City Council Election Questions: Chris Riley

This year's election for Austin City Council will be May 14. Early voting starts May 2.

There are eleven candidates running for three places. Turnout for Austin city council elections is generally low, so every vote makes a big difference. The people elected to city council make decisions that affect the everyday lives of all Austinites and that will shape our city for years to come, so we urge our readers to vote.

In an effort to inform that vote, we have asked all candidates to answer some questions. Chris Riley, the incumbent running for reelection to Place 1 is first:

1. City Council recently revoked Lustre Pearl’s outdoor live music permit, which it had obtained just a few months earlier. What do you think is the appropriate balance between Austinites that want to rock out and those that want to rest in peace? What changes do you think should be made to the noise ordinance and/or permitting process?

We’ll always need to balance the interests of outdoor music venues and their customers with their neighbors’ interest in peacefully coexisting. We’ve gotten a lot better at striking that balance over the past couple of years, thanks in large part to the staff in the City’s new Music Office, who work with venues and neighbors on a case-by-case basis to find common ground. We’re also working on a number of amendments to the venue permitting process to make it more workable for all involved.

2. Mayor Leffingwell recently said that “as the City continues to work to reduce expensive suburban sprawl and facilitate sustainable growth in Austin’s urban core, the prospect of closing successful central city schools clearly runs counter to our community’s long-term planning goals.” Recent census data shows that most central Austin neighborhoods lost population over the last 10 years, particularly people under 18. What city policies would you enact, modify or eliminate to help more families live in the neighborhoods around the schools proposed to be closed?

Keeping central cities attractive to families with children is a challenge across the nation. We can take steps in the right direction by promoting the availability of parks and green space across the central city, and by working with the school district to identify ways that the city can support our schools. The Safe Routes to School program is a good example of a community effort to connect schools with the neighborhoods that surround them. I’m also committed to finding ways to accommodate significant population growth on our transit corridors, many of which are near schools proposed to be closed.

3. The average new U.S. home in 2009 was 2,438 square feet. Austin’s McMansion ordinance limits the size of homes on most lots in central Austin to less than 2,300 square feet. Should the average family be able to build the same sized house in central Austin that they would be able to build in suburban Austin? What effect does the McMansion ordinance have on reducing expensive suburban sprawl and facilitating sustainable growth in Austin’s urban core?

There are many large lots in Central Austin, and on large lots it’s certainly possible for a family to build a large house. While there may be families who flee to the suburbs to escape the McMansion ordinance, I believe there are likely at least as many who choose to remain because of community efforts to preserve the character of central city neighborhoods.

4. The restaurant Casa de Luz, which has operated in central Austin for the last 20 years, may be forced to relocate or close due to new enforcement of parking requirements. Do current parking requirements for central Austin businesses fit with your view of Austin’s long-term planning goals?

I believe our current parking requirements can result in outcomes that don’t serve the community’s interest. Casa de Luz is a good example. I’ve been working with Casa de Luz for months to find a solution for their parking situation. I’m hopeful that they’ll be able to stay in their current location, and that the parking requirements can be either adjusted or satisfied through shared parking arrangements.

5. The Council recently adopted new rules for street parking downtown in the evenings and on Saturdays. Do you support the new rules? What else would you do to improve parking downtown?

I support the new parking rules as one part of a long process of making downtown parking more efficient and convenient. We have a lot of work to do between now and August, when the new rules will go into effect. One important step is to work with owners of off-street parking spaces on a common branding and marketing campaign—starting with something like the “P” logo that’s common in other cities for indicating where public parking is available. The campaign should also include mechanisms for publicizing information about available off-street parking, including the use of smart-phone applications like Parker that are currently in use in other cities. We also need to update our provisions for valet parking, and to use revenues from downtown meters to provide better lighting and patrols around downtown parking locations.

6. City council has approved various payments to subsidize the development of the F1 track southeast of Austin, including $13.5 million for water and sewer lines, and is considering adding $4 million per year for hosting expenses. Should Austin tax money be used to subsidize private development in general and F1 in particular?

