Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
6 Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
6
Through its continued commitment to progressive housing policy, the Austin City Council has prioritized affordable housing to promote a vibrant urban fabric in support of the city’s vision to be the most livable city in the country. Austin citizens have also consistently supported creating and maintaining affordable housing. A 2008 poll by HousingWorks, a local advocacy group focused on issues relating to affordable housing, showed that 63% of respondents are concerned that they or someone they care about will be unable to afford a home in Austin; that 70% would like the City of Austin to have a diversity of home types within its neighborhoods to accommodate people with a range of income levels; and that 65% of Austinites would like to see government involvement in making home ownership more accessible (HousingWorks Austin, 2009). Austin voters demonstrated that support in November 2006 by approving the use of $55 million in General Obligation Bonds to increase homeownership and rental opportunities for low-to-moderate income households. Housing affordability has become a significant issue in the City of Austin due to rapidly rising land values, especially in areas located in close proximity to downtown. Homeowners who have lived for generations in one neighborhood can no longer afford increasing property taxes. In other areas, rising values are causing multifamily property owners to sell their properties or convert to condominium ownership. Increasing moderately priced housing stock in Austin is crucial to recruit and keep entrylevel workers and sustain economic growth in the urban core. In addition, increasing the supply of affordable housing in Austin improves the quality of life for all residents as they face shorter commutes, less pollution, fully-funded essential public services, and more equal tax burdens. In order to maintain a robust economy and diverse community, Austin residents need housing that accommodates all types of living situations. A thriving community includes a variety of housing types—single-family homes, apartments (from small duplexes to large complexes), and condominiums—that serve a variety of people—single adults, couples, families, elderly people, and people with disabilities—at a variety of income levels. The City of Austin’s five-year Consolidated Plan establishes a strategic plan for affordable housing. The Consolidated Plan, prepared by the Neighborhood Housing and Community Development Office, describes community needs, resources, and priorities for the City’s housing and community development activities, which are funded primarily with grants from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). An Action Plan is developed annually to direct the use of limited public resources to increase the supply of decent, affordable, accessible housing; revitalize economically distressed neighborhoods; and expand economic opportunities. The Action Plan includes funding recommendations for both federal and local funding sources. Two other reports were resources for much of the housing data in this section. The Austin Comprehensive Housing Market Study, completed by BBC Research & Consulting in March 2009, was intended to research housing trends in Austin to help determine housing needs now and in the future. Preserving Affordable Housing in Austin: A Platform for Action looked at the need to comprehensively plan for retaining privately owned affordable housing in the context of rising property values in historically affordable neighborhoods.
DRAFT – City of Austin
Community Inventory Report
1
Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
6.1. Housing
Housing Supply
The U.S. Census American Community Survey estimates that there were 333,487 housing units in Austin in 2007 (Table 6-1). Of these, about 307,000 were occupied housing units. Slightly more than half were rental units.
Table 6-1: Housing units by occupancy and tenure, City of Austin, 2007
Tenure Occupancy by Tenure and Ownership Total housing units … Occupied housing units … Vacant housing units … Owner-occupied housing units … Rental housing units 2007 333,487 306,693 26,794 141,240 165,453
6
Source: Census Bureau; 2007 American Community Survey
Housing conditions
The age distribution of renter and owner occupied units in Austin closely resembles one another. Nearly 50 percent of renter occupied units were built in the 1970s and 1980s. An additional one third of the units were built between 1990 and today. A study of housing preservation in Austin early in 2008 found that more than 55 percent of duplexes and 79 percent of small and medium-sized apartment buildings were built before 1980. Most of these complexes have high occupancy rates. Austin’s owner occupied housing stock contains a larger proportion of units built before 1970 (21 percent). Fewer owner occupied homes than renter occupied units were built in the 1970s and 1980s; however, a slightly higher proportion of owner occupied units have been built since 2005, most likely to meet the residential demand. One method of locating housing units that are at risk of disrepair and/or areas within a city that have housing condition problems is to overlay high poverty areas with older housing stock. Map 6-1 displays areas of Austin that have a high prevalence of low income residents (more than one-third of households earn less than $25,000) and housing stock built in 1950 or earlier. Areas around the University of Texas and along IH-35 contain large concentrations of both. It should be noted, however, that the university areas are less likely to have the same level of need as other areas since they are dominated by students who show lower incomes but whose incomes may be subsidized by other resources (e.g. parents, student loans).
DRAFT – City of Austin
Community Inventory Report
2
Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
between Map 6-2: Relationship between Low income Households and Age of Housing Stock, 2008
6
Source: Austin Comprehensive Housing Market Study
DRAFT – City of Austin
Community Inventory Report
3
Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
In general, Austin’s housing stock is in good condition: Few housing units in Austin lack complete plumbing (1,570 units); a little over 1 percent of units lack complete kitchens (3,833 units).
6
Overcrowding
Overcrowded units are defined as units with an occupant to room ratio of one or more. Two percent of owner occupied units in Austin were considered overcrowded in 2007. Rental units are more likely to be overcrowded; 6 percent of units in Austin have a ratio of occupants per room of one or more.
6.2. Affordable housing
Affordable housing is a critical equity issue facing many communities today, including Austin. Housing costs in Austin have risen by 85 percent in the past 10 years. The median value of a single family home in Austin was $129,900 in 1998. By 2008, the median had increased almost 90 percent to $240,000. This is a swift change from the previous decades; from 1970 to 1990, Austin was one of the most affordable places to live in the country, according to a 1998 study sponsored by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Austin is a majority-renter city. Fifty-four percent of Austin households rent; 46 percent of households own the home in which they reside. The City’s homeownership rate is likely to stabilize and possibly decrease modestly with the current slowdown in mortgage lending. Rental property will continue to play a large part in housing Austin’s residents. In the housing industry, housing affordability is commonly defined in terms of the proportion of household income that is used to pay housing costs. Housing is “affordable” if no more than 30 percent of a household’s monthly income is needed for rent, mortgage payments and utilities. When the proportion of household income needed to pay housing costs exceeds 30 percent, a household is considered “cost burdened.” Housing costs are also examined in the context of the median family income (MFI), which is calculated by HUD for the Austin-Round Rock metropolitan statistical area. HUD divides low and moderate income households into categories, based on their relationship to the MFI: extremely low income (earning 30 percent or less of the MFI), very low income (earning between 31 and 50 percent of the MFI), low income (earning between 51 and 80 percent of the MFI) and moderate income (earning between 81 and 95 percent of the MFI). The current MFI for the Austin area is $73,300.
Affordable housing needs
Rental Needs
Table 6-2 shows the affordability of rental housing in Austin by price range. Units are affordable if no more than 30 percent of a household’s income is required to pay both rent and utilities. For example, households earning less than $10,000 per year could afford to pay up to $175 in rent each month (accounting for utility costs) and not be considered cost burdened. Table 6-2 shows the estimated number of renter households in each income category in 2008, along with the number and proportion of rental units affordable to them.
