 and frequent service. Compared to other non-forked options, this option has double the frequency, which can increase ridership and add value to any potential expansion of the system to the north.

While the rider experience is generally positive with fast and convenient hop-on times, the at-grade operation may result in interruptions and reliability issues. Nonetheless, the route provides excellent connectivity, including access to grocery stores, the University of Texas, and a short bus connection to St. Edward’s University. Furthermore, the rail line is expandable from all ends and covers significant parts of Downtown Austin and the University of Texas. While concerns about grade separation and coverage in certain northern neighborhoods exist, the long-term benefits in terms of ridership, rider experience, expandability, community reach, equity, and pedestrianization potential led us to select this option as our recommendation.

We are currently working on a full list of implementation and policy recommendations that will address any downsides of the system to ensure its success. Some of these recommendations will be applicable to all options, but others may be specific to the On-Street 38th to Oltorf to Yellow Jacket rail option.

View the full report & our evaluation of this option here

Partial Elevated 29th to Oltorf to Yellow Jacket

This option connects Guadalupe, East Riverside, and South Congress corridors, branching out to major destinations like Downtown Austin and the University of Texas. The system offers great connectivity, expandability, and the best rider experience out of all options, with potential for future growth and development. However, due to the high estimated cost of investing in elevated grade separation, it has fewer stations and serves fewer affordable-income households compared to the longest surface options. The option provides decent community reach and equity but needs improvements in pedestrianization potential and ridership to become a comprehensive transit system for the city.

View the full report & our evaluation of this option here

North Lamar Transit Center to Pleasant Valley

This option was incredibly promising as a vision for light rail as it offers high initial ridership figures and excellent connectivity, but is significantly constrained in terms of expandability and rider experience. While the route has excellent connectivity and pedestrianization potential, it faces challenges in rider experience, expandability, and community reach & equity due to limited frequency, expansion constraints, and gaps in serving certain neighborhoods.

View the full report & our evaluation of this option here

Partial Underground UT to Yellow Jacket

This proposed option is a light rail system that is intended to serve the East Riverside and Guadalupe corridors in Austin. It offers the highest level of service to the most densely populated areas of the city, connecting Downtown, the Texas Capitol Complex, and the University of Texas with major parks located south of the river, as well as new developments and student housing along Riverside. However, it does not offer service to North or South Austin. High costs associated with underground grade separation in downtown result in fewer stations and cause the system to miss several dense jobs and population centers further north. Initially, this option is expected to serve 20,000 daily riders, which is the lowest ridership of all the presented alternatives. Although the grade separation significantly improves the rider experience, the system’s 10-minute frequencies hold it back from truly excelling.

View the full report & our evaluation of this option here

On-Street 29th to Airport

As Austin has grown into a hub of business and tourism, hosting major conferences and events like SXSW and ACL, people from all over the world travel to the city regularly. The Project Connect Working Group took concerns about the lack of a direct airport connection seriously. However, we ultimately decided against prioritizing a direct airport connection in the initial build due to the negative impact it would have on ridership, rider experience, and connectivity. Instead, we believe that connecting the Yellow Jacket station to the airport via a shuttle or AirTrain, which is funded separately from Project Connect, is a better option. The initial build of Project Connect’s light rail will serve as the backbone of Austin’s future as a more transit-oriented and sustainable city, and prioritizing a direct airport connection would not align with this vision.

View the full report & our evaluation of this option here

Conclusion

The AURA Project Connect Working Group has worked diligently to produce these findings and recommendations. We’re confident that On-Street 38th to Oltorf to Yellow Jacket will provide the best backbone to Austin’s future as a transit-oriented and sustainable city. Still, AURA’s endorsement ultimately belongs to its membership, and we’re looking forward to seeing what they vote for. The other evaluated options are still promising, and each holds great potential for Austin’s future as a transit-oriented and sustainable city. The only alternative that receives a failing grade in this assessment is not building anything at all.

Special thanks to Christian Tschoepe, Chloe Wilkinson, Edgar Handal, Hunter Holder, Jimmy Daly, Parker Welch, Luis Osta Lugo, Zach Faddis, and everyone else involved in helping make the vision of the Project Connect Working Group a reality.

Project Connect Working Group Evaluation Rubric

AURA’s Project Connect Working Group has created a Graded Rubric for the 5 Project Proposals released by Austin Transit Partnership based on the following criteria listed below. The goal of the rubric is to help discern the pros and cons of each proposal. As AURA works towards making an endorsement of one of the proposals, our organization wants to give members the information so that they can make an informed vote.