City Council has not approved any payments to subsidize the development of the F1 track. The extension of water and sewer lines, the cost of which will be reimbursed by the developer, is a standard practice in that area; it serves the city’s long-term interests by avoiding the development of MUDs and putting the city in position to eventually annex the area. The Council has not been asked to provide $4 million a year for hosting expenses, and I’m skeptical as to why we would do that.

7. By some standards, Austin traffic is among the worst in the nation. Many Austinites think transportation should be local government’s primary concern.

a. What do you think causes Austin traffic?

There are many people trying to reach many destinations in Austin, and they currently have few options other than to drive. Many of our roads are currently beyond their capacity at peak times.

b. Do you see urban rail as a viable solution for downtown transportation?

I see urban rail as one part of the multi-modal transportation system that’s necessary to meet our needs in the 21st century.

c. Do you support adding a toll lane to MoPac?

I support adding managed lanes on MoPac provided that they will be available for use by buses, which is part of the plan TXDoT is currently considering.

d. Do you think either of the above will reduce traffic for anyone other than the people riding the rails or paying the toll?

Yes. Almost every rider on a train, or in a bus in a managed lane, represents one less driver competing for space on our existing roads.

e. What effect do you think each would have on reducing expensive suburban sprawl and facilitating sustainable growth in Austin’s urban core?

Urban rail can help reduce sprawl and facilitate sustainable growth by supporting transit oriented development near rail stops, and by providing additional transportation options along the line. Managed lanes on MoPac would help ensure that our downtown remains accessible.

f. What changes would you suggest to either proposal (e.g., reserved lanes for urban rail or adding a non-toll lane to MoPac instead of a toll lane)?

I support providing a dedicated right-of-way for urban rail wherever possible. There’s no funding available to add non-toll lanes on MoPac, so that’s not a realistic option. Both proposals --urban rail and managed lanes on MoPac - are still taking shape, and I support ongoing public involvement as each process moves forward.

8. LCRA is considering selling certain Central Texas water and wastewater utilities that cost more to operate than they generate in revenue. The Austin Water Utility is considering additional restrictions on water usage and rate increases. What do you think the proper role of LCRA and the Austin Water Utility is in providing water to Austinites? Other Central Texans? Should those entities take an active role in influencing land development patterns and/or the amount of water used by individuals?

The LCRA needs to ensure that it can fulfill all its commitments to provide water under the terms of its contracts. The City of Austin and its regional partners need to consider long-term development patterns and concerns about the availability of water, and strive to ensure that development does not outpace the availability of water to serve it.

9. In 2009, City Council enacted the Waterfront Overlay, which restricts development (particularly height) along Lady Bird Lake, but as yet has failed to enact the “density bonuses” that were planned as a way to allow additional construction in exchange for community benefits. What “density bonuses” or other changes to the Waterfront Overlay do you think should be implemented?

The Waterfront Overlay Advisory Board has been considering density bonuses for some time, and I’m looking forward to seeing its recommendations. Density bonuses can be an effective way of making progress on the goals set out in the Town Lake Corridor Study and other planning efforts that led to the creation of the Waterfront Overlay.

10. The city is now in the process of creating a city-wide comprehensive plan. How should we resolve conflicts between the comprehensive plan and neighborhood plans?

There shouldn’t be many conflicts between the comprehensive plan and neighborhood plans; the comp plan is a 30,000-foot view, and neighborhood plans are more specific building blocks. When there is a conflict, we’ll need to have a city-wide discussion to decide how to balance the respective interests of the neighborhood and the broader community.

11. Many see denser development, particularly along transit corridors, as the key to developing more affordable housing and more workforce housing, but neighborhoods have often resisted such projects. How should this conflict be resolved? What else should be done to keep or make housing in Austin affordable?