DRAFT – City of Austin
Community Inventory Report
4
Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
Table 6-2: Affordable Rents by Household Income Range, 2008
2008 Income Ranges Less than $10,000 $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 to $19,999 $20,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 or more Maximum Affordable Rent + Utilities $175 $300 $425 $550 $775 $1,150 $1,725 $2,300 $3,550 $3,550
6
Source: Austin Comprehensive Housing Market Study
Rental Housing Gap
Austin has a very strong need for affordable rentals. The city’s rental market is narrowly priced, with 79 percent of units priced between $550 and $1,150 per month (specifically, 44 percent rent between $550 and $775 and 35 percent between $775 and $1,150). These units are affordable to households earning between $25,000 and $50,000. The city’s renters earning less than $20,000 per year—44,700 renters—had just 7,150 affordable units in the market from which to choose. This means that there are 37,600 more renters earning less than $20,000 per year than units in the market affordable to them, even after accounting for subsidized units and vouchers. In other words, just 1 in 6 renters earning less than $20,000 can find affordable housing. The mismatch between renter income and availability of units is most severe for renters earning less than $10,000 per year: These 21,700 renters have just 2,400 units affordable to them, leaving a shortage of 19,300 units. By 2020, the city will need 12,500 more rental units priced at $425 or less to meet the growing needs of low income renters. To only modestly lower the current low income rental gap and meet the growing needs, as many as 16,500 units should be constructed. Table 6-3 compares the supply of rental units to the number of renter households in each category. The Rental Gap is the shortage or excess of units for each income range.
DRAFT – City of Austin
Community Inventory Report
5
Neighborhood Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
Table 6-3: Rental Gaps Analysis, 2008
Maximum Affordable 2008 Income Ranges Less than $10,000 $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 to $19,999 $20,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 or more Total
Source: Austin Comprehensive Housing Market Study
6
Renters
Number Percent
Rental Units, 3Q08
Number Percent
Rent + Utilities $175 $300 $425 $550 $775 $1,150 $1,725 $2,300 $3,550 $3,550+
2,397 1,932 2,822 15,446 79,034 63,186 13,366 1,476 292 55 180,006
1% 1% 2% 9% 44% 35% 7% 1% 0% 0%
21,719 12,390 12,160 13,819 26,530 28,103 29,583 10,898 6,335 4,113 165,650
13% 7% 7% 8% 16% 17% 18% 7% 4% 2%
Homeownership Needs
As the Austin housing market has become notably more expensive, the geographic distribution of units affordable to households earning 80 percent or less of the MFI has changed. Housing options for moderate and low income households have become more abundant outside of Austin. Single family home prices have risen drastically in the last ten years, while the MFI has not. Based on income increases, over the last 10 years, the average family in Austin can afford to spend an additional $18,000 to purchase a home; however, the median price for a single family home in Austin has increased by $115,000. Table 6-4 displays how the MFI and home prices have changed in the last 10 years.
1998Table 6-4: Median Family Income and Single Family Home Affordability, 1998-2008
HUD MFI 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 $ 50,800 $ 55,400 $ 58,900 $ 64,700 $ 71,100 $ 66,900 $ 66,900 $ 67,300 $ 69,600 $ 69,300 $ 69,100 Single Fam ily Median Hom e Price $ 129,900 $ 140,000 $ 172,000 $ 189,900 $ 182,500 $ 179,900 $ 179,900 $ 190,000 $ 214,900 $ 242,993 $ 245,000 80% M FI Affordabilit y $ 117,212 $ 132,534 $ 144,191 $ 163,510 $ 184,826 $ 170,837 $ 170,837 $ 172,170 $ 179,830 $ 178,831 $ 178,165 Percent of For Sale Single Fam ily Unit s Available t o 80% M FI 42% 46% 39% 39% 50% 47% 47% 43% 40% 30% 28%
Source: Austin Comprehensive Housing Market Study
As of October 2008, the median price of all homes in Austin on the for-sale housing market was $240,000. More specifically, the median price for detached single family homes, which includes houses and detached condominiums, was $260,000. The median price for a single family attached home, which includes condominiums, attached ½ duplexes, and garden
DRAFT – City of Austin
Community Inventory Report
6
Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
6
homes, was $199,000. Multifamily homes, which include duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes, had a median sales price of $214,900 in 2008.1 Figure 6-2 shows the number of detached single family, attached single family and multifamily units for sale in Austin in 2008 by the incomes at which they are affordable. It is important to note that households can afford homes in their affordability price range in addition to homes priced below that range.
1 The detached, attached and multifamily classifications in this section are based on the classification of the data in the Multiple Listing Service (MLS).
DRAFT – City of Austin
Community Inventory Report
7
Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
6
Units Figure 6-2: Distribution of Housing Units Available to Buy by Income Range and Housing Type, 2008
500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0
Less than $10,000 $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 to $19,999 $20,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $29,999 $30,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $39,999 $40,000 to $44,999 $45,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $59,999 $60,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $124,999 $125,000 to $149,999 $150,000 to $199,999 $200,000 or more
Single Family, At t ached
1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0
Less than $10,000 $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 to $19,999 $20,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $29,999 $30,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $39,999 $40,000 to $44,999 $45,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $59,999 $60,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $124,999 $125,000 to $149,999 $150,000 to $199,999 $200,000 or more
Single Family, Det ached
200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
Less than $10,000 $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 to $19,999 $20,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $29,999 $30,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $39,999 $40,000 to $44,999 $45,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $59,999 $60,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $124,999 $125,000 to $149,999 $150,000 to $199,999 $200,000 or more
Mult ifamily
Source: Austin Comprehensive Housing Market Study
DRAFT – City of Austin
Community Inventory Report
8
Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
6
The graphs demonstrate where the peak and valleys exist in housing supply. For example, households in Austin earning between $75,000 and $100,000 had the most options in 2008 for purchasing homes; households earning less than $25,000 had the fewest choices. An estimated 13 percent of renters and 53 percent of owners in Austin could afford the median priced for sale unit in 2008.2
Homeownership Gap
One-third of attached units and 16% of detached units are affordable to households earning $50,000 per year. About one-third of the city’s renters earn enough to have these choices in Austin’s home purchase market. Renters earning $75,000 have many more choices— however, just 13 percent of Austin’s renters earn this much. Renters earning less than $50,000 per year (two-thirds of all Austin renters) have fewer opportunities to become homeowners. Austin has a need for homes priced between $113,000 and $240,000 to enable its renter population earning between $35,000 and $75,000 per year to become homeowners. In many cities, this demand for affordable homes is partially fulfilled through attached housing; however, in Austin, this ownership product is currently limited. Future growth of homeowners will demand a slightly different distribution of price points than the city has now. To accommodate future homeowners: • 8 percent of the units must be priced at $113,000 and less (likely small condos); • 13 percent at $113,000 to $160,500 (a mix of condos and townhomes); • 21 percent at $160,500 to $240,400 (condos, townhomes, cottages and small single family detached units); and • 58 percent more than $240,400 (range of housing options). This distribution is not much different than what Austin’s market currently offers, except for slightly higher proportions at the most affordable levels.