Evaluation Criteria

These six criteria are focused on as they are an indicator of many successful systems both nationally and globally. These are also criteria that transit experts point to as key marks when building a new rail system. While all options are fundamentally better than the current setup, it is always important to compare and contrast proposals.

Details

Ridership

Ridership is a quite straightforward criteria: the number of riders the system expects to serve on a daily basis indicates the level of demand for and success of the system. This is possibly the best starting point we have in evaluating a successful transit system.

Relevant Indicators:

Connectivity

Access to a wide variety of local or regional activity centers is one of the main goals of any transit system. Connectivity is the criteria which measures the degree to which the system facilitates this, whether the access is through a connection directly to a key destination (or within walking/rolling distance), or through additional modes of transportation, such as a bus, bike, or car. 

Relevant indicators:

  • Connections to essential and daily needs, such as jobs, affordable housing, and grocery stores.
  • Connections to services, such as medical services, gyms, and parks
  • Connections to places of personal enrichment such as schools, universities, and libraries
  • Connections to personal and group entertainment, such as museums, movie theaters, bars, and clubs
  • Connections to forms of transportation that fill in the gaps (BRT, bike or vehicle shares, pedestrianized areas)

Rider Experience

A key factor in the continued success of a light rail system is the rider experience. Even if a route is connected well and can handle high ridership, if the rider experience is consistently negative, people are much less likely to use it. Major factors in rider experience can be measurable, such as frequency and speed, or more qualitative, such as accessibility and comfort.

In order to achieve our mobility goals our light rail system will need to be attractive and useful to both transit dependent and all purpose riders. So Rider Experience is of critical importance to the success of both Project Connect and Austin mobility as a whole.

Relevant indicators:

  • Route Frequency
  • Average speed
  • Reliability
  • Accessibility 
  • Comfort

It’s also important to note that certain indicators, like Route Frequency, are ridership multipliers. So we would get significantly more bang for our buck out of any expansions (or in the initial build) for a system with higher frequencies and similar indicators.

Expandability

Expandability is how easy the system will be to expand from the completion of the first phase of the system. It’s a measure of the potential for the rail system to grow to accommodate more riders and lay track to complete the original vision of Project Connect in the future. Or better yet, become even bigger and better than the original Project Connect vision. 

More critically, the initial rail options that have a line “forking” to Oltorf visiting South Congress will be easily expanded in the same way onto South Congress. These two options are:

ON-STREET: 38TH TO OLTORF TO YELLOW JACKET
PARTIAL ELEVATED: 29TH TO OLTORF TO YELLOW JACKET

Relevant indicators:

  • Disruptiveness and flexibility of future expansions
  • Political feasibility of expanding in each direction after phase 1 is built

Pedestrianization Potential

Good transit systems have priority for multiple modes of getting around, which includes pedestrianization. Pedestrianization is a priority for urbanists in its own right.

Since there are very few areas that are fully pedestrianized downtown currently, there’s a lot that can be gained by prioritizing good pedestrian spaces next to transit. This not only improves accessibility of transit, but creates great, memorable, public spaces.

In all of the options, the Drag has been mentioned as a candidate for pedestrianization.

Relevant indicators:

  • Potential pedestrianized blocks for each scenario

Community Reach & Equity

A comprehensive transit system can connect people from all backgrounds to opportunities. Community Reach is a criterion for evaluating a light rail system based on the extent to which it serves different neighborhoods or districts within the city. Equity ensures that regions and people of all backgrounds have access to opportunities.

Relevant indicators:

  • Number of districts covered
  • Low-income & minority neighborhoods covered

Ratings will reflect ATP’s metrics on the number of affordable housing units within a ½ mile of each stop, detailed at https://www.atptx.org/about/light-rail.

What’s Not Covered

  • Grade Separation
    • Partially covered as part of Rider Experience but does not have its own criteria
  • Airport Connection
    • Partially covered as part of Connectivity but does not have its own criteria

If you’re interested in reading the full evaluation you can read our comprehensive evaluation rubric document.

University Democrats & AURA Call on Council to Expand Student Housing

An aerial view of the University of Texas at Austin

AURA has partnered with the University Democrats at UT Austin to send a joint letter to the Mayor and City Council calling for addressing student housing costs by expanding the University Neighborhood Overlay (UNO) and increasing the supply of student housing. If your organization would like to sign onto this call to action, please email us at info@aura-atx.org.