Redevelopment of a corridor need not represent a threat to the surrounding neighborhoods. When neighborhoods are meaningfully engaged in the planning of a corridor, redevelopment can raise the quality of life for a whole area by putting new, appealing destinations within easy distance for walking or biking.
Development along transit corridors can make living in the central city more affordable by enabling many to reduce their transportation costs. We can also preserve affordability by ensuring that areas across the city offer a variety of housing options.

12. Downtown has traditionally been viewed as the area between the lake and UT and between I-35 and Lamar. Does this definition still make sense? Are there other areas that should be considered part of downtown?

What people think of as “downtown” can vary from one context to another. The area from Lamar to I-35, and from the lake to MLK, has been known as downtown for many years; it has a distinct identity, as do all the neighborhoods around it. From a regional perspective, the urban core would be viewed as including a larger area. Likewise, for planning purposes at the city, we often have to draw boundaries within some distance from downtown; for example, in the current draft of a proposed new ordinance governing low-speed electric vehicles, the Austin Transportation Department is proposing that their area of operations be bounded by Lamar on the west, I-35 on the east, Dean Keaton on the north, and Annie/Woodland on the south.

13. Do you think Austin is better now than it was 10 years ago? Do you think it will be better 10 years from now than it is now?

Austin still has its growing pains, as it always has. But in many respects, we are doing better now than we were ten years ago: more local businesses are up and running; we have more parks and libraries; we have new cultural destinations like the Blanton and the Long Center; festivals like ACL and SXSW are thriving; we’ve added thousands of homes in the urban core, including places like downtown, Mueller, and the Triangle; and in many respects, we’ve held onto the character of the city we’ve always known Austin to be.

We have lost a lot of local heroes and treasured institutions over the past ten years. And traffic congestion has gotten worse. But we’re pointed in the right direction with a lot of planning efforts that are now underway. I’m confident that our growth over the next ten years will take shape in a way that’s far more sustainable, and more appealing, than most development over the past sixty years. I’m also confident that as long as the community remains engaged, we’ll continue to retain Austin’s unique character.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@austinist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Shawn Shillington in News on April 6, 2011 9:30 AM 0 Comments

city council 2011

Comments [rss]

szettner

The Domain is a better example than Hyde Park because it is suburban and because the level of density is closer to that of suburban VMU corridors. I agree with your criticism that it is artificial, but I don't see Downtown as more friendly for families with children. If it were, you'd think the ratio of children aged 0-14 in the downtown population would be higher than 3%. My personal barometer of family-friendliness is my wife's reaction everytime we take the kids downtown. She could care less about urban planning debates - she emotes honestly to the anxiety and physical drain of managing three small kids in a kid-hostile environment.

At least The Domain is a transit hub. The spread-out, half-in/half-out nature of VMU density and transit is one of my key objections. VMU (as currently zoned) doesn't get to a critical mass of walkable destinations at any given point along the corridor. That makes it much more likely, (again in a suburban context), that the new residents will continue driving.

Hyde Park is a quaint, friendly neighborhood that would disappear in about a year if it weren't for restrictive zoning that you oppose. That said, it is still not a good comparison for conditions we have farther out because it is located right next to a unique activity center - UT.

I can't judge your argument that we need to be an order of magnitude denser in order to survive. I accept that good density reduces environmental impact. But there are an awful lot of unknowns: 1) energy conservation, 2) telecommuting, 3) vehicle fuel consumption improvements, 4) potential breakthroughs in clean energy, 5) relative environmental friendliness of different kinds of construction types. One factor you seem to ignore is the risk that density that fails to create an attractive, liveable environment will fail in the marketplace, leading to a shorter built-environment lifespan and waste of resources. I think we're seeing that today with suburban sprawl, but that doesn't mean it won't happen too with poorly-designed infill.

Nice quotes in the Chronicle today. Does BRT need dedicated lanes outside of downtown to achieve 50-60% ridership of rail?

