Environmental commissioners air concerns about waterfront district plan

A proposed framework for how the south shores of Lady Bird Lake will build out in future years received a lukewarm response from the Environmental Commission on Thursday.

While only the Planning Commission and City Council are scheduled to vote on the draft regulating plan in April and May, the fact that several commissioners expressed concerns about the draft could be considered in Council’s deliberations of the South Central Waterfront Combining District & Density Bonus Program.

Years of work have gone into developing the waterfront plan, with Council adopting the original vision document in 2016. In 2022, Council directed staff to formulate a regulating plan containing a density bonus program similar to downtown, with the goal of encouraging previously approved planned unit developments and other parcels to opt into the district program.

While the plan has stayed true to the long-held goal of turning more than 30 blocks of asphalt and nondescript buildings into a vibrant urban dreamscape, some other community-driven goals – such as an abundance of parkland and open space and affordable housing – have been broadly diminished. The plan calls for a minimum of 5 percent affordable housing in new developments or a fee-in-lieu. Further, a new state law has limited the amount of parkland the city can require of new residential developments.

After city planner April Geruso walked the commission through major aspects of the plan, commissioners voiced a range of apprehensions, including the absence of height limits in anticipation of light rail; a lack of new parkland and open space; the prospect of displacement and limited affordable housing requirements; and the likelihood of more birds colliding with tall towers.

“What I hear are words like ‘goal’ and ‘vision,’ but I don’t hear ‘we’re going to buy a piece of property and turn it into a park,’” Commissioner Richard Brimer said. “We’re attracting thousands of new residents into this small area that we’re trying to build up as, literally, a new downtown south of the river.”

Commissioner Hanna Cofer voiced similar concerns about the scarcity of parkland in an area expected to be filled with residential developments over the years. “I understand the needle that you are trying to thread with the state law,” she told staff. “I’m curious, though, if there have been other ideas to more proactively incentivize open space. It seems like relying on an opt-in from developers doesn’t really incentivize that sort of district-level open spaces.”

Both Geruso and Tyler Tripp of the Planning Department responded with a hopeful note that city staff are continuing to explore opportunities for financing parkland while staying within the confines of state law.

Regarding height, the possibility of tall buildings lining the roadways could pose greater threats to migrating birds, Commissioner Jennifer Bristol said. “When you start getting canyon effects, that is extremely bad for birds. And when we think about how the river is a giant superhighway for migratory birds coming in – they’re coming in right now – and suddenly we’re throwing up even more obstacles in their way,” she said. “I know that using bird-friendly glass and bird-friendly construction is one of the things that’s being considered, so I’m happy about that, but the canyon effect really … pushes the birds through there so quickly.”

Commissioner Mariana Krueger said she was pleased to see equitable transit-oriented development south of the river but questioned the affordability requirements in the plan. “Five percent seems like a really small amount to me, and I understand that that’s the minimum required but, as has been mentioned by others, counting on developers to opt in above that, I don’t have a ton of confidence in.”

Tripp told commissioners the 5 percent minimum is based on an economic analysis provided by a third-party consultant. “Unfortunately, right now we just do not have a great economy for development,” he said. “So right at this moment just about all that is economically viable … is about 5 percent affordable housing while having the rest of these community benefits.” Still, he added, there may be some flexibility to increase that percentage once economic conditions improve.

“I don’t spend my days looking at this kind of economic analysis or haggling with developers,” Krueger said, “but I just earnestly feel as a citizen and a low-to-middle-income person that we need government to really be leading on demanding and requiring more from developers on this front.”

Photo by Michael Barera, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

The Austin Monitor’s work is made possible by donations from the community. Though our reporting covers donors from time to time, we are careful to keep business and editorial efforts separate while maintaining transparency. A complete list of donors is available here, and our code of ethics is explained here.