Here’s the full text of the letter sent to Council:

Mayor Watson, Mayor Pro Tem Ellis, and City of Austin Council Members:

Students, like most Austinites, are adversely affected by our city’s lack of housing. Smart, young people across our state move to Austin to pursue higher education and participate in our vibrant culture. Once they arrive, many find that they spend an exorbitant amount of their income on housing, often having to maintain jobs on top of their academic responsibilities. Some must live far away from the campus at which they study. Housing costs are quickly becoming a huge barrier to getting an education in Austin. We pride ourselves on educating much of our state, yet our housing costs are turning away many working class students from seeking higher education, or forcing them to take on higher levels of debt. We can and should do better by this city’s college students.

In recognition of this problem, the City of Austin has created the University Neighborhood Overlay (UNO) District in the West Campus area near the University of Texas. Within UNO, developers are allowed to build more student housing as long as they also provide high-quality pedestrian infrastructure and dedicate a percentage of the units as subsidized, or Affordable.

UNO has been a great success. It has allowed tens of thousands of students to live near the UT Campus. Rents in the overlay area have increased at a slower rate than in surrounding neighborhoods. It has created one of the most walkable, bikeable, and transit supportive areas in the entire city. UNO residents have lower car ownership and use alternative transportation more than most anywhere else in the city, helping Austin reach our climate and mode share goals. It has also produced a staggering percentage of the city’s affordable housing units, despite covering such a tiny area of the city.

Despite its success, the small amount of land we have designated as being within UNO is not enough to meet the housing demands of the University of Texas population, to say nothing of the growing student populations attending other colleges throughout our city. We must extend the benefits of UNO to more of the city’s students. 

We request that the Austin City Council expand UNO to more areas that are appropriate for student housing. In particular, we suggest areas close to universities or community colleges, especially where there is already a concentration of students living but without the benefits of UNO. Examples of areas that we believe are ready for expansion of UNO include:

  • – Expanding Outer West Campus district westward to Leon Street
  • – Expanding Outer West Campus district westward to Salado below 29th and to San Pedro below that
  • – A new district bordered by Guadalupe to the West, 27th to the south, 31st to the north, and Duval to the East
  • – A new district around Red River, east of I-35, and north of Dean Keaton

Maps for the current and proposed UNO districts can be found at https://bit.ly/UNO-expansion. These zones are only meant as a starting point for discussion.

In addition, we would like the city council to look into ways to improve the existing districts to allow more students to have the advantages of UNO. An example of this might be raising height limits. 

Finally, we would urge the City Council to initiate consideration of the expansion of UNO to other areas of Austin with existing college campuses, including but not limited to St. Edward’s University, Huston-Tillotson University, and all Austin Community College campuses. This will allow us to better serve the housing needs of all higher education students in Austin and retain our excellent reputation with younger Austinites as a place to live, learn and stay.

We appreciate your prompt attention to these requests and look forward to discussing these proposals in greater detail at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,

UDems
AURA

Give Input on Bike & Transit Lanes for Downtown Transportation Plan

Cross-section of a street with bike lanes and street trees

The City of Austin is seeking input from the community on the Austin Core Transportation (ACT) Plan. The survey is open until March 31 and asks about your preferences in allocating street space in Downtown Austin for protected bike lanes and transit-priority lanes. The survey also asks for your opinion on converting one-way streets to two-way.

Survey Link: Austin Core Transportation Plan: Phase 2

Survey Guide

We believe more space downtown should be allocated to sidewalks, bike lanes, and transit-priority lanes, and this guide reflects that point of view.

Typical Street Cross-Sections

We recommend higher scores for options with more space for protected bike lanes and sidewalks.

  • Current Great Streets design (typical): 1
  • Great Streets (Pedestrian Dominant): 5
  • Potential Option 1: 5
  • Potential Option 2: 10
  • Potential Option 3: 6

Transit Street Cross-Sections

We recommend higher scores for options with more space for protected bike lanes and sidewalks.

