Amendments, memos point to finer steps for implementing HOME initiative

With City Council slated to decide the fate of the HOME initiative today, a last bit of analysis from city staff appears to back the intent and approach of the push to add more housing stock throughout the city.

In a memo released Tuesday, Housing Department Director Rosie Truelove responded to some of the 127 questions submitted by the Council and Mayor Kirk Watson regarding the possible impacts of the HOME initiative. The plan to reconfigure Austin’s single-family zoning rules to relax occupancy limits and promote the construction of more than one housing unit per single-family lot was designed to add supply to the hot housing market, which has seen the median home price climb above $500,000 in recent years.

Truelove offered several conclusions on the “cost of doing nothing” that would take place if the city doesn’t take steps to increase housing stock and, in theory, stem the constant increase in home prices. With detached single-family homes representing 44.8 percent of the city’s housing units, that means much of the city’s homes are far larger and more expensive than duplexes, triplexes and other “missing middle” housing types that HOME, which stands for Home Options for Middle-Income Empowerment, would promote.

Areas that allow only single-family homes limit access to schools, parks, grocery stores and other community assets, Truelove wrote. She also noted denser development patterns are more favorable to transit systems that remove vehicles and associated pollution from the environment.

In response to a question from Council Member Alison Alter about other means to limit housing unit size, the memo said the city could impose new floor area ratio (FAR) limits or place limits on the vertical mass of structures near lot lines.

Similarly, in response to a question from Council Member Leslie Pool, Truelove wrote, “a house size constraint would increase the likelihood that the proposal will provide housing accessible to middle-income households, because smaller units typically sell for less on the market.” She added that adjustments to FAR limits should consider the size of the lot and number of units to encourage duplexes and triplexes that cost less to produce than detached structures.

Referencing Pool’s question about an in-the-works code amendment that would offer a preservation incentive for homeowners, Truelove seemed to support the concept, writing such an incentive “would reduce the likelihood that renters and homeowners would be displaced from single-family homes. A preservation incentive would have the greatest impact if targeted to geographies with high concentrations of populations vulnerable to displacement.”

This week, assorted Council members and the mayor have offered up at least eight amendments they’d like to see incorporated into the final resolution. Those amendments are focused on conducting an annual review of the policy package’s impacts, giving staff enough time to prepare for its implementation, adjusting FAR and setback limits, and keeping short-term rental regulations in line with the new housing types.

A separate memo released last week by Assistant City Manager Veronica Briseño offered options for adjusting regulations on front yard setbacks, implementing bonuses for sustainability and preservation, and changes to FAR limits.

On the matter of a preservation bonus, the memo noted building officials and preservation officers would need to collaborate on considerations regarding existing siding and openings, as well as limits on modifications to an eligible structure.

Regarding FAR changes, the memo said Council could begin to include garages and carports into FAR calculations or lower the FAR for two-unit developments from 0.55 to 0.50.

In recent weeks, Council members have signaled an intent to approve the policy package, with a press conference on Tuesday assembling a group of proponents who argued HOME is the city’s best move to address the growing affordability crisis. At nearly the same time at City Hall, opponents of the measure held a rally to draw attention to their concerns that promoting density will increase gentrification and displacement without a measurable lowering of home prices.

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.