Preserving Affordable Housing
In 2008, the City of Austin released Preserving Affordable Housing in Austin: A Platform for Action, which provided new insight on Austin’s multi-family housing stock. Most of Austin’s affordable housing is privately-owned and not subsidized. Austin has more than 156,000 multifamily housing units. Fewer than 8,000 are publicly subsidized, and 79 percent (123,678) are in small complexes with 2 to 49 units. In addition, most of the city’s multifamily stock is old but occupied. More than 55 percent of duplexes and 79 percent of small and medium-sized apartment buildings were built before 1980. Of these, 22 percent of apartments are more than 20 years old and have high-occupancy rates. The report also illustrated that Austin’s subsidized affordable housing units are at risk. Austin has almost 1,350 units of Project-Based Section 8 complexes with affordability requirements that will expire by 2011, with about 73 percent (779 units) expiring in 2010. In addition, developments financed with federal housing tax credits and elderly/disabled grants will begin to expire in a decade.
2
Based on the Census’ 2007 American Community Survey (ACS) income by tenure and 2008 MLS data.
DRAFT – City of Austin
Community Inventory Report
9
Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
6
In addition, the report chronicled the loss of unsubsidized affordable housing units through private redevelopment. From 1995 – 2007, there was a 30 percent increase in the number of multifamily units built. More than 2,000 rental units were converted to condominiums in 2007 and 2008.
Location of Affordable Housing
Map 6-3 shows the location of subsidized housing, including the source of the subsidy. Map 6-4 shows the location of conventional rental complexes that offer rents affordable to renters earning less than 30 percent of the MFI, or about $20,700 per year. These households need rents of no more than $425 per month to afford rent and utilities and not be cost burdened. There are just 565 units in 9 developments provided by the private, unsubsidized market in Austin affordable to these households. Map 6-5 shows affordable rentals for 50 percent of the MFI and less, or about $35,000 per year. There are 58,000 of these units provided by the private market. The private market units have an average square footage of 697. The Housing Authority of the City of Austin (HACA) has 5,451 people on the waiting list for 1,928 units of public housing in 19 developments in Austin.
DRAFT – City of Austin
Community Inventory Report
10
Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
Map 6-3: Location of subsidized housing
6
DRAFT – City of Austin
Community Inventory Report
11
Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
6
Map 6-4: Location of Developments with Units Affordable to Households Earning 0% to 30% MFI
Source: Austin Comprehensive Housing Market Study
DRAFT – City of Austin
Community Inventory Report
12
Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
6
Map 6-5: Location of Developments with Units Affordable to Households Earning 0% to 50% MFI
Source: Austin Comprehensive Housing Market Study
DRAFT – City of Austin
Community Inventory Report
13
Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8)
6
Two public housing authorities administer Housing Choice Voucher (formerly Section 8) programs in the City of Austin: the Housing Authority of the City of Austin (HACA) and the Housing Authority of Travis County (HATC). The Housing Choice Voucher program is designed to increase the housing choices available to very low-income households by making privately owned rental housing affordable. It provides rent subsidies, either rental certificates or vouchers, on behalf of eligible tenants. These subsidies usually equal the difference between 30 percent of the household’s adjusted income and the HUD-approved fair market rent (for certificates) or the Public Housing Authority-approved payment standard (for vouchers). HACA provides 5,023 vouchers citywide, with a budget of $45,914,920, and has 4,919 households on its waiting list. HATC has 564 Housing Choice vouchers with a yearly budget of $4,224,000. Approximately 850 individuals and families are on HATC’s waiting list. Map 6-6 indicates the geographic location of HACA vouchers citywide in 2008.
DRAFT – City of Austin
Community Inventory Report
14
Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
Map 6-6: Housing Choice Vouchers
6
DRAFT – City of Austin
Community Inventory Report
15
Housing Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
Affordable Housing Resources
The City of Austin utilizes federal housing and community development funds as well as local funding to produce and preserve affordable housing.
Federal
6
The City of Austin’s allocation of federal funding from HUD for fiscal year 2008-09 was $12.5 million. Funds are provided through four entitlement grants with amounts determined by statutory formulas: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG); HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME); American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI), Emergency Shelter Grant Program (ESG); and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA).
State
Other important funding sources for affordable housing are the Housing Tax Credit Program and the Multifamily Bond Program. The Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA) administers the Housing Tax Credit (HTC) Program for the State of Texas. The HTC Program provides a valuable affordable housing resource to the Austin community. The HTC Program receives authority from the U.S. Treasury Department to provide tax credits to non-profits, for-profit developers, and syndicators or investors. The Austin Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) administers the Multifamily Bond Program, which provides below-market interest rate financing for the acquisition and rehabilitation or the new construction of apartment complexes. Funding is provided through the sale and issuance of tax-exempt multifamily conduit bonds. Federal law requires that for the bonds to retain tax-exempt status, at least 20 percent of the units financed must be leased to families at or below 50 percent of MFI or 40 percent of the units must be leased to families with incomes below 60 percent of MFI.
Local
In November 2006, Austin voters approved the use of $55 million in General Obligation Bonds to increase homeownership and rental opportunities for low-to-moderate income households. The bonds are apportioned into $33 million for rental and $22 million for homeownership over a seven year period. Rental projects that receive General Obligation Bonds serve households with yearly incomes of no more than 50 percent MFI with a goal of assisting households at 30 percent MFI and below. Homeownership projects that receive General Obligation Bonds serve households with yearly incomes of no more than 80 percent MFI with a goal of primarily serving households between 50 percent and 65 percent MFI. Of the $55 million in bonds authorized for affordable housing, close to $16 million in projects has been approved as of January 2009. The approved projects will create 435 units of rental, homeownership, and transitional housing. The Housing Trust Fund is another significant source of local funding. In fiscal year 199900, the Austin City Council included $1 million in the annual budget for the establishment of the Housing Trust Fund. Since 2000, the Austin City Council has directed $8.8 million in local funds to the Housing Trust Fund. As a part of the creation of the Housing Trust Fund, the Austin City Council also passed a resolution to dedicate 40% of all incremental tax revenues derived from developments that are built on property located in the city’s Desired Development Zone and were not on the Travis Central Appraisal District property tax rolls
DRAFT – City of Austin
Community Inventory Report
16
Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
on June 1, 1997. This established an ongoing revenue source for the Housing Trust Fund. This policy is anticipated to generate substantial revenues to the Housing Trust Fund with the pending development of the Green Water Treatment Plant and Block 21 downtown.
