Blog

For Immediate Release

AURA Statement on CodeNEXT Draft

January 18, 2017

Austin, TX

On Tuesday AURA became aware of a leaked draft of CodeNEXT which was posted to Twitter over the holiday weekend. The document, weighing in at 327 pages, is massive, and yet also astonishingly incomplete (i.e. no sections on site plans, subdivision, drainage, etc). This is perhaps explained by the fact that it is largely dated June 2016. As such, we are hesitant to dig into the details. Limiting ourselves to a broad view, the draft is disappointing. We cannot stress enough that Austin is in the midst of an (un)affordable housing crisis; in conjunction with this crisis, the City’s own Planning and Development Review Department came under intense criticism in March of 2015. The City and its residents are in urgent need of significant policy change to reverse this trend. Unfortunately, it would appear that in this draft the staff and consultants have largely come up short in meeting the modest goals they set out for themselves in the Code Diagnosis back in May 2014.

The complexity of this draft is overwhelming. Not only would it not simplify our byzantine land use regulations, it would, in many cases, make them more convoluted. The transect zones regulate in extremely fine detail all manner of design in a way that is new to Austin. Given the difficulty the Development Services Department (DSD) has with our modest current design standards (e.g. Subchapters E & F), we can’t help but wonder what scale of additional resources will be required for DSD to review applications under the form-based code in a timely manner. The Code Diagnosis also specifically called out Austin’s layers upon layers of zoning as a problem, yet this draft contains dozens of pages on overlay zones, lifted almost verbatim from the existing code. The same goes for small area plans, a problem identified by AURA in our CodeNEXT expectations. The existing small area plans are essentially duplicated in this draft, instead of simply remapping them to the appropriate new transect zones.

Additionally, despite the problem of an auto-centric code being highlighted in the Code Diagnosis, this draft appears only marginally less auto-centric than our existing code. While the document lacks a full section on transportation, each transect zone defines parking minimums, and there is a parking section which appears largely identical to the existing code. That a draft produced as recently as June 2016 would even consider continuing our (ludicrous) current practice of requiring parking for bars is surely an error that will be corrected in the final code.

AURA is well aware that this document is an incomplete draft. We remain hopeful that there will be significant improvement when the final draft is released on January 30. However, we fear that in the nine months since this draft was issued, staff and their consultants have made the complexity problem worse, not better. For example, this draft contains 18 transect zones, but the staff and consultant presentation to the CAG on December 7th contains 21 transect zones. When it comes to land use regulation, less is more. Austin had no zoning ordinance for almost a century, and the first ordinance, in 1931, was just 20 pages long. That light hand produced great places like South Congress, Hyde Park and The Drag, and beloved institutions like Nau’s Enfield Drug. All are places that have been essentially illegal to build in their current form for decades now thanks the complexity of our land development codes since the 50s. On January 30 we hope to find that this draft has been dramatically pared back, both in scale and complexity. Less code will make Austin a happier, healthier, and more affordable city.

AURA is an all-volunteer grassroots urbanist organization focused on building an Austin for everyone by improving land use and transportation through policy analysis, public involvement, and political engagement.

Press contacts:

Steven Yarak, steven@yarak.org
Tommy Ates, tommyates@hotmail.com

In June, the City of Austin Neighborhood Housing and Community Development Office (NHCD) released a draft of the Austin Strategic Housing Plan. A representative from NHCD attend AURA’s November board meeting and presented on the plan and received feedback from AURA members. We are encouraged that the Department recognizes certain fair housing and land use barriers that AURA has named in its CodeNEXT expectations. Subsequently, on November 21, AURA sent the letter below to NHCD as our official response to the draft plan. Since that time, NHCD has released an updated December draft of the plan, which we encourage everyone to review.

---

This letter is to provide our formal feedback regarding the draft housing plan, both that which is posted on the city website as well as items discussed in a public presentation given to AURA on November 9th, 2016. We appreciate the time spent with our group, and we appreciate the opportunity to provide our feedback.

