A note on that $2-$4 billion figure reported in that Statesman article is that a large portion of those dollar amounts were going to cover buyouts of properties that were developed before the City of Austin ever created a Watershed Development plan. In other words, because the city planned poorly in the past about where they allowed dwellings to be built, they will be buying back those properties today, and it will be very expensive. The cost to update the actual drainage infrastructure is a much smaller portion of those figures.
And if you check the Final Report from the Flood Mitigation Task Force (instead of the draft version that the above Statesman article refers to), youâll see better numbers and suggested actions that the City should take to make improvements in flooding. In regards to funding any changes from new development, they suggested it should come from sources other than fees relating to construction/development:
Funding large capital projects should be accomplished through bonds and available grants, not through the Drainage Utility Fee (DUF). The DUF should only be used for smaller capital improvement projects that are less critical and can be accomplished within a reasonable time frame. Further, only capital projects that are identified as mitigating life and safety issues should be funded initially
The gist of the Flood Mitigation Task Forceâs final report is that:
- Old developments, built previous to Austinâs acute awareness of flooding, are what are causing the most physical damage and financial strain (mostly because the City is now buying back those properties).
- New development is held to much stricter standards and mapping of Austinâs flood capacity, and the City is accounting for the costs of upgrades to its drainage systems to come out of its bonding capacity.
I both agree and disagree with your points Alysha.
Its definitely great that people are becoming aware of the need for low impact development, and really driving developers to offer more of those options.
Homes built in the 1950s and prior, are actually built more soundly in terms of environmental impact. Mainly because those developers had a deeper respect for the environment and situated the homes in the best spots on the natural topography.
Amazingly, these older homes practiced low impact development, before it become a land development study. These neighborhoods were built to sustain what is currently here. What these older homes and neighborhoods did not account for, was the incredible amount of cement that would go up around them. They did not take into account that all around us, there would be very dense development, that basically forces all the water into one area.
Iâm not against development at all, there are places like the new St. Elmoâs development, blocks away, that will be a wonderful addition to Austin and provide much needed housing. But that area was already covered in cement, additional density wonât have the same effect as it will in a more environmentally sensitive area that is already catching the flood water, taking the drainage water as well as being a natural tributary to the St. Edwardâs Aquifer.
Any expert in floodplain management will tell you that flooding is more complicated than just whether or not youâre in the floodplain. It has a lot to do with the impervious surface surrounding you. Remember, weâre all in this together â your property does not exist in a bubble. In the end we will be paying for thoughtless development.
@SouthwoodATX, I am far from an expert on the nuances of the City zoning guide, so must ask, is the concern that they will have 55% impervious cover with SF6, vs. 45% with SF3, i.e. potentially 10% more of the lot being covered in cement for off street parking? If so, perhaps approach the City to see if it the condominium off street parking requirement could be waived, while at the same time in perpetuity giving the property the same street parking rights as SF3. As an example, the condominiums would not be allowed today to participate in residential permit parking if it were implemented.
Or consider whether you and your neighbors would be willing to go further in achieving lower impervious cover by allowing for greater density through greater height - meaning MF-CO zoning. Personally, I like the trade-off of height for open space, but it is not for everyone, which could include the subject properties owner.
Recently by watching the Grove at Shoal Creek Council debate, and having visited with Shoal Creek Conservancy members, I have learned how advantageous it is for the City to have the greatest density close to Lady Bird lake. The floods are caused by surges coming downstream, so they are unlikely to ask for flood mitigation at the Grove, because we are better off letting it get downhill quickly from that point (45th), and apparently by installing âFrench drainâsâ the properties adjacent to the Grove will get less run off than they do today with vacant land - not sure if that is a possible approach where you are.
Thank you for putting some thought into this @Phil_Wiley. I appreciate it, especially that you are offering some options. When I posted this here, I did not realize that this group had strong urbanist view points. I respect that, and probably should not have posted this here, but I do appreciate hearing other opinions and open dialogue. Its good to keep an open mind, as it helps inform an educated opinion.
This development has several issues that are incredibly specific to it due to its location.