6
The Austin City Council has also dedicated local resources from the City’s general fund to affordable housing efforts. Indeed, fiscal year 2008-09 was the first year that the amount of new funding the city contributed to the Neighborhood Housing and Community Development budget ($14.5 million) surpassed new funding from the federal government ($13.9 million).
City of Austin Affordable Housing Programs
In an effort to coordinate and improve housing services for City of Austin residents and better leverage housing resources, the City of Austin developed a continuum of housing services (see Figure 6-3). This continuum serves as the framework for investment in housing throughout the community. Services are coordinated in order to create a “stairway to selfsufficiency” that serves as the foundation of an investment strategy for housing activities. This housing continuum provides a framework for collaboration and partnerships among numerous community entities allocating resources to address affordable housing in Austin.
SelfFigure 6-3: The Housing Continuum: A Ladder to Self-Sufficiency
Source: City of Austin Neighborhood Housing and Community Development
The City of Austin Neighborhood Housing and Community Development Office assists renters, first-time homebuyers, homeowners in need of home repair, and affordable housing developers through a wide range of programs related to affordable rental and homeownership opportunities (0).
DRAFT – City of Austin
Community Inventory Report
17
Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
Table 6-5: Neighborhood Housing and Community Development Housing Programs
Renter Assistance Tenant-Based Rental Assistance Architectural Barrier Removal Tenants’ Rights Assistance HousingSmarts Homebuyer Education Down Payment Assistance
6
FirstFirst-Time Homebuyer Assistance Homeowner Assistance
Housing Developer Assistance
Homeless/ Special Needs Assistance
Architectural Barrier Removal Emergency Home Repair Homeowner Rehabilitation Loan Program LeadSmart Holly Good Neighbor Materials Grants Rental Housing Developer Assistance Acquisition & Development Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) Operation Loans Developer Incentive Based Programs Shelter Operation & Maintenance Homeless Essential Services Housing Benefits Specialist for Chronically Homeless Persons Rent, Mortgage and Utility Assistance for Persons with AIDS Support Services for Persons with AIDS Permanent Housing Placement Services for Persons with AIDS Child Care Senior Services Youth Services
For a more comprehensive list and description of the City of Austin’s affordable housing programs and activities, visit www.cityofaustin.org/housing.
Homelessness
The Ending Community Homelessness (ECHO) Coalition, comprised of businesses and business associations, faith-based entities, public housing authorities, nonprofit housing developers and service providers, hospitals, government agencies, funders, public safety representatives, current- and formerly- homeless persons, and other community supporters, serves as the lead planning entity on homeless issues in Austin and Travis County. ECHO’s mission is to provide “dynamic, proactive leadership that engages policy makers and the community to end homelessness.” As part of this responsibility, ECHO coordinates and completes Austin’s Continuum of Care (CoC) application, a community strategic plan to address homelessness based on identified needs, the availability and accessibility of existing housing and services, and opportunities to integrate non-homeless mainstream housing and service resources. ECHO also completes the city’s 10-year Plan to End Homelessness, and is charged with administering Austin’s biennial homeless count and survey, which is a HUD prerequisite for CoC funding.
DRAFT – City of Austin
Community Inventory Report
18
Conditions Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
Table 6-6 shows the total number of point-in-time homeless persons that the Austin community has reported in the HUD Continuum of Care funding application since 2004. Only persons who meet HUD’s definition of being homeless were included in the count.
Table 6-6: Austin Homeless Count
(Point-inAustin Homeless Population (Point-in-time)/Year of Count Sheltered (Emergency Shelter or Transitional Housing) Unsheltered Total 2004 1,337 2,452 3,789 2005 1,166 726 1,892 2006 1,171 1,854 3,025
6
2007 1,305 3,163 4,468
Source: Austin 2008 HUD Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Grant Application
Table 6-7: Homeless Subpopulations
subpopulations Homeless subpopulations Chronically homeless Severely mentally ill Chronic substance abuse Veterans Persons with HIV/AIDS Victims of domestic violence Unaccompanied youth Sheltered 242 323 262 79 14 284 28 Unsheltered 677 339 613 127 42 106 63 Total 919 662 875 206 56 390 91
Source: Austin 2008 HUD Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Grant Application
In addition to defining individual and families sleeping in areas “not meant for human habitation,” HUD’s definition of homelessness includes persons who: “Are living in transitional or supportive housing for homeless persons but originally came from streets or emergency shelters; Ordinarily sleep in transitional or supportive housing for homeless persons but are spending a short time (30 consecutive days or less) in a hospital or other institution; Are being evicted within a week from private dwelling units and no subsequent residences have been identified and they lack resources and supportive networks needed to obtain access to housing; or Are being discharged within a week from institutions in which they have been residents for more than 30 consecutive days and no subsequent residences have been identified and they lack the resources and support networks needed to obtain access to housing.” The HUD definition does not include persons who are staying in a hotel/motel, with relatives or friends, in a Board and Care facility, Adult Congregate Living Facility, or who are in jail. HUD also monitors subpopulations among the homeless (Table 6-7). As a part of the city’s Continuum of Care application, a housing inventory survey of homeless programs/providers was conducted in 2008 to update current bed inventories, target populations for programs, and beds under development. The results are indicated in Table 6-8, Table 6-9, and Table 6-10 below.
DRAFT – City of Austin
Community Inventory Report
19
Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
Table 6-8: Inventory of Austin Emergency Shelter Beds
Emergency Shelters Foundation for the Homeless Front Steps - ARCH Front Steps - Recuperative Care LifeWorks SafePlace Salvation Army - Women's & Children's Shelter Salvation Army - Family Dorm Salvation Army - Men's Dorm Salvation Army - Men's Worker's Dorm Salvation Army - Turning Point Salvation Army - Women's Worker's Dorm Casa Marienella - Adult Shelter Casa Marienella - Posada Experanza Total Emergency Shelter Beds Total Beds 32 175 6 20 90 60 60 118 31 41 22 27 21 703
6
Source: Austin 2008 HUD Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Grant Application
Table 6-9: Inventory of Austin Transitional Housing Units
Transitional Housing ATCHMR - Project Recovery ATCHMR - Alameda House Blackland CDC Caritas of Austin - Re-entry Program Caritas of Austin - My Place Community Partnership for the Homeless Family Eldercare - Elder Shelter Family Eldercare - AHFC Transitional Housing LifeWorks - SHP LifeWorks - Transitional Living Program LifeWorks - Young Mom's and Babies Front Steps Push-Up Foundation SafePlace Salvatoin Army VinCare Services Total Transitional Housing Beds Total Beds 12 15 36 20 20 25 8 15 38 16 12 7 20 99 210 29 582
Source: Austin 2008 HUD Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Grant Application
DRAFT – City of Austin
Community Inventory Report
20
Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
10: Table 6-10: Inventory of Austin Permanent Housing Units for Formerly Homeless
Permanent Housing Housing Authority of City of Austin - Shelter Plus Care (1 YR) Housing Authority of City of Austin - Shelter Plus Care (5 YR) Housing Authority of Travis County - Shelter Plus Care (1 YR) Housing Authority of Travis County - Shelter Plus Care (5 YR) Caritas of Austin Foundation Communities - Spring Terrace Foundation Communities - Garden Terrace Total Permanent Housing Beds Total Beds 61 36 68 19 20 120 50 374
6
Source: Austin 2008 HUD Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Grant Application
Fair housing
6.3. Housing conditions and code enforcement
In addition to its efforts to promote housing affordability, the City also works to ensure that all of its housing meets at least minimal quality standards. For tenants living anywhere in Texas, the landlord must provide a dwelling that is decent, safe and sanitary, repairs for conditions that threaten the health or safety of an ordinary tenant, smoke detectors, and secure locks on all doors and windows, including a keyless bolting device. The Austin Housing Code specifically requires that all residential dwellings in the City of Austin must have heating facilities capable of maintaining a room temperature of 70º Fahrenheit, hot water supplied to plumbing fixtures at a temperature of not less than 110º Fahrenheit, and a kitchen sink, a shower or bathtub, a toilet, and hot and cold water. The City’s Code Enforcement Division responds to complaints of substandard housing and public nuisances (0). At the extreme, housing can be condemned and demolished; shows dangerous structures, based on cases from 2007 to early 2009 that the City’s Building and Standards Commission has heard for City Code violations.