AURA stands for an Austin for Everyone, and nowhere is this more important than in building a city that provides enough housing for all residents who want to live here. Currently there are many invisible walls built around some neighborhoods and we feel strongly that these walls must come down.

We applaud the city’s efforts to create a housing plan that will address the needs for both market rate and affordable units. This is key to addressing housing for all levels of income. While we advocate for more density overall, we recognize that simple supply can never meet the need for “deeply affordable” units. Likewise, we recognize that subsidizing all units for up to 80% MFI is an enormous cost that cannot be borne by the city, either politically or fiscally.

In reviewing the housing plan, we found there were some areas that needed more clarity as well as more bold options. For example, the draft plan provided an extensive list of options that could be explored, but without realistic estimates for the cost, the value, and the actual ability to accomplish, it leaves the reader untethered. We need more clarity around each proposed tool, what its costs are, what its benefits are, and how achievable it is. This could be provided as a matrix where the X-axis is ease/cost of implementation and the Y-axis is number of units/public benefit. When this matrix is divided into quadrants, it will become very clear which of the tools provides the most good for the least cost (sometimes free, such as allowing smaller houses and smaller lots) and should be implemented immediately. It will also identify areas where less funding should be allocated based on the limited pool of dollars we have to affect the most number of households.

There were items suggested that have little chance of achievability, and we need to recognize that. In particular, suggestions to work with the Texas state legislature to allow rent control are basically non-starters in our current political climate, and we need to be realistic that this will likely not happen (at least not in the next 10 years).

Other areas where we found issue are the overall definitions of affordability. As is clear from speaking with NHCD staff, everyone knows that transportation costs in the Austin area are higher than the national average, costing households upwards of $11,983 per year due the increased miles driven (see data here). This is a huge burden on families and contributes to the struggle many face. “Affordable” needs to recognize that building housing near Decker lake may be “cheap” but the transportation costs will be astronomical, erasing the benefit to living in an affordable unit. Housing advocates generally recommend that no more than 45% of a household’s income be spent on housing and transportation.

An area of great concern to us is the desire to put a number on the percent of new housing that will be on Imagine Austin corridors and centers. In particular, the number we heard was 75%. This is unacceptable, as we feel that ADUs, townhouses, duplexes, fourplexes, and other “missing middle” housing types should be allowed everywhere, not just in transition zones 1⁄4 mile from a corridor or activity center. We recommend removal of this target completely. If it must exist, it should be 50% or below, or should say within 1⁄2 mile of centers and corridors.

We also recommend that the housing plan include options for pre-approved plans for missing middle housing types, such as duplexes, ADUs, and fourplexes. This decreases the soft costs for small investors and homeowners looking to maximize their property. Many cannot afford to hire an architect or wade through the complex development approval process. Simplifying this
will decrease costs.

Thank you very much for your hard work in service to the city and we look forward to the final housing plan.

INTRODUCTION

Earlier this year, AURA released Transit City: A Vision for a Multimodal Austin wherein we outlined a number of critical steps for increasing ridership on public transportation. Our recommendations focused on ways to increase the usefulness of transit in order to make riding a better option for more people. AURA is pleased that a number of these recommendations are reflected in the draft of Capital Metro’s Connections 2025 plan. We view the core of the plan as a network of frequent bus routes across the city, which was one of AURA’s highest priorities. It will be key to implement truly frequent service with appropriate stop spacing, generally no more than ¼ mile spacing between stops along all the frequent routes, whether they are officially dubbed “MetroRapid” or local. There are a few parts of the plan, including the perplexing proposal to put high capacity bus service on I-35 and continued large investments in the high cost Red Line, that seem highly questionable.  The actual plan as written so far, though, would be a huge improvement over current service.  More detailed suggestions follow. 