  • Potential Transit Street Option 1: 1
  • Potential Transit Street Option 2: 5
  • Potential Transit Street Option 3: 10
  • Please tell us what you like or do not like about the transit-priority street cross-sections.
    • This one is optional, but here are some ideas for comments:
      • Like protected bike lanes in both directions
      • Dislike drive lanes wider than 10′
      • Dislike that all the transit cross sections had 3 drive lanes and none had 2 drive lanes
  • Do you support providing transit-only lanes if it would require the removal of general-purpose vehicle lanes? 5 (strongly support)

Bicycle/Micromobility Network

Ranked best to worst:

  1. Scenario 3 (complete bicycle/micromobility network coverage)
  2. Scenario 2 (balanced bicycle/micromobility network coverage)
  3. Scenario 1 (minimal changes, maintain vehicle network)
  4. Existing conditions

One-way and two-way street conversions

The survey suggests two-way streets reduce speeding and improve mobility within downtown, so we suggest a preference for two-way conversion.

  • Level of support for existing conditions: 2 (somewhat oppose)
  • Level of support for Alternative 1: 3 (no opinion)
  • Level of support for Alternative 2: 4 (somewhat support)

Tell City Council You Support Equitable Transit-Oriented Development

On March 9, City Council will consider approving a plan to implement equitable transit-oriented development (ETOD) around current and planned transit stops in Austin. ETOD aims to give Austinites of all income levels more access to housing, jobs, transit, and other amenities, and a quality ETOD implementation is crucial to the success of public transit in Austin.

How you can help

We need to send the message to City Hall that Austinites strongly support ETOD and want to see ETOD done right. You can help by contacting City Council Members via email or phone, and you can speak at the City Council meeting on March 9 in-person or by calling in.

Contacting City Council

You can get a lot of impact by directly reaching out to your own City Council member (look up your Council District).

DistrictNamePhoneEmail
1Natasha Harper-Madison512-978-2101natasha.madison@austintexas.gov
2Vanessa Fuentes512-978-2102vanessa.fuentes@austintexas.gov
3José Velásquez512-978-2103jose.velasquez@austintexas.gov
4José “Chito” Vela512-978-2104chito.vela@austintexas.gov
5Ryan Alter512-978-2105ryan.alter@austintexas.gov
6Mackenzie Kelly512-978-2106mackenzie.kelly@austintexas.gov
7Leslie Pool512-978-2107leslie.pool@austintexas.gov
8Paige Ellis512-978-2108paige.ellis@austintexas.gov
9Zohaib “Zo” Qadri512-978-2109zo.qadri@austintexas.gov
10Alison Alter512-978-2110alison.alter@austintexas.gov
MayorKirk Watson512-978-2100kirk.watson@austintexas.gov

You can also send an email to all of City Council at once using this form.

Speaking at the Council Meeting

The City Council will meet on March 9th in Austin City Hall (301 W 2nd St, Austin, TX 78701) at 10:00 AM, which is when we’ll be making comments. Before discussing agenda items, Council will take comments from the public.

You can sign up to speak using this form:

  1. Select “March 9 – Regular Council Meeting”
  2. Respond “No” to “Are you a zoning applicant or zoning applicant’s representative?”
  3. Under “Regular Meeting Agenda Item Number” select “016”
  4. Stance: For
  5. Respond “Yes” to “Do you wish to speak?”
  6. Select “in-person” or “remote” (which is via phone call)
  7. Fill in your name and contact info
  8. Filling in the topic is optional, but you can mention that you are in favor of ETOD
  9. Submit form

Online registration closes at 12 PM the day before the meeting, and you can only register for remote speaking using online registration. In-person speakers can register at City Hall using the kiosks up until 9:15 AM on the day of the meeting.

Talking Points and Tips

  • Contacting or speaking to City Council doesn’t require you to be an expert or make polished comments, just share your thoughts, preferably in your own words
  • Mention that you support agenda item 16 to approve the ETOD plan
  • Austin voters overwhelmingly approved Project Connect, which included ETOD
  • The success of Project Connect, and transit in general, depends on good ETOD
  • We need to zone for significantly more density/height and more mixed-use development within walking and biking distance of transit
  • ETOD zones should have no minimum parking requirements
  • Hitting our climate and affordability goals depends on successful transit and ETOD

You can read the full Council meeting agenda and find more details about the ETOD policy plan resolution (item 16) here.

If you have any questions, feel free to email us at info@aura-atx.org.

Oppose the Burnet Road proposal

The 2016 Mobility Bond provided the City of Austin with funding “to address implementation of Corridor Mobility Reports, which identify short-, medium-, and long-term transportation improvements.”