DRAFT – City of Austin
Community Inventory Report
21
Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
Map 6-7: Property violation cases, City of Austin, 2007 – April 2009
6
DRAFT – City of Austin
Community Inventory Report
22
Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
6.4. Neighborhood conditions
On its own, a house has certain characteristics—so many square feet, so many bedrooms, one or another of different ways of controlling indoor temperature, arranging living space, and so on. As homes are arranged across space, the characteristics of a neighborhood emerge. How close houses are to one another and how they cluster is one aspect of neighborhood character—rural homesteads scatter homes throughout the countryside, separated by a long walk, while downtown apartments and condominiums cluster homes within a single building.
6
How houses cluster is related to where in a city or region they are located: more spaced out at the city’s edge, closer together in the city center. In addition to the cost of land and separate buildings, location itself has an effect on housing affordability, through the cost of transportation. Consider Map 6-8: it shows the affordability of Census tracts in Austin using the standard measure (30% of the median family income for that tract—note that this is different from the previous sections that considered city-wide affordability; this looks at affordability of Census tracts for the people who live there). If the median house value in that tract is greater than 30% of the median income, it is classed as unaffordable (shown in blue). An unsurprising pattern emerges: pockets of unaffordable areas downtown and across the region, with the least affordable area west of Austin.
Map 6-8: Housing affordability in Austin
A different way of considering housing affordability is to factor in the cost of transportation. Here, the standard measure allows 45% of the median household income in a tract to be
DRAFT – City of Austin
Community Inventory Report
23
Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
6
used for housing and transportation costs combined. A household can allocate that 45% in any fashion: a distant, but inexpensive house in unincorporated county land can use more of that 45% on daily commuting costs, while a center city homeowner can use more for her expensive home and less on commuting to downtown. Each of these can be affordable under this scheme, even as they spend different amounts on each element. The new pattern that emerges is shown in Map 6-9: now, much of the inner core is affordable, while most of the fringe is now unaffordable.
Map 6-9: Combined Housing and Transportation Affordability in Austin
Do not make too much of the specifics of these two maps. They both operate at a gross scale with older data. Nevertheless, they convey something important to this section: neighborhoods put houses on the map. Neighborhoods shape how Austin relates to itself. Where neighborhoods are located in the region shape (and are shaped by) the city’s commute patterns and traffic. What a neighborhood is made of and how its different parts fit together—where the shopping is, where the schools are, and how and whether residences connect to those pieces—shape the lives of Austin residents outside of work. And how houses are arranged shape our connections to one another, both in the way they open us to our neighbors and the way they expose us to crime. The City has a straightforward interest in housing (affordability and ensuring a minimal quality and upkeep). It has a clear interest in neighborhoods also, though that interest is more varied. Because they fundamentally shape transportation, they also shape access to schools and parks as well as to police and emergency services. They can encourage or discourage walking and other healthy activities, including being a member of the community.
DRAFT – City of Austin Community Inventory Report 24
Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
Most new residential developments—going back to pre-war commuter suburbs like Hyde Park—are built speculatively: upfront investments are made with the goal of selling off individual parcels or homes later. In order to increase the certainty of this inherently uncertain activity, residential developments increasingly focused narrowly on a slice of potential homeowners—a market segment. Because developments often connect to each other at only a few points, this marketing segmentation can lead neighborhoods to fracture Austin along socioeconomic lines, rather than unify across them.
6
However, because houses change, this segmentation is not destiny. As neighborhoods age, they often diversify. First, houses age in place. Neglected housing becomes dilapidated and loses value, becoming more affordable. Alternately, ongoing investment can grow a house: a porch is added or a carport gets walls and becomes a new room, allowing for a larger family or less cramped conditions (Map 6-10). Owner-occupied housing can be leased for rent, which introduces a different part of the community to the neighborhood. At the extreme, large houses can be subdivided and leased as several units; these “apartment buildings” can be re-assembled into a single home again. The next sections consider Austin’s different kinds of neighborhoods. Single family neighborhoods have separated homes with yards (though occasionally duplexes, and even less frequently townhouses, are intermixed). Early single family neighborhoods followed an urban grid that maximized access to major roads, while later developments were built with curvi-linear road networks with cul-de-sacs and loops and minimized access to major roads. These neighborhoods typically (and moreso, the more recent the development is) separate non-residential uses, such as offices or shopping areas, from the residential areas. Urban mixed-use neighborhoods, by contrast, typically connect homes to one another (as in townhomes) or place them within single structures (like an apartment building). Open space is either shared or public, and non-residential uses are intermixed in a single building, building by building, or block by block. Multifamily neighborhoods straddle the two. Some (typically either older or very new multifamily buildings) fit into an urban setting. This can be either in near downtown or in older neighborhoods, where small apartment buildings are mixed with small retail and restaurants along the larger roads that shape single-family neighborhoods. On the other hand, many multifamily neighborhoods built since the 1970s are interior-facing communities, with fences, gates, and controlled access; private drives and parking; and shared amenities like community centers and pools, but no retail independent of the apartment manager.