FREQUENT AND DIRECT TRANSIT LINES

The draft of Connections 2025 indicates a strong shift to the kind of direct, high-frequency transit network that 1) is easy for new riders to understand, 2) reduces wait times, 3) moves people efficiently, and 4) ultimately makes transit more useful to more people. We applaud Capital Metro and their consultant, TMD, for proposing a bold network redesign that will bring frequent service to a large portion of Austinites. There will undoubtedly be calls to dilute this vision in favor of more low-frequency routes to places where few people currently choose to use the service; we urge Capital Metro to remain focused on providing high-quality service where it will have the greatest benefit for the most people. In doing so, it is critical that Capital Metro follow a data-driven assessment of current conditions rather than speculative claims of where people might ride based on little evidence.

STOP SPACING

Limited stops on MetroRapid (sometimes in excess of a mile apart) were billed as a way to speed up service, but without exclusive right-of-way and off-board fare payment, infrequent stops have done little to make MetroRapid any faster than parallel local routes. Furthermore, in the hostile pedestrian environment along most of Austin’s major thoroughfares, stops in excess of a quarter mile apart don’t make as much sense as they might in a more walkable city. Therefore AURA was pleased that the need for additional stops has been acknowledged in the Connections 2025 draft. The final draft should clarify a commitment to standard stop spacing of every quarter mile and outline a specific short-term plan to address the problem. Riders should not have to wait on construction of expensive “branded” stations to remedy this. Using existing local stops can provide an interim solution until new stations arrive.

FARES

Capital Metro’s consultant was spot-on in its recommendation to lower premium fares to match the rest of the local system, and we applaud the board’s swift action to equalize fares. Premium fares on MetroRapid have negatively affected the transit system’s ability to perform as a coherent network.

DOWNTOWN CIRCULATORS

Ever since the ‘Dillo service was canceled, Austin has lacked a downtown circulator to help distribute commuters around the Central Business District. With most lines running along a central corridor, circulator routes could be a boon for potential riders who need to get to the far ends of downtown. They could also prove an excellent resource for people who need to make short trips during the day. AURA is concerned that the plan to collect fares on these short routes will bog down the boarding process and slow the circulators to the point of uselessness. The beginning of fare collection on the ‘Dillo was widely—and accurately—regarded as the death knell for the service. Capital Metro should not make the same mistake twice.

I-35 BUS RAPID TRANSIT

AURA was perplexed by a proposal to build Bus Rapid Transit along I-35. As the arterial’s grim history attests, highways and people on foot are incompatible, so we are worried that riders might not be able to safely access stations in the middle. The route seems like it could become a glorified commuter line to park-and-rides on either end instead of contributing to an interconnected high-frequency network. While cities like Chicago and Bogotá have implemented well-ridden transit down the center of highways, the excessive noise, air pollution, and all-around stressful environment is far from ideal. AURA is also concerned that precious time and resources will be spent planning a project that will ultimately require the support and collaboration of TxDOT, a dubious partner that has historically shown little interest in transit.

FUTURE INVESTMENTS

From lavishing millions of dollars on expanded park-and-rides, to a seemingly endless list of high-dollar improvements to the Red Line, Capital Metro has prioritized investments for the auto-oriented suburbs while investing little in basic amenities for its core riders. AURA is concerned that Connections 2025 will continue the pattern of expanding commuter service and shifting resources away from more urban parts of the city. Chasing so-called “choice riders” in distant, sprawling neighborhoods costs more and serves fewer people. If Austin is to become a truly transit-oriented city, Capital Metro must prioritize service and infrastructure improvements in the dense urban places where public transportation naturally does best and where the large majority of its riders currently live.

DEDICATED TRANSIT LANES AND OFF-BOARD FARE PAYMENT

With the shift to a high-frequency network, dedicated transit lanes and off-board fare payment will have an even bigger potential to speed up transit and make it an attractive alternative to sitting in traffic. These, along with better stop shelters, require cooperation from city departments and other entities outside of Capital Metro’s control. Nevertheless, it is up to Capital Metro to take the first step and publicly commit to the rollout of these improvements. Given the ambition of the I-35 BRT, we were disappointed to not see any stated ambition for more and better transit lanes on local streets or off-board fare payment systems in the draft of Connections 2025. Transit advocates like AURA stand ready to pressure non-cooperative entities that resist collaboration on these vital improvements. The Austin City Council (which has a significant presence on the Board) has the power to ensure cooperation in most cases. We need Capital Metro to lead Austin toward its transit-oriented future. An expanded network of transit lanes and the ability to pay the fare before boarding—instead of one by one while the bus idles—are essential to that vision.