The Corridor Mobility Report for Burnet Road proposes for the long term the addition of center-running transit lanes north of U.S. 183. It assuredly does not propose having six car-priority lanes and zero transit lanes there.

The “proposed Burnet Road project” aired by the City in recent months frames itself as carrying forward the 2016 Mobility Bond—yet it proposes having six car-priority lanes and zero transit lanes!

The document outlining this Burnet Road “project” does correctly state that its proposal for six car-priority lanes and zero transit lanes is for the moment “unfunded.” But that proposal is not merely “unfunded”—it is in direct conflict with the Corridor Mobility Report that was upheld and furthered by the Mobility Bond. Despite that, the City is already performing environmental studies related to the unfunded proposal.

If the City would like to see further improvement to Burnet Road beyond what the Mobility Bond has funded, it should further fund the implementation of the Corridor Mobility Report plans. Such funding and implementation will move Austin forward. Cavalierly discarding community-vetted, long-standing plans and returning us to square one will not.

The City is accepting comments on the “proposed Burnet Road project” until Friday, June 5, at 5 p.m., through this web form or by email to Burnet@AustinTexas.gov. Let them know what you think.

AURA Statement on the Land Development Code Ruling

The recent decision by the Travis County District Court ruling that policy changes such as the land development code rewrite are subject to zoning petition protests by homeowners is disappointing. Unless overturned, the ruling effectively requires a super-majority of City Council members to pass many of the meaningful reforms that are desperately needed in Austin and in all Texas cities.

While we’re optimistic that the decision will be both appealed and overturned, we’re also confident that regardless of temporary setbacks such as this both the land development code rewrite and other ways to increase our desperately limited housing supply will be found and implemented.

Furthermore, we are confident that an even greater majority of people vote for truly progressive elected officials, at every level of government and in every branch, who understand how urgent and necessary these changes are.

Furthermore, we believe that the City Council could today pass some important measures. Several are detailed below. As these measures only reference the text of the land development code and not the zoning, they could be passed in spite of the ruling.

We look forward to working with the city and all those in favor of progress to rebound from this temporary setback and create an Austin that is truly for everyone and not just the few.

Proposed Changes

1) Preservation Bonus

Implement House Scale Preservation on residential properties (SF-1, SF-2, SF-3) as defined in exhibit 1

Implement Multi-Unit Preservation Incentive for multifamily properties (all zones more intensive than SF-3) as defined in exhibit 2

2) Compatibility

Compatibility is triggered by zoning but not current use.

Compatibility Height Setback Distance from the lot line of the triggering property:

* Less than 50 feet = Overall height shall not exceed 35 feet

* Between 50 and 100 feet = Overall height shall not exceed 45 feet

* Over 100 feet = Overall height set by zone standards

3) Setback changes

For all residential and multifamily zones:

* Reduce rear setback from 10 feet to 5 feet.

* Reduce side street setback from 15 feet to 10 feet.

4) ADU changes

Eliminate parking requirements for ADUs.

Allow ADU’s city wide on any residential or multifamily lot including SF-2.

5) Minimum lot size and width:

* For all zones with a minimum lot size that is greater than 5,000 sf shall be reduced to 5,000 sf * For all zones with a minimum lot width that is greater than 45 feet shall be reduced to 45 feet

Exhibit 1)

(A) Purpose and Applicability.

(1) By providing development incentives for maintaining certain existing structures, this section encourages preservation of the City’s older housing stock while increasing opportunities for new housing.

(2) This section applies to all residential development on sites within a Residential House- Scale Zone.

(B) Administration and Enforcement.

(1) To request a development incentive under this section, an applicant must submit a request on a form provided by the director concurrent with a development application. The request must include information required by the director to determine whether the proposed development and the existing structure sought to be preserved comply with all applicable requirements.

(2) The director may establish requirements for administering and enforcing this section, including procedures for:

(a) Determining whether an existing structure meets the requirements for preservation under Subsection (D)(1); and

(b) Monitoring compliance with limitations on altering or expanding a preserved structure under Subsection (D)(2).

(C) Preservation Incentives.