DRAFT – City of Austin
Community Inventory Report
25
Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
10: Map 6-10: Residential remodels and additions, 2000 – 2007, City of Austin
6
DRAFT – City of Austin
Community Inventory Report
26
Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
SingleSingle-Family Neighborhoods
6
Austin’s older neighborhoods, those primarily built before the Second World War, are characterized by their walkability, amenities, architecture, and sense of place. Areas and neighborhoods such as Hyde Park, Old West Austin, Heritage, Pemberton Heights, Swede Hill, Willow/Spence, and a significant portion of North University typify these presuburbanization neighborhoods. During the late 1940s and early 1950s, changes in local subdivision and single-family designs become more noticeable, including wider and larger lots and changes in the orientation of the house to the lot (Figure 6-1). Lot sizes larger than 7,000 square feet generally indicate the switch to post-war suburban neighborhoods (Map 611). However, in the 1970s, there was a trend of slightly smaller single-family lots (between 5,750 and 7,000 square feet). There is a noted increase of these smaller lots, particularly in areas of Austin south of Stassney Lane and in Southeast Austin south of Ben White Boulevard/U.S. 290. During the 1950s, most new development occurred in North Central Austin, south of U.S. 183/Anderson Lane (Map 6-12) and in parts of the Zilker and Southwood neighborhoods in South Austin . The houses in these and earlier neighborhoods were, by and large, modestly sized. The smaller house size relative to contemporary single-family housing found further away from the central city (Map 6-13) combined with consumer preferences for larger houses has lead to considerable tension as these older houses are demolished and replaced by larger ones. To address the issue, the City Council created the Residential Design and Compatibility Standards, also known as the “McMansion Ordinance.” The ordinance ties house sizes to lot sizes in the urban core. It also proscribes design elements that must be addressed in new single-family construction. During the 1960s and continuing into the 1970s, the first big waves of suburbanization spread from the central City toward the hinterlands. This can be seen in the growth of the city limits during these two decades. During the 1960s, the city grew from 55.8 square miles to 80 square miles or almost 43%. Throughout these two decades, the city grew by just over 68 square miles or 122%. Between the 1960s and the end of the 1970s, Austin’s small-town feel had been outpaced by suburbia. North of U.S. 183 along North Lamar Boulevard, a number of suburban-style neighborhoods developed. New neighborhoods were also built in northeast Austin, Windsor Park, University Hills, Coronado Hills, Windsor Hills, and Heritage Hills. During the 1970s, residential developments began to sprawl northwest along U.S. 183. These subdivisions and those that followed in successive decades marked a significant increase in lot sizes. Many of the neighborhoods immediately north and south of Mesa Drive between Mopac and Loop 360 were built during this time on lots ranging from 7,000 square feet to more than 11,000 square feet. In south Austin during the 1970s, residential development aggressively filled in the land between Ben White Boulevard and William Cannon Drive on both sides of IH-35. The economic downturn of the 1980s slowed but did not stop residential development. The city grew from 80 to 124 square miles or nearly 55%. It was during this decade that the number of smaller lots (less than 7,000 square feet) increased in South Austin. In North Austin and in Northwest Austin along U.S. 183, more residential development followed the previous decade’s development pattern. In South Austin, the development began moving
DRAFT – City of Austin
Community Inventory Report
27
Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
south of William Cannon Drive and leap-frogging further south toward the Hays County line.
6
Although the recession trailed into the 1990s, that decade saw a continuation of western, southwestern and northwestern residential development and a continued increase in lot size. This pattern continues in the 2000s—more residential development, with an increased number of lots sized over an acre. At the same time, Austin has extended into Williamson County. In far South Austin, the mass of new development moved ever closer to the Hays County line, filling in the gaps from earlier decades residential growth.
SingleFigure 6-1: Changes in Single-Family House and Lot Orientation
Typical Pre-Suburbanization Lot Configuration Typical Post-Suburbanization Lot Configuration
DRAFT – City of Austin
Community Inventory Report
28
Housing Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
11: singleMap 6-11: Lot sizes of single-family residences
6
DRAFT – City of Austin
Community Inventory Report
29
Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
12: Map 6-12: Decade structure built
6
DRAFT – City of Austin
Community Inventory Report
30
Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
13: Map 6-13: Dwelling size in square feet
6
DRAFT – City of Austin
Community Inventory Report
31
Conditions Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
Single Family Development in Austin Over Time
6
Aldridge Place, Central Austin, 1920s
Hyde Park, Central Austin, 1920s
Delwood II, East Austin, 1940s
University Hills, Northeast Austin, 1960s
South Austin, 1970s
DRAFT – City of Austin
Oak Hill, Southwest Austin, 1990s
Community Inventory Report 32
Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
Multifamily Development in Austin
6
Monaco Apartments, Sunridge Dr and East Oltorf Ave. College Park at the Landings, Riverside Dr
Colonial Apartments, 1212 W. 13th Street
Sheridan Park Apartments, 1100 Reinli St
North University Neighborhood Association
West Campus, the Texan Apartments
DRAFT – City of Austin
Community Inventory Report
33
Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
Duplex, Townhome, and Accessory Unit Development in Austin
6
Cherrywood Duplex
1112 Algarita Dr
Garage Apartment in Cherrywood
Garage Apartment in Hyde Park
Townhomes, 6479 Hart Lane Townhomes at Elton & Enfield
DRAFT – City of Austin
Community Inventory Report
34
Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
use Multifamily and mixed use neighborhoods
6
Map 6-14 shows where clusters of apartments are in Austin. Small buildings get clustered into 100-unit dots, while large complexes may be represented by more than one dot. At this scale, this helps clarify where concentrations of multifamily buildings are. Generally, other multi-family uses found throughout the area are geared more towards full time workers, and are usually found along major thoroughfares nearer employers. Many of the larger multi-family developments are found north of the urban core along U.S. Highway 183 and Interstate Highway 35 (IH 35) near high-tech employers. Multi-family developments along major corridors like north and south Lamar Boulevard and South Congress Avenue tend to be smaller in scale. Student-dominated multi-family “cities” neighborhoods are found west of the University of Texas, but also relatively far from the university in the Riverside area, southeast of downtown, and the Far West area, about three miles northwest of the university. Both of these areas are connected to the university by shuttle bus service. Multifamily development has followed a similar pattern to single-family development, with older units in the center of town, sprawling development around the edge, and some infill activity in the city center again (Map 6-15).