ALIGNMENT OF THE 820

The proposed MetroRapid 820 is a strong choice of route that will provide an upgrade in service to southeast and northeast Austin. However, we think that it is a grave mistake to align the route on the southern edge of Mueller instead of going through Mueller directly. Mueller is a walkable neighborhood with a mix of restaurants, retail, park space, a grocery store, and major employers. It is worth the few extra minutes of route time for the bus to reach these destinations.

PRIORITIZATION

By its name, Connections 2025 sets a 9 year horizon for implementation, although we understand there will be different phasing and most of the plan will be implemented well before 2025. AURA feels that the best parts of the plan should be implemented first. Streamlining the fares, implementing the core network, and building infill stops on the MetroRapid lines should all take precedence over the other parts of the plan.

Following a vote of its members last week, AURA takes no position on the Proposition 1 transportation bonds.

Prior to the AURA membership vote for our Austin City Council endorsements, the AURA board shared with members its set of recommendations and reflections on each Council race being contested this November. Since the endorsements line up with the board’s original recommendations, we thought we would release the recommendations to a wider audience.

In DISTRICT 2, the AURA board recommends endorsing DELIA GARZA.

Garza has a record of voting for liberalizing land use, including ADUs (where she defeated neighborhood opt-out), the Fair Housing Initiative, and seeking new transit corridors in her district. Garza has consistently spoken out for the benefits of connectivity, and she has been a capable leader on the Capital Metro board, where she has pushed for significant enhancements to frequency. Her opponent Wesley Faulkner states his support for missing-middle housing, but he doesn’t have a full understanding of land-use issues in the city, which is critical for a council member in the Year of CodeNEXT. He has called for more public housing, which is wonderful, but illegal under federal law. He has a lot to learn, but we’re encouraged by his desire to help and hope he serves in some other capacity.

In DISTRICT 4, AURA members have already endorsed GREG CASAR.

In DISTRICT 6, the AURA board recommends NO ENDORSEMENT.

Don Zimmerman has taken his conservative property-rights perspective to the city’s land development code, and in many zoning cases and code amendments, he’s fought against a code that he rightly recognizes as burdensome red tape that costs everyone—developers and residents alike—more than is necessary. He was a helpful ally on the poorly designed parkland dedication ordinance.  However, Zimmerman is no urbanist. He has voted poorly on transit issues, going so far as to make a motion (which didn’t get a second) to have this year’s bond be exclusively road spending. Zimmerman has also unfortunately spoken out against subsidized affordable housing at every opportunity, which AURA recognizes is a piece of the puzzle to solving our housing crisis. His views on social issues and the environment are offensive, and his prominent seat on the dais to voice those opinions is problematic. We cannot recommend an endorsement of Zimmerman, regardless of the occasional convenient vote. His opponent, Jimmy Flannigan, would be supportive of transit and some density on corridors, but has stated opposition to a diversity of housing in single-family neighborhoods in the city core, an important issue in CodeNEXT and fair housing. Specifically, he’s stated that neighborhoods shouldn’t have to worry about four-plexes, that CodeNEXT transition zones (where missing-middle housing will be most prominent) should be as small as possible, that neighborhoods should avoid change for 20 years, and that a home that is torn down should be replaced with a home of a similar style. These views run counter to stances and initiatives that AURA has taken on in the past year and to what we hope to accomplish in CodeNEXT. As such, we cannot recommend Flannigan either.

In DISTRICT 7, the AURA board recommends endorsing NATALIE GAULDIN.