Mike Dahmus

Very misleading again. Hyde Park actually exists because it was grandfathered in - current zoning, the kind you're trying to preserve, makes new Hyde Parks illegal. In the world I'd like to see, we'd see Hyde Parks all over the place, in other words; in the world the neighborhood partisans love, you aren't allowed to build another one.

It's not the old houses that make Hyde Park different - those exist all over the place. It's the walkable urbanism; the retail actually in the interior of the neighborhood; the multi-family mixed together with single-family. All of those things are actually outlawed by modern suburban zoning - so the zoning isn't keeping Hyde Park the way it is; it's keeping more places from becoming like Hyde Park.

And yes, if BRT had dedicated lanes everywhere, it'd top out at 50-60% ridership of rail.

No time to address kid-friendliness. Suffice to say you aren't going to see more of it by taxing density.

szettner

Hyde Park is laid out on a dense street grid that integrates directly to many of the major destinations to which people are going – UT, downtown, HEB. That reinforces walk/bike/transit alternatives and greatly reduces VT/P. The willingness of people to use transit is greater because the likely destinations are much closer and there are no transfers. Allandale, for example, is five miles from UT and seven miles from downtown. There are no major activity centers nearby. I plotted the commuting destinations of people who live on my block and it was all over the map. Even nearby destinations are harder to get to – Burnet-2222 is the only safe crossing of 2222 within a half mile of either side. That’s because nearly all area traffic and much cross-town traffic is forced to flow down a few arterial routes. Nearly every vehicle trip in my neighborhood will pass through one of six choke-points at some point. A few changes in street connectivity won’t change the big picture – our streets are fundamentally different than streets laid out before WWII.

I personally wouldn't oppose minor retail or lower density mixed use in the interior of the neighborhood, but you've got an enormous trust issue to overcome. Neighbors feel like once you let the cat out of the bag, the level of density will just keep escalating and variances will keep getting granted. The argument goes that neighborhood plans are good for the lifespan of the staff who shaped them, and then the next generation of staff come in and want to amend everything. Because City policymakers (to date) make little distinction between policies in support of downtown, and early suburban areas like North Central Austin, there is a reasonable chance that the policies as implemented will not work as intended.

My feeling is that you need some clear principles for where density is appropriate, and the main criterion should be proximity to and quality of transit + min. density of meaningful destinations. (Armando Carbonell made that point in the Chronicle rail article). That brings us back to the neighborhood center concept. As to your notion of a “density tax”, I think the Comp Plan is going to create conditions to do away with old zoning categories like CS. I would expect most CS property within 1/8 mile of major intersections to be rezoned exclusively for 4 story low-rises. I would support that as long as the new zoning categories (or other compelling policies) lead to truly walkable environments, i.e. 10-15% public space at the core of a district.

Mike Dahmus

My feeling is that you need to make people in Allandale responsible citizens if they won't do it themselves, and forcing density AT LEAST ON THE EDGES is the bare minimum we ought to tolerate given that they are receiving net subsidies from the rest of the city (large lots + no multi-family + lower property values mean they cost a lot more than they generate in taxes).

szettner

“Neighborhoods have often resisted such projects. How should this conflict be resolved?” To resolve the conflict, people need to acknowledge the root of the conflict, which is cultural. People who live in existing single-family neighborhoods are self-selected. They are seniors, families with children, and even many younger people who like quiet streets and privacy. The (expensive) VMU housing zoned on most of the transit corridors is targeting a demographic with different needs. What is a “new, appealing destination?” Is it the American Apparel store on Soco as advertised (with the sexy girl taking her shirt off) on The Austinist? Is it a hot nightlife spot with outdoor music as implied in the Comp Plan’s vision for downtown (“vibrant day and nightime urban lifestyle”)? Is it an upscale restaurant that frowns on loud and messy toddlers? The key to resolving the conflict with existing neighborhoods is to define a density “product” on transit corridors that appeals to and is affordable for families with children and seniors. We haven’t seen much of that in Austin yet.