DRAFT – City of Austin
Community Inventory Report
35
Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
14: Map 6-14: Location of multifamily neighborhoods
6
DRAFT – City of Austin
Community Inventory Report
36
Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
15: Map 6-15: Age of multifamily buildings (with 5 or more units)
6
DRAFT – City of Austin
Community Inventory Report
37
Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
6.5. Neighborhood Planning
Early Plans
6
In 1997, the City initiated a pilot neighborhood planning program. Neighborhoods submitted applications to be considered for participation in the planning process. Based on the merits of their applications the first three neighborhoods chosen were Dawson, Chestnut, and East Cesar Chavez. On August 27, 1998, the Dawson Neighborhood Plan became the first neighborhood plan adopted by the City of Austin City Council as a formal amendment the City’s comprehensive plan, the Austin Tomorrow Comprehensive Plan. The second and third plans were adopted as amendments to the comprehensive plan the following year—the East César Chávez Neighborhood Plan on May 13 and the Chestnut Neighborhood Plan on July 15. A second application process was initiated and an additional three neighborhoods were selected. The Hyde Park Neighborhood Plan was adopted on April 13, 2000, and the Old West Austin and North Austin Civic Association Neighborhood Plans were adopted on June 29, 2000. Every plan is shaped by the important issues of the neighborhood. They contain a number of goals, objectives and actions items or recommendations addressing a variety of elements. Although early plans covered a very broad rage of topics not included in later plans—such as social service delivery, crime, economic development, and housing—there are several broad elements common to all neighborhood plans: • • • Land Use Transportation (pedestrian, bicycle, transit, automobiles) Parks and Open Space.
In 1999, the City changed the manner in which neighborhoods were selected for the neighborhood planning process. Instead of the application process, the City initiated the planning process with selected neighborhoods. The first of these planning areas were located in East Austin and covered by the East Austin Overlay. The Overlay, adopted in 1997, was created to limit new, intensive commercial and industrial uses in East Austin. The City’s first comprehensive plan, A City Plan for Austin (1928), encouraged both racial and ethnic minorities and intense industrial development to locate in East Austin. In the ensuing decades these intensive uses, located close to residential areas, schools, churches, parks, playgrounds, and day care centers. The area covered by the East Austin Overlay included the previously adopted Chestnut and César Chávez Neighborhood Planning Areas as well as the following areas: • • • Holly Neighborhood Planning Area Central East Austin Neighborhood Planning Area Govalle Neighborhood Planning Area (this process was suspended and resumed as part of the Govalle/Johnston Terrace Combined Neighborhood Planning Area planning process) Upper Boggy Creek Neighborhood Planning Area—(previously know as the Cherrywood Neighborhood Planning Area).
•
DRAFT – City of Austin
Community Inventory Report
38
Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
6
Although not covered by the East Austin Overlay, two other planning areas’ plans were initiated during the same time frame as the four mentioned above—Montopolis and North Loop. The Montopolis neighborhood began the planning process in May 2000. The planning for this neighborhood began earlier as a cooperative process involving the University of Texas, community stakeholders, and the City of Austin. The Montopolis Neighborhood Plan was adopted on September 23, 2001. The North Loop Neighborhood Planning Area (an inner-city neighborhood whose residents described in their plan as one “in transition” as well as the recent recipient of City-sponsored day labor site) was selected to begin the planning process in fall of 2000. The plan was adopted on May 23, 2002.
Implementation— Implementation—the Neighborhood Plan Combining District
To implement the land use recommendations of neighborhood plans the City Council adopted the Neighborhood Plan Combining District (NP) regulations. The NP was adopted by the City Council on April 6, 2000. Stemming from the City’s Smart Growth initiative of the late 1990s, these regulations, along with the plan, provide community stakeholders a say as to how their neighborhood will evolve over time. The NP establishes infill development options that could be applied, depending on the option, on an area by area or site by site basis. The NP establishes regulations governing: • • • • Small-lot residential development, Garage apartments and granny flats, Corner stores (small-scale retail uses in residential areas), and Large- and small-scale mixed-use development.
Adoption of a neighborhood plan is often accompanied by re-zoning of properties throughout the planning area, to achieve the vision expressed in the plan. Existing zoning along many of Austin’s inner-city commercial corridors was often too intensive for the location. To address this misapplication, the Conditional Overlay Combining District (CO) was often applied in conjunction with the NP. The CO is a tool to implement the community’s vision for commercial corridors and other areas. It restricts zoning regulations to address specific circumstances presented by a particular geographic area or site and can prohibit, or make conditional, specific uses. It cannot add uses or make development standards more permissive. For more on CO zoning in Austin, see Chapter 4. Through the neighborhood planning process and the adoption of the neighborhood plan, stakeholders were, and continue to be, provided the opportunity to shape their communities by the types of uses allowed and to some degree the character of the built environment. However, the NP did not provide regulations for new development on typical single-family lots. In response to the construction of what many people viewed as inappropriately-scaled single-family construction, City Council approved several amendments to the NP. These amendments addressed: • • • Garage placement for new single-family construction, The size of driveways and the amount of impervious cover in the front yard, and The extension of porches into the required front yard setback.
DRAFT – City of Austin
Community Inventory Report
39
Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
Combined Neighborhood Planning Areas
6
Several of the early planning processes took multiple years to complete and lead to diminished participation from the community and fatigue among participants and staff. To address this, the planning process was streamlined, and two or more adjacent planning areas were grouped together. The streamlining of the process entailed fewer and more broadlyscoped meetings. The first of these combined planning areas were Southeast Combined Neighborhood Plan, East MLK Combined Neighborhood Planning Area, and Govalle/Johnston Terrace Combined Neighborhood Planning Area. The revised, streamlined process had the intended results. The Southeast Combined Neighborhood Plan process was completed in eight months, the East MLK Combined Neighborhood Planning Area process was completed in nine and the Govalle/Johnston Terrace Combined Neighborhood Planning Area was completed in 12 months. The next round of neighborhood planning areas were picked due to their proximity to a possible light rail line running through Central Austin. In fall 2000 a referendum was held to decide if the local transit authority, Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Cap Metro), would be given permission to build and operate a light rail line. After a very close vote, the referendum was voted down with margin of defeat being half a percentage point; however, Cap Metro had received funds from the Federal government and was obligated to either repay them or conduct the studies, regardless of the results of the vote. Due to the closeness of the vote and the conditions associated with the federal funds; the decision was made to move forward with the studies. In order to integrate land use, transportation, urban design, and transit planning, the City of Austin and Cap Metro partnered together. The planning areas selected were: • North Burnet/Gateway Combined Neighborhood Planning Area (the planning process never moved much beyond the level of staff research and was put on hold in the summer of 2003) • Crestview/Wooten Combined Neighborhood Planning Area • Brentwood/Highland Combined Neighborhood Planning Area • Central Austin Combined Neighborhood Planning Area (this area was also selected to address student housing demands in the neighborhoods surrounding the University of Texas).