Natalie Gauldin is an up-and-coming candidate who couldn’t be a starker contrast to Leslie Pool. Pool has voted against diversity of housing options at nearly every opportunity, including our primary advocacy goal, ADUs, last year. She has voted against subsidized affordable housing on corridors. She has undermined the development review process, created false narratives around missing-middle housing, and ultimately seems to have her head in the sand as to a solution for Austin’s growth. Perhaps Pool’s view is that “if we pretend it isn’t happening, maybe it will stop.” Meanwhile, Gauldin embraces a rational approach to housing supply as a primary mechanism for addressing Austin’s affordable housing crisis. She is also a routine cyclist who will support transit and mode shift. She has a deep desire to help fix the city she grew up in and where she’s raising her family, and she knows that Council will have to make some hard decisions to fix our housing crisis. We support Gauldin wholeheartedly.  

In DISTRICT 10, the AURA board recommends endorsing SHERI GALLO.

Sheri Gallo has been a consistent vote for AURA’s land-use platform, and we recommend her endorsement. Despite her occasional disagreements with our policies (most notably on bike lanes and on sidewalk spending in the bond), Gallo has shown herself to be one who can solve problems, find middle ground (not just for compromise’s sake), and create better outcomes. When AURA brought to her attention the terribly written parkland dedication ordinance, Gallo listened attentively and convinced her colleagues to fix the problems, creating a new ordinance that dramatically increased parks funding while balancing it with the critical need for more housing supply. She was a critical vote on the Planning and Neighborhoods Committee of the Council, where she provided a consistent counterweight on land use against Council Member Kathie Tovo, allowing items related to ADUs and Fair Housing to pass to a full Council with a committee recommendation. While Gallo has too much of a focus on cars and parking requirements, we can easily recommend her over her principal opponent, Alison Alter, whose focus on parks, “neighborhoods,” and the Grove PUD is akin to Council Member Pool. While Alter attempts to position herself between “NIMBYism” and “density at all cost,” her position of preserving single-family zoning gives us very little hope.

The members of AURA offer the following endorsements in Austin’s City Council elections:

• Delia Garza, for District 2
• Greg Casar, for District 4
• Natalie Gauldin, for District 7
• Sheri Gallo, for District 10

AURA’s members encourage Austin residents to learn more about these candidates. Please give them your support and your vote if you agree that they are the best candidates to lead Austin’s city government.

AURA’s members endorsed Casar in May, when voting on early endorsements. Members voted this past week to endorse Garza, Gauldin, and Gallo.

AURA is a grassroots urbanist organization focused on building an Austin for everyone by improving land use and transportation through policy analysis, public involvement, and political engagement.

In line with AURA’s Platform for Austin, we expect that the items below will be seriously considered by staff and consultants while writing and mapping CodeNEXT. If AURA does not see substantial progress on most or all of these items, we will have no choice but to oppose the adoption of staff’s recommendations for CodeNEXT.

Small Area Plans are No Way to Plan a City // Neighborhood Plans, TODs, and corridor plans enable the most active minority to impose their will on a small area and shift all the external costs onto the rest of our city. That’s no way to plan a city, and the entire premise has been rendered redundant by the recent move to a geographically representative city council. CodeNEXT must shift from honoring the exclusionary small-area plans of our past to empowering a future for our entire city.

Dynamic Upzoning with Incremental Development // When an area is more than halfway to its maximum zoning capacity, the code should contain an automatic administrative procedure to increase that capacity. This process is similar to how cities have evolved naturally for centuries. We should future-proof our code and avoid continuing our current, highly contentious, lot-by-lot approach which favors the status quo.

Fair Housing and Household Affordability // Our new code must permit the population in our high-demand areas to respond to that demand. Every neighborhood must accept new residents and further Fair Housing. Staff should create Affordability Impact Statements which examine how the new code and its mapping further Fair Housing and contribute to Household Affordability, taking into account not just the cost of housing, but the costs of transportation.

Significantly Reduce or Eliminate Minimum Lot Size // Minimum lot sizes are an attempt to address wide-area issues by regulating an individual lot. Our minimum lot size is larger than any peer city in Texas and increases the cost of housing. We call for a minimum lot size of 1000 square feet, and reducing the minimum lot width to 15 feet.