Mike Dahmus

Or is it that people like szettner use the scary prospect of places like AA and nightlife spots as stalking horses for their real enemy - which is density of any kind whatsoever? Notice that none of the new VMU projects around town have anything like the sort of business he paints - they typically have restaurants that would welcome families, scary businesses like barbershops and clothing stores focusing on runners, you kow, awful stuff like that.

szettner

Hi Mike. Casting other people's viewpoints in absolutist terms is a major source of the conflict.

My position on density is well documented at www.snaustin.org.

BTW, kudos to The Austinist for posing this question in a way that implies there is an answer - I do believe that it is one that can be solved. But first we need to reframe the density cliches that have hindered understanding on this issue for several years.

Mike Dahmus

Yes, and I've spent some time reading your position. Like most of the somewhat smarter anti-density folks around here, you claim to be in favor of it BUT you want to put a lot of restrictions on it - as if there aren't already enough - to provide, for instance, community benefits that the existing single-family old-school suburban sprawl in Allandale does not have to provide.

If you 'tax' density enough, and you don't give it enough additional places to live, it will die - and your group gets the benefit of not having explicitly called to kill it, too.

Really, people need to remember this: there are a vanishingly small number of lots around this area where you can build anything remotely urban. Groups like Mr. Zettner's want to make it even harder to build anything urban in those tiny number of spaces. This will inevitably lead to even less density than we could possibly get (instead of good development in 1/10 of 1% of the tracts in town, we'll only get density downtown - nowhere else). Yay, 1950s!

szettner

You would be correct to say that I don't see density as a goal in itself. We've had this thread before and discussed the tradeoffs. The SF neighborhoods you hate with a passion have environmental minuses and liveability pluses. In particular, single-family homes with their backyards are excellent for raising kids, As a parent, I have some control over exposing my young children to all of the materialistic signals (muzak in the streets, wall-sized advertisements of fancy clothes and purses) that you get 24x7 at The Domain. I'm not against other people enjoying The Domain and living there. I'm just saying that I and a lot of other parents aren't sold by that particular development model. Judging from the Travis County CAD database, most senior-level City of Austin managers who espouse these kinds of projects agree with me, because they choose to live way out in the exurbs. Ditto Brewster McCracken, who now lives in a big house west of Mopac. (Kudos to Chris Riley, who lives as he preaches).

If you're going to make density attractive to a wider range of the population, and win the support of existing neighborhoods, you need a different model.

A neighborhood-center model, defined as quarter-mile radius around rapid transit (say BRT), with 125 acres at 15 units/acre and 1.9 people per unit, would yield about 3,500 residents per center. The density is arranged in a bell-curve fashion, with VMU at the center and more family-friendly (and affordable) town-homes near the edge. It maximizes the likelihood that people will actually use transit. It's a model that can be extended on out new rapid transit lines into the existing suburbs. An example might be Jollyville at Duval. Such a model would cover about half of the 700,000 new residents the City is planning for in the coming 30 years. Downtown, Domain, and other town or regional centers could absorb the rest.

Mike Dahmus

Using The Domain as your example of density is particularly dishonest. It's artificial, and the only reason it's the only density you can point to (or want to) is because normal organic infill is fought by you and yours.

Try looking at Hyde Park as a counter-example - apartments mixed in with houses rather than confined desulorily to large arterial roadways.

And using current residences is likewise dishonest. There's an undersupply of urban residences right now because the law prevents them from being built almost anywhere (and the McMansion ordinance prevents houses from being made larger in the few urban neighborhoods that exist).

Your model would never give us the density or sustainability we need to survive, BTW. You're an order of magnitude short of what we actually need when fossil fuels get more and more precious.

Mike Dahmus

"I support providing a dedicated right-of-way for urban rail wherever possible" is meaningless without details. This could mean nothing more than the current, highly shitty, proposal for shared lanes on Congress, Riverside W of I-35, Manor, and Red River. At a bare minimum, dedicated lanes in the core are essential - without those, you should vote against the plan, period.