(1) If the director approves a request to preserve an existing structure under Subsection (D), the following incentives apply to development located on the same site as the preserved structure:

(a) Development may exceed the maximum number of units allowed on a site in the base zone by one unit;

(b) The preserved structure does not count towards the maximum floor area allowed for a site in the base zone;

(c) Additional units are not subject to minimum parking requirements; and

(d) Within the Residential-2A (R2A), Residential-2B (R2B), and Residential-3 (R3) zones, development may not exceed a maximum impervious cover of:

(i) 45 percent, if the site contains two units;

(ii) 50 percent, if the site contains three units; and

(iii) 55 percent, if the site contains four units.

(2) Except as provided in Subsection (C)(1), development approved under this section must comply with all applicable requirements of this Title.

(D) Preservation Requirements. The preservation incentive established under Subsection (C) applies to proposed development only if the director determines that all applicable requirements of this subsection are met.

(1) Eligibility Requirements. The director shall approve a request to apply the preservation incentive established under Subsection (C) if:

(a) For at least 30 years, the structure has existed as the principal use on the site and has remained in the same location;

(b) All of the existing structures on the site of the proposed development were constructed in compliance with City Code; and

(c) The site complies with all applicable requirements of this Title, including Article 23-2H (Nonconformity); and

(d) The proposed development for which the incentive is sought will increase density on the site by at least one dwelling unit.

(2) Alterations to Original Structure. The preserved structure may not be modified or altered except as follows:

(a) Expansion of Structure. The preserved structure may not be modified or altered to exceed the maximum floor-to-area ratio allowed for the use in the applicable base zone.

(b) Wall Demolition and Removal.

(i) Except as provided in Paragraph (iii), no more than 50 percent of exterior walls and supporting structural elements, including load bearing masonry walls, and in wood construction, studs, sole plate, and top plate, of an existing structure may be demolished or removed. For purposes of this requirement, exterior walls and supporting structural elements are measured in linear feet and do not include interior or exterior finishes.

(ii) The exterior wall of the preserved structure must be retained, except that a private frontage, per Section 23-3D-5 (Private Frontages), may be added to a preserved structure that does not have a private frontage.

(iii) Structural elements, including framing, may be replaced or repaired if necessary to meet health and safety standards. A repair or replacement

Exhibit 2)

of a structural element is necessary to meet minimum health and safety standards when the repair or replacement is required by the building official, the code official, the Building and Standards Commission, or a court of competent jurisdiction.

(c) Roof Alterations.

(i) If the structure has a side-gabled, cross-gabled, hipped, or pyramidal roof form, the addition must be set behind the existing roof’s ridgeline or peak.

(ii) If the structure has a front-gabled, flat, or shed roof form, the addition must be set back from the front wall one-half of the width of the front wall.

(iii) Retention of the original roof configuration and pitch up to the greater of:

• 15′ feet from the front façade; or

• The ridgeline of the original roof.

(d) Alteration or Replacement of Foundation. Replacement or alteration of an original foundation may not change the finished floor elevation by more than one foot vertically, in either direction.

(e) Relocation Prohibited. A preserved structure may not be relocated.

(A) Purpose and Applicability.

(1) By providing development incentives for maintaining certain existing structures, this section encourages preservation of older housing stock while increasing opportunities for new housing.

(2) This section applies to all residential development on sites within a Residential Multi- Unit Zone.

(a) Exception.

This section does not apply to the Residential Multi-Unit 1 (RM1) Zone.

A property zoned RM1 that participates in the preservation incentive must comply with Section 23-3C-3060 (House-Scale Preservation Incentive).

(B) Administration and Enforcement.

(1) To request the development incentives established in this section, an applicant must submit a request on a form provided by the director concurrent with submittal of a development application. The request must include information required by the director to determine whether the proposed development and the existing structure sought to be preserved comply with all applicable requirements.

(2) The director may establish requirements for administering and enforcing this section, including procedures for:

(a) Determining whether an existing structure meets the requirements for preservation under Subsection (D)(1); and

(b) Monitoring compliance with limitations on altering or expanding a preserved structure under Subsection (D)(2).

(C) Preservation Incentives.

(1) If the director approves a request to preserve an existing structure under Subsection (D), the following incentives apply to development located on the same site as the preserved dwelling units:

(a) Development may exceed the maximum number of units allowed in the base zone by 50 percent; and

(b) The structures that contain the preserved dwelling units do not count towards the maximum site-level floor area allowed in the base zone.

(2) Except as provided in Subsection (C)(1), development approved under this section is subject to all applicable requirements of this Title.

(D) Preservation Requirements. The preservation incentives established under Subsection (C) apply to proposed development only if the director determines that all applicable requirements of this subsection are met.