No Unit Caps // Our current code limits the number of units that different kinds of zoning can have. We believe a detached building that contains multiple units but looks like a single-family home should be allowed in an area zoned for single family. Similarly, minimum site areas for multifamily zones impose a de facto tax on small, affordable, apartments. The code should govern the built environment, not the people who live within it.

Urban Core Zoned to No Less Than T-4 // The city of Austin has an established definition for the “urban core,” and has enacted policies such VMU and reduced parking burdens within those boundaries. As CodeNEXT will use a transect model, and the lowest transect suitable for urban spaces is T-4, “General Urban,” all developable land within the defined urban core should be zoned for at least T-4.

End Compatibility as Currently Practiced //Setbacks and height limits are our current attempts to regulate compatibility between varying uses. We should eliminate compatibility based on use, and understand that the nature of using transects manages “compatibility” automatically. Currently, compatibility requirements constrain lots in high-demand areas and prevent the development of needed housing.

Significantly Reduce or Abolish Parking Minimums // The Code Diagnosis found that we have a car-centric code, which encourages car usage and exacerbates our current traffic woes. Reducing or eliminating parking space obligations won’t mean that none are built — just as many as the perceived demand is. Consider adopting parking maximums to discourage the excessive construction of expensive parking structures which may be orphaned in the future.

Connectivity Required Everywhere // Revise the subdivision code to require integration of new subdivisions into the larger urban fabric. Reduce maximum block length and revise street design standards so that the most vital of public infrastructure serves all users, not just single occupancy vehicles. Conduct an audit of all Austin streets to determine areas of poor connectivity, develop a “Future Connectivity Map,” and produce an associated plan for implementation.

Replace Impervious Cover Regulations with Limits on Urban Runoff // Flooding is caused by runoff, not impervious cover, yet our code tightly regulates impervious cover in an attempt to mitigate flooding. Limitations on impervious cover are, at best, a highly imperfect proxy for potential runoff, and stifle creative solutions that may reduce runoff while permitting greater impervious cover. As such, blanket limits on impervious cover (and building cover) should be replaced with performance standards for maximum permissible urban runoff.

AURA’s CodeNEXT expectations were first shared with CodeNEXT staff in December 2015.

The Mayor and City Council recently endorsed a bond proposal for $720 million addressing mobility concerns across the city.  The mix of funding in question follows the chart below:

Category	Amounts	Notes
Regional Highways	$101,000,000	Loop 360, Spicewood Springs, Parmer, et. al.
Corridor Plans	$477,500,000	N. Lamar, Burnet, Riverside, Airport, FM 969, S. Lamar, Guadalupe
New Corridor Planning	$4,500,000
Sidewalk Master Plan	$55,000,000
Urban Trails	$30,000,000	Trails for both cycling & pedestrians
Bicycle Master Plan	$20,000,000
Vision Zero Safety	$15,000,000
Substandard Roads	$17,000,000	Falwell Ln, Meadow Lake Blvd, William Cannon Bridge, et. al.

Although this includes money for the Sidewalk Master Plan, it fall far short of the proposals of the plan itself, and far short of what advocates were asking.  The Sidewalk Master Plan itself proposed $25 million per year for new sidewalks, enough to fund most high priority sidewalks over a period of 10 years.  This plan would fund only two years and a bit of that amount.  Since most bonds are anticipated to be spent over a period of at least 3-5 years, this plan starts out with undervaluing the importance of sidewalks to safety and to a vibrant city life.  It sells short the promise of the Americans with Disability Act, under which more than one city has been successfully sued because of a lack of sidewalks.  In short, this proposal does not do enough to tackle one of the most significant mobility needs we have – lack of accessible sidewalks.

Unfortunately, an already underfunded plan was further gutted by an amendment offered by Councilmember Sherri Gallo and adopted by the council, splitting that $55,000,000, half to the priorities laid out in the Sidewalk Master Plan and half split evenly between districts.  To get into why this is such a bad idea, a little more about how the Sidewalk Master Plan makes its priorities is necessary.  