DRAFT – City of Austin
Community Inventory Report
40
Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
16: Map 6-16: Neighborhood planning areas
6
DRAFT – City of Austin
Community Inventory Report
41
Housing Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
6
11: Planning Table 6-11: Neighborhood Planning Areas
Neighborhood planning area Dawson East César Chávez Chestnut Hyde Park Old West Austin North Austin Civic Association Montopolis Rosewood Central East Austin Holly North Loop Bouldin Upper Boggy Creek Southeast Combined East MLK Combined Govalle/Johnston Terrace Combined Crestview/Wooten Combined Brentwood/Highland Combined Central Austin Combined South Congress Combined Greater South River City Combined East Riverside/Oltorf Combined South Lamar Combined University Hills/ Windsor Park North Burnett/Gateway Oak Hill Combined KickPlanning Initiated or Kick-Off Meeting 9/16/1997 1/8/1998 9/1997 1/1999 6/14/1999 12/10/98 5/23/2000 3/2000 2/2000 3/2000 8/26/2000 10/2000 9/19/2000 2/2002 2/2/2002 2/2000 (Govalle process suspended) 3/2/2002 (restarted as combined planning process) 1/25/2003 3/22/2003 12/7/2002 3/30/2004 5/15/2004 12/2003 10/1/2005 (process indefinitely suspended after two years of planning and discussions) 11/5/2005 Summer 2002 (process on hold) 7/6/2006 (first public meeting) 11/19/2005 8/9/2007 11/1/2007 12/11/2008 8/9/2007 3/12/2009 12/11/2008 Adoption Date 8/27/1998 5/13/1999 7/15/1999 4/13/2000 6/29/2000 6/29/2000 9/23/2001 11/29/2001 12/13/2001 12/13/2001 5/23/2002 5/23/2002 8/1/2002 10/10/2002 11/7/2002 3/27/2003 4/1/2004 5/13/2004 8/26/2004 8/18/2005 9/29/2005 11/11/2006 Rezoning Date 12/6/2001 12/14/2002 12/7/2000 1/31/2002 1/31/2002 5/24/2001 9/23/2001 1/10/2002 12/13/2002 12/13/2002 5/23/2002 5/23/2002 8/1/2002 10/10/2002 11/7/2002 3/27/2003 4/1/2004 5/13/2004 8/26/2004 8/18/2005 9/29/2005 11/11/2006
DRAFT – City of Austin
Community Inventory Report
42
Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
6
The second round of combined planning areas took approximately the same time to complete as many of the earlier plans. However, in the time it took to complete three plans in the earlier process, seven areas were planned. This round also included additional meetings to plan in greater detail around possible light rail stops. The Brentwood/Highland and Crestview/Wooten Combined Neighborhood Plans were completed in 14 and 15 months respectively, while the Central Austin Combined Neighborhood Plan took 21 months. The complexity associated with the Central Austin Plan—the development of the University Neighborhood Overlay (UNO) to promote redevelopment in West Campus and the development of a Neighborhood Conservation Combining District (NCCD) for the North University neighborhood—necessitated a longer process. The next series of combined planning was selected based on criteria such as the amount of vacant land, level of development activity (subdivisions, site plans, zoning cases, and building permits), and amount of frontage along arterial roadways. The areas chosen to begin the planning process were: • • • South Congress Combined Neighborhood Planning Area Greater South River City Combined Neighborhood Planning Area East Riverside/Oltorf Combined Neighborhood Planning Area
Two of the three areas, the South Congress Combined and Greater South River Combined Neighborhood Planning Areas finished the process in about 16 months. The East Riverside/Oltorf planning process took almost three years to complete. The areas for the next round were selected using similar criteria to the previous round of planning areas. • • • South Lamar Combined Neighborhood Planning Area University Hills and Windsor Park Neighborhood Planning Area Oak Hill Combined Neighborhood Planning Area
The Oak Hill Combined Neighborhood Planning Area was not one of the original neighborhood planning areas and was not scheduled to begin the planning process. Stakeholders from this part of the City asked the City Council to include them in the process and were included with the other two areas. The Oak Hill Combined Neighborhood Plan took over three years to complete. After two years of planning and discussions the South Lamar Combined Neighborhood Plan process was put on indefinite hold after the City and neighborhood stakeholders could not agree on a planning process. The University Hills/Windsor Park Neighborhood Planning Area took 20 months to complete and was adopted on August 9, 2007. Although the Oak Hill Combined Neighborhood and the University Hills/Windsor Park Neighborhood Plans took 37 and 20 months from the kickoff meetings to adoption, they were delayed 12 months and six months, respectively, due to various stakeholder requests. To restart the long-delayed North Burnett/Gateway Neighborhood Plan, a consultant team was hired to facilitate the process. In the summer of 2006, the planning process started over. The vision that emerged for North Burnett/Gateway through the process re-imagined the area as a vibrant, urban place and as a livelier mixed-use neighborhood that is more pedestrian and transit-friendly and can accommodate a significant number of new residents.
DRAFT – City of Austin
Community Inventory Report
43
Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
It was sometimes described as the “second downtown.” The plan was adopted on November 1, 2007, and the new zoning code was adopted on March 12, 2009. As in the last two rounds of planning processes, similar criteria were used to select the planning areas. The current areas, at various stages of the planning process, are • Central West Austin Combined Neighborhood Planning Area • North Lamar Combined Neighborhood Planning Area • Heritage Hills/Windsor Hills Combined Neighborhood Planning Area • St John/Coronado Hills Combined Neighborhood Planning Area.
6
Transit Transit Oriented Development / Station Area Plans
In November of 2004, voters approved a referendum granting the Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Cap Metro) the ability to build and operate a 32-mile commuter rail line linking the cities of Leander and Austin. The commuter rail line is part of the agency’s All Systems Go! Long Range Transit Plan (see Chapter 7 for more information). In anticipation of expanded transit service, the Austin City Council, on July 29, 2004, approved a resolution directing staff to begin developing Transit-Oriented Development (TOD). The TOD ordinance established a two-phase approach. The first established the TOD boundaries for commuter rail stops as well as for the area surrounding several park and ride lots. The second established location-specific regulations and incentives for TOD areas the Station Area Plan process. The TOD ordinance was adopted on May 19, 2005, and created four types of TOD districts: • • • Neighborhood Center— located at the commercial center of a neighborhood; lowest density of all classifications. Town Center—located at a major commercial, employment or civic center; moderate densities relative to other classifications. Regional Center—located at the juncture of regional transportation lines or at a major commuter or employment center; greater densities relative to other classifications but less than in a downtown TOD. Downtown—located in a highly urbanized area; highest density of all classifications; intended for high-rise development.
•
The TOD ordinance established districts around five future urban commuter rail stations and one rapid bus park and ride facility. • • • • • • Convention Center (Downtown TOD) - Station Area Planning will be handled through a separate consultant-led downtown planning process Lamar Blvd./Justin Lane (Neighborhood Center TOD) Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. (Neighborhood Center TOD) Plaza Saltillo (Neighborhood center TOD) North IH-35 Park and Ride (Town Center TOD) Northwest Park and Ride (Town Center TOD)
DRAFT – City of Austin
Community Inventory Report
44
Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
Three additional TOD districts were also created: • • • Oak Hill (town center TOD) South IH-35 Park and Ride (town center TOD) Highland Mall (town center TOD)
6
To date three station area plans have been adopted by the City Council—Lamar Blvd./Justin Lane, Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd., and Plaza Saltillo.
DRAFT – City of Austin
Community Inventory Report
45