Impervious cover is definitely an issue, and you have good points, but for the specifics of this property, I donât think that they are options. MF-CO zoning are outside the COA Neighborhood Plan for this property. Street parking is not an option due to the structure of the road that it would be off of, which is a windy narrow road over a railroad spur. The road is unsafe as is, and brings up another reason for neighborhood concern, which is the safety of people using that roadâin cars, on bikes and walking. The City of Austin has recognized the safety issues that are currently there, but has not yet gotten around to fixing it as it currently is just shy of the triggering a traffic impact study. (A traffic impact study requires an estimated 300 car trips, and this road has an estimate of 283).
Neighborhood plans can be amended, many are so old they are practically irrelevant,and are managed in a way that makes them even more so. It is meant to be a living document.
MF-CO could possibly be used as a way to reduce impervious cover on the subject site, the right to build an extra story taller, could offset the pressure to build on a bigger portion of the lot. Some neighbors might not like that, others will think doing everything possible to make your situation pleasant down the hill is worth the trade-off. That could be when you find out who is really interested in compromise, and wanting to try and make things work reasonably well for all, and who is focused on protecting their own narrow self interest.
I guess many here could be called âstrong urbanistsâ, I usually try to remember to " " labels, because we are all just people doing our best. I would describe the group as one that largely wants to try and make things work reasonably well for all. In this case âallâ includes the massive influx of new residents, remember not only were they invited, they were encouraged to come.
@SouthwoodATX, I have not followed the case, but an 11-0 Planning Commission vote does not bode well for your cause and concerns. Has anyone approached the property owner to explore trading off height for impervious cover? It would surprise me if there is not a better deal out there for the property owner and downhill neighbors, but other neighbors would need to give too if that were to happen.
http://www.austinmonitor.com/stories/2016/12/planning-commission-approves-south-austin-rezoning-despite-traffic-flooding-concerns/?utm_source=Master+List&utm_campaign=23c9453b89-WWWT_0516_pm&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_5f67ac3218-23c9453b89-237365053
Thanks for your continued interest and encouragement to find solutions.
The vote was expected actually, especially since the Developer misrepresented the Contact Teamâs position. As a Contact Team weâve met with him twice, and itâs clear that he has no intentions to work with the neighbors, his only goal is to make the most profit.
Thatâs why the development will be an exclusive HOA, pricing out the majority of people who are looking for housing. He will take advantage of SMART so that the City of Austin will forgive all development and environmental fees, but that program has a 5 year limit. After that time how will a family who is eligible for subsidized housing be able to pay a pricey pocket developmentâs fees? They will clearly be displaced and looking for housing yet again in 5 years.
Perhaps then you should consider approaching the developer with: âwe have concerns that may be alleviated in a way that provides you with a HIGHER profit than the current proposalâ
Before many (more) roar with accusations of FAN 
, I have no financial ties to any âdevelopersâ, or stocks in any companies that benefit from that industry (outside broad market indices). It does occur to me that âdevelopersâ are doing work to try to feed their family, so need to make more than they spend, that we are all fortunate to live on properties that were once open land before our homes âruined the neighborhood characterâ, and daily frequent many other buildings that the same can be said of.
You can ask that they consider reducing the building footprint by going higher. You can ask that they reduce the parking footprint by digging a big hole in the ground to cover parking needs, but that is expensive, so you will need to allow for even more height. You may ask that some of the now freed space be used for a community pocket park (Imagine Austin goal) instead of private space within their fence, but that has a cost too, which may have to be paid for in more height.
Maybe the economics for an alternative do not work there, but if you figure out something that might help the âdeveloperâ and downstream neighbors find common ground, and need to advocate for that approach being the best for the âneighborhoodâ and City, then you may want to start a FAN member neighborhood association. You would not be the first contact team person to see imperfections in the system, and take another leadership role in advocating for change. In the meanwhile, we are here to help.
2 Likes
, I have no financial ties to any âdevelopersâ, or stocks in any companies that benefit from that industry (outside broad market indices). It does occur to me that âdevelopersâ are doing work to try to feed their family, so need to make more than they spend, that we are all fortunate to live on properties that were once open land before our homes âruined the neighborhood characterâ, and daily frequent many other buildings that the same can be said of.