The Sidewalk Master Plan first mapped all of the “absent” sidewalks throughout the city. It found more than $1 billion worth of need. It then used a matrix to score each sidewalk segment, using a complex mix of factors including number of people nearby, proximity to schools, grocery stores, safety issues for pedestrians, income, and many more factors (for the full list, go to page 10 of the pdf).  This plan received extensive public vetting – in community meetings across the city, at various boards and commissions, and at city council itself.  While no weighting system can please everyone about everything, the scoring does a good job of prioritizing low-income areas, areas around schools, areas with significant pedestrian safety issues, and areas around transit.  Historically neglected neighborhoods in East and North Austin would receive a large portion, and areas with large numbers of people, schools, and often used buildings in Central Austin also receive priority.  

Apparently, this stride towards equity and helping the most in need was not good enough for the city council. By taking half of the funding and spending it geographically, regardless of need, regardless of historic disinvestment, they have struck yet another blow against inclusivity and justice. For one example, District 1 in East Austin, which had many of the high priority sidewalks, will see $4 million less under Councilmember Gallo’s amendment than it otherwise would have received.  Yet again, relatively well-off west Austin neighborhoods will receive more than their share of public funding and investment, and historically neglected areas of Austin will continue to languish for years more without safe routes to schools, unsafe roads, and inaccessible transit.  

 This post is part of a series on Imagine Austin’s priority programs, in light of Austin’s current CodeNEXT rewrite process. View the entire series here.

What is a zoning code, or land development code? It is a set of rules determined by a city that says what can be built, and what categories different pieces of land fall into. Many zoning codes restrict what types of uses each category can have. For example, “LI” means “Light Industrial” and can be used for various industrial purposes but cannot be used for commercial purposes (like a store). Zoning came about to protect people from living next to smelting plants and uses that might impact health.

CodeNEXT is the new form-based code (more focused on the looks than the uses) zoning program initiated by the approval of the Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan currently being developed by city-hired consultants (Opticos Design) and Planning and Zoning Review city staff, led by Program Manager, Jim Robertson. The goal is to simplify the current zoning code with tools (for example: missing middle housing, small area plans, and transects) to better fit form, texture, and context while suiting the needs of residents, neighborhoods, and businesses alike. To ensure the public’s participation in this process, Austin City Council approved a public feedback process which is currently ongoing.

The City of Austin’s Land Development Code Advisory Group (CAG) is composed of Austinites from all 10 Districts tasked to review and make recommendations to Austin City Council regarding the initial release of CodeNEXT in January 2017. Currently, the CAG is discussing code prescriptions regarding some of the community’s most pressing concerns including (recently released) Household Affordability, Natural and Built Environment, and (coming soon) Mobility, and Fiscal Health.

For the new form based code to be successful, CodeNEXT must incorporate such actions as zoning mapping that is city-wide with the implementation of new zoning tools applied to all neighborhoods. To reserve household affordability, the minimum lot size must be narrowed along the street width to accommodate greater population. New neighborhoods and infill developments must be designed for pedestrian traffic as the priority over automobiles. These goals are also in alignment with the city’s transit goals, including COA’s Vision Zero program for greater pedestrian safety. Not only that but they are key to implementing the other 7 priority programs of Imagine Austin, described in the rest of our series.

In the 20^th Century, Austin’s zoning history has been one of runaway suburban-style growth to the present day where the city now resides in Travis, Williamson, and Hays counties. This exponential growth now threatens to endanger the city’s balance of community and connection as suburban texture negates social interactions for homestead isolation. It threatens our precious natural resources by forcing people to drive further distances to get to work or do daily errands. In the 21^st Century, reinforcing and reintroducing urbanist principles through CodeNEXT is the only way to preserve Austin’s character expressed in our culture, people, and businesses.