(1) Eligibility Requirements. The director shall approve a request to apply the preservation incentives established under Subsection (C) if:

(a) For at least 30 years, the principle use of the site of the proposed development has been residential use;

(b) At least one or more of the existing structures on the site was constructed at least 30 years prior to the application date;

(c) The proposed development will retain a minimum of 75 percent of:

(i) The existing dwelling units; or

(ii) The dwelling units that existed on site five years preceding the application date; and

(d) All of the existing structures on the site of the proposed development were constructed in compliance with City Code;

(e) The site complies with all applicable requirements of this Title, including Article 23-2H (Nonconformity); and

(f) The proposed development that will receive the incentive will increase density on the site by at least 10 percent.

(2) Alterations to Original Structure. Each existing structure with preserved dwelling units may not be modified or altered except as follows:

(a) Expansion of Structure.

The structure may not be modified or altered to exceed the maximum floor-to-area ratio allowed for the use in the applicable base zone. 

(b) Wall Demolition and Removal.

(i) Except as provided in Paragraph (iii), no more than 50 percent of exterior walls and supporting structural elements, including load bearing masonry walls, and in wood construction, studs, sole plate, and top plate, of an existing structure may be demolished or removed. For purposes of this requirement, exterior walls and supporting structural elements are measured in linear feet and do not include interior or exterior finishes.

(ii) The front exterior wall of each existing structure that faces the primary street must be retained, except that a private frontage may be added to a existing structure that does not have a private frontage.

(iii) Structural elements, including framing, may be replaced or repaired if necessary to meet minimum health and safety standards. A repair or replacement of a structural element is necessary to meet minimum health and safety standards when the repair or replacement is required by the building official, the code official, the Building and Standards Commission, or a court of competent jurisdiction.

(c) Roof Alterations.

(i) Retention of the original roof configuration and pitch up to the greater of:

• 15′ feet from the front façade; or

• The ridgeline of the original roof.

(d) Alteration or Replacement of Foundation. Replacement or alteration of an original foundation may not change the finished floor elevation by more than one foot vertically, in either direction.

(e) Relocation Prohibited. A preserved structure may not be relocated. 

Project Connect Media Release (2020-03-09)

Press Statement
For Immediate Release
3/9/2020

AURA is enthusiastic about Project Connect’s recommended Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). The proposed light rail lines will run through dense neighborhoods — where lots of people live — and run to downtown, the Capitol, and UT — where lots of people want to go.  

In 2014, AURA argued for rail on the city’s highest ridership transit corridor, Guadalupe-Lamar, and opposed the Proposition 1 bond that failed to include this rail line. We built our reputation by demanding good rail for Austin, not just any rail. The 2020 LPA promises to deliver the rail system Austin deserves. Today, Capital Metro and city officials proposed a system plan, the “spine” of which is the Orange Line, serving Guadalupe-Lamar-South Congress, a carbon-free, pollution-free, congestion-free “highway” for transit that will carry tens of thousands of people daily on the Guadalupe-Lamar corridor. AURA Member and Project Connect Ambassador Network member Susan Somers says: “Capital Metro’s plan is big and bold. It will capture the imagination of Austinites and, when realized, give us a new freedom of access to our city, and an alternative to sitting in traffic.”

Recently, we’ve seen news about a proposal for a $7.5 billion expansion of 8 miles of I-35. Further highway expansion is the wrong direction for our city. Light rail running in dedicated transit ways uses less land to carry as many or more people. Light rail pollutes less and emits less carbon than cars on highways. Transit riders walk more and interact with their fellow Austinites more. The proposed Project Connect LPA is the right direction for getting around Austin. 

There are elements of the plan that deserve scrutiny. Given scarce dollars for transit operations, relatively low ridership lines like the Green Line should not be a high priority for construction. 

We call on City Council to remember that public transit is a system. Trains may make the headlines, but we need a complete network to ensure access for all. Project Connect calls for a historic expansion of our MetroRapid bus lines, serving all parts of the city. We need to ensure that all buses have a fast connection to the train. AURA Transportation Working Group Chair Mike Nahas says, “We would like to see shade and trees at stations, to cool those standing in the summer heat. We encourage CapMetro to continue making stations convenient for bike and scooter riders. Lastly, Austinites must be able to walk to transit and that means building sidewalks, not just near train stations but for the whole transit system.”

