Single Family Development in City of Austin Since Passage of Watershed Regulations Neighborhood Planning and Zoning Department April, 2008

What Are the Watershed Ordinances? Classify watersheds into 5 zones – Urban, Suburban, Water Supply Suburban, Water Supply Rural, and the Barton Springs Zone (BSZ). Establish impervious cover limits, water way delineation, setbacks, and water quality controls. Barton Springs Zone has most stringent impervious cover limits of 15/20/25 percent. Urban Zone is least stringent with no impervious cover limits except zoning.

 Watersheds classified into either a Desired Development Zone (DDZ) or the Drinking Water Protection Zone (DWPZ).  City designed initiatives to direct growth in DDZ, including attracting major employers to DDZ Smart Growth Zones Introduced Mid 1990’s

Development Status of Watershed Regulation Areas Note: environmental constraints lands include steep slopes, flood plains, or land preservation and parks

Development Status of Watershed Regulation Areas

Development Snapshot Urban Zone – central area, mostly developed, potential for redevelopment Suburban – 36% (75, 762 acres) undeveloped, much of it agricultural; 16% constrained, mostly by flood plains BSZ – 24% (15, 717 acres) undeveloped, 34% constrained by steep slopes and preservation land or parks Water Supply Zones – mostly developed or environmental constraints; small amount of undeveloped land

Single Family Development in Development Zones Greater lot size is required in DWPZ to meet demand and comply with regulations Rate of land consumption greater in DWPZ Lot sizes have decreased as construction costs have increased

Roadway Gross Density by Watershed Development Zones

 1961 – 70% of year’s single family (SF) development occurs in in future Urban Zone  1979 – Council passes Austin Tomorrow Comprehensive Plan  1980 – 1 st watershed ordinances passed; SF development almost equal in DDZ and DWPZ  1982 – Motorola builds plant in BSZ  1984 – City agrees to Circle C and Barton Creek MUD’s with 10-year annexation program  1986 – National real estate bust; Council passes Comprehensive Watersheds Ordinance  – 21,257 SF units built in DWPZ versus 12,903 in DDZ  1992 – Save Our Springs (SOS) becomes last major watershed ordinance to be passed  1995 – HB 1704 passes, grandfathering rules on many proposed DWPZ developments  1996 – Smart Growth initiatives and DDZ and DWPZ established  Early 1990’s – a trend towards more construction in the DDZ begins  2001 – Economic downturn  2002 – more units built in DDZ for first time since 1986 Timeline

Development Factors Within City’s Control Provision of infrastructure to encourage development in desired areas, or to protect tax base and City service areas from encroachment Development regulations (except in grandfathered properties) that protect environmental features Purchase of land for preservation or other agreements City policies that encourage desired development in urban and less environmentally sensitive areas City efforts to promote and improve image and livability, but require careful balancing with environmental goals

Development Factors Outside City’s Control Natural site factors that attract or discourage developers and home buyers (beauty, recreation, soils, flood plains) State and Federal policies that conflict with City efforts, such as House Bill 1704, which rolled-back regulations on an approximate 11,770 acres of SF development to date. National trends in home ownership and economic business cycles Past City decisions that may have encouraged growth in areas that would not be desired today Factors outside City’s control, such as decisions of private property owners, school districts, state legislature and agencies such as TXDOT, and competition from other cities and service providers.

Development in Barton Creek Watershed

Factors that have led to Development in DWPZ Natural amenities of the Hill Country and other perceptions make development in the DWPZ attractive. City agreed to Circle C, Barton Creek, and other developments to bring environmental protection and services to the area, and to capture tax and related economic benefits. Desired Development Zone has environmental limitations such as soils and flood plains that made development in DWPZ attractive Grandfathering of SF development (approximately 11,770 acres in entire City Jurisdiction) has allowed less-restrictive development Development environment in Texas, including a proliferation of agencies and jurisdictions, is not conducive to effective comprehensive planning, though the City is far ahead of other large cities in the state.

Conclusions Smart Growth policies and increased redevelopment are contributing to a development shift to the Desired Development Zone, the University Neighborhood Overlay and Vertical Mixed Use. Development trends have more to do with factors outside City’s control (business cycles, decisions of private land owners, natural site limitations, state transportation projects). Watershed regulations can limit development, but in many cases, only the outright purchase of land can ensure protection of land. The supply of undeveloped land within Austin’s ETJ is limited, and there must be land use and transportation policies that ensure the sustainable use of land.