In order for CodeNEXT to fully embrace the growing and affordability challenges facing Austin, the CAG must hear from you. Land Development Code Advisory Group meetings are scheduled for the first Monday of the month at 6:00PM. Please give ideas, feedback, and suggestions on their forum sponsored by the City of Austin at Speak Up Austin.Imagine Austin priority programs series

IMAGINE AUSTIN PRIORITY PROGRAM 6: CREATE A HEALTHY AUSTIN

 This post is part of a series on Imagine Austin’s priority programs, in light of Austin’s current CodeNEXT rewrite process. View the entire serieshere.

There is increasing evidence that moderate exercise, like walking, can extend life expectancy and reduce chronic disease.  In many places around the world people get their recommended 10,000 steps, or 30 minutes of walking, simply by going about their daily lives.  That might include walking to the bus, running errands by bike, strolling to the park, etc.

What would Austin look like if we could get our daily exercise simply by going about our daily lives?

Most of Austin was built around the assumption that people would be driving.  To image a more connected Austin look at our older neighborhoods, where we still have the smaller, connected streets and a mix of uses that make walking, biking, scootering, etc. a safe and easy way to get around.  

Think about Hyde Park, where I grew up, with its tree-lined streets, compact blocks, and destinations within the neighborhood. Long before I was old enough to drive I could get myself to the post office, grocery store, coffee shop, video rental (yes, pre-NetFlix), park, swimming pool, museum, bus stops, and a variety of restaurants.  That is not possible in most neighborhoods.  Newer neighborhoods typically have sidewalks along every street, but non-residential uses like shops, restaurants, and community services tend to be located far away, surrounded by parking lots.  And bus service is very difficult to provide when housing is spread out along streets that do not connect.

We have the opportunity to improve public health by creating a city that is compact and connected, where people can walk, ride bikes, or roll to the places they want to go.  In the recent Mobility Talks survey 76% of Austinites said they travel alone in their car, but almost the same number (74%) said they wished they had better options to bike, walk, or ride public transportation.  Can you imagine what it would be like to walk to dinner with your family?

All Austinites should have easy access to healthy food, medical care, and services.

To do that we need to connect neighborhoods to amenities and transportation options.  The City of Austin has made progress putting sidewalks, ADA accommodations, and bike lanes on the ground, while planning for more. We have a Sidewalk Master Plan, which shows we have $1 billion in missing sidewalks and $15 million/year needed to repair existing ones.  We have some Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons, but many roads still do not have safe places to cross, sometimes for more than a mile!  

Our current sidewalk program is out of money.  We can build sidewalks around every school, park, and transit stop, but only if we make that vision a priority.

We have a Bicycle Master Plan, which envisions a connected network of on and off-street (urban trail) bike facilities, but we need $150 million to build it.  We have some transit, but people often note they want more frequent transit to get where they are going reliably.

Many Austinites are already walking, biking, rolling to their destinations, but without a connected network (sidewalks, bike lanes, and transit all working together) those trips are difficult and often dangerous.  In 2015, 102 family members, friends, and co-workers died on Austin’s streets, 1/3 of them were pedestrians.  2015 was our most dangerous year to date on Austin’s roads, but 2016 is shaping up to be just as heartbreaking.  Recently a 3 year old child was run over and killed while crossing Cameron Road (in a crosswalk) with his family.  A week later, a 14 year old boy was hit and killed while riding his bike on Spicewood Springs Road.  

Our children should not be dying on our streets.  

Our City Council has adopted a Vision Zero policy which notes that traffic crashes are preventable and any death on our streets is too many.  It’s an adopted goal of Imagine Austin and needs to be implemented.

We can continue to encourage people to make transportation choices that improve their health, but as long as people are dying on our streets that is a hard sell.  Imagine Austin envisions a healthy Austin where all community members have safe and healthy ways to get to services, healthy food sources, and medical care.  

Our transportation network should be built for all ages and abilities in a way that promotes healthy living and provides equitable access for all. While Austin has made much progress in adopting policies, we still have a long way to go until we see results.

To learn more about livable, safe cities for all people, check out Livable Cities.Imagine Austin priority programs series