AURA is a grassroots, all-volunteer organization that advocates for an Austin that is inclusive, open to change, and welcoming to everyone.

CONTACT:

  • Susan Somers, AURA Transportation Working Group member, somerss@gmail.com

Proposed Compromise for a Better Land Development Code

Much of conflict over Austin Land Development Code rewrite occurs over the “Transition Zones”. 

During the city council meeting on February 12th, Mayor Adler and Council Member Tovo discussed the possibility of reducing the size of these Transition Zones to two-lots off the corridor across the city.

Of course, simply doing so without making other substantial changes to the second draft of the code rewrite would significantly decrease housing capacity, putting us even farther away from our unanimously council-approved goals in the Strategic Housing Blueprint and Austin Strategic Mobility Plan

By our estimates, doing so would result in a loss of 4,500 to 6,800 units of missing middle capacity and, via compatibility, would prevent multifamily housing from being built along transit corridors, thus further reducing capacity.

However, if the Council is genuinely concerned with reducing transition zones while creating a code that makes our city affordability, environmentally sustainable, and equitable, (not mention walkable, weird, original, progressive, and cool) we believe there is a compromise-code that could satisfy all of these concerns.

Such a code would, in addition to reducing the size of these Transition Zones to two-lots off the corridor across the city, would:

Eliminate compatibility requirements. 

We simply must unlock the corridors. If there are no Transition Zones, then compatibility requirements would prevent multifamily apartments building along the corridor. Thus, without significant Transition Zones, we have to eliminate compatibility requirements.

  1. Put Imagine Austin and years of consensus planning into action.

Minimum R4 zone across the city 

The code originally planned on creating missing middle housing supply almost exclusively in Transition Zones. By further reducing the Transition Zones, we lose even more of this entirely sensible form of housing. However, allowing a minimum of R4 zones everywhere would provide more missing-housing than even the first draft’s Transition Zones, while simplifying the code and distributing development across the city.

  1. Shift development pressures away from finding the cheapest lot zoned with a certain intensity, and back to where the highest demand is (high opportunity, walkable and transit connected areas).
  2. Give small-scale developers and property owners a real opportunity to compete and deliver products in a competitive way, this could do the most to reduce speculation, drive up competition for building missing middle infill and lead to lower priced units for all
  3. Stand up and lead for the region, the state and the nation. Do what California can’t do, and beat Portland and Minneapolis to the punch
  4. Step up to be sustainable, equitable and connected (to support even bigger investments in public housing and transit)
  5. Fight back against the state and revenue caps by controlling your own destiny with a model that’s more efficient to serve/support, and will deliver more revenue all while reducing the proportional tax-burden on single-family homeowners

Reduce Minimum Lot Sizes to 2500 SF in All Zones and Simplify subdivision

By mandating a minimum lot size we make people pay for land they don’t want or need, making all forms of housing less attainable for non-wealthy Austinites. 

Reducing minimum lot sizes while simplifying the subdivision process allows all kinds of housing for all kinds of people in all parts of town.

  1. Make fee-simple ownership more affordable and realistic for more Austinties 
  2. Help facilitate the creation of the exact supply we need (Re-legalize traditional development, Re-legalize Hyde Park)
  3. Give residents the tools to make flexible and creative solutions work and ignite truly affordable options to subdivide, build and deliver supply

Gentle Mixed-Use By-Right

Limiting residential-scale mixed-use development prevents exactly the kinds of neighborhoods people love (Mueller, Hyde-Park)

Allowing residential-scale mixed-use development makes neighborhoods walkable, weird, family-friendly, less car-dependent.  

  1. Improve quality of life for all, across the city.
  2. Unlock dreams for small/independent businesses
  3. Create walkable/lovable places using proven wisdom with zero public subsidy or massive infrastructure investments
  4. Reach our mode-shift and mobility goals 

Appendix – Capacity Estimates

Draft 2 took: 

R4 from 1.96% of city

To 1.47% of city

25% decrease

RM1 from 1.31 to .89% of city 

32.1% decrease

Resulting in 5087 decrease in missing middle capacity 

5087/16,461

31% decrease in city-wide missing middle capacity

Taking transition zones down to two-lot equivalent citywide would result in somewhere between a 40-60% further reduction in transition zoned area: 

A further 40% decrease in both zones

40% of 11374 

4550 more mm capacity lost

50% of 11374

5687 more mm capacity lost

60% of 11374

6824 more mm capacity lost