CM Laine,
Thank you for bringing this item, which will advance the work of HOME I and II make it easier to build much-needed infill housing across our community. Item 26 addresses many of the challenges to creating this type of housing, but the burdensome and expensive subdivision process remains a significant hurdle.
With that in mind, I am offering the following amendment to include improvements to the subdivision process in the resolution. I hope this can build on the work you are doing and the resolution I brought to streamline subdivisions a few years ago. Additionally, I would like to be added as a co-sponsor of the item.
http://assets.austintexas.gov/austincou ... 144624.pdf
Thanks,
Ryan
Item 26
-
Melissa Beeler
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2023 2:00 pm
Re: Item 26
On behalf of CM Qadri:
Colleagues,
I want to thank CM Laine for taking the lead on Item 26, the HOME Improvement resolution. I’m proud to continue to improve upon such a meaningful policy first spearheaded by former Council Member Leslie Pool.
It has come to my attention that one of the directives in the resolution became overly broad during the final revision process. I want to make sure the final version clearly reflects my intent in co-sponsoring this item as it relates to my district with Neighborhood Conservation Combining Districts, which has been to ask staff to provide Council with options and recommendations so we can better understand where there may be gaps, confusion, or opportunities to improve. This is about creating a more transparent and consistent process for everyone involved.
To clarify that intent, I am bringing forward a friendly amendment to strengthen the language of the resolution: http://assets.austintexas.gov/austincou ... 101003.pdf
I look forward to the discussion on Thursday.
Best,
Zo
Colleagues,
I want to thank CM Laine for taking the lead on Item 26, the HOME Improvement resolution. I’m proud to continue to improve upon such a meaningful policy first spearheaded by former Council Member Leslie Pool.
It has come to my attention that one of the directives in the resolution became overly broad during the final revision process. I want to make sure the final version clearly reflects my intent in co-sponsoring this item as it relates to my district with Neighborhood Conservation Combining Districts, which has been to ask staff to provide Council with options and recommendations so we can better understand where there may be gaps, confusion, or opportunities to improve. This is about creating a more transparent and consistent process for everyone involved.
To clarify that intent, I am bringing forward a friendly amendment to strengthen the language of the resolution: http://assets.austintexas.gov/austincou ... 101003.pdf
I look forward to the discussion on Thursday.
Best,
Zo
Policy Advisor
Office of Council Member Zo Qadri, District 9
Office of Council Member Zo Qadri, District 9
-
Krista Laine
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2025 2:39 pm
Re: Item 26
Good afternoon Colleagues,
I am proud to introduce Item 26 this Thursday, which provides clarifications and targeted adjustments to the HOME initiatives passed last year. This item builds on the original HOME reforms, led by several of my colleagues still serving on the dais who helped lay the groundwork for the significant affordability gains we are now seeing. Those reforms expanded housing options across Austin and represented an important step forward in improving affordability. Early results are promising: HOME units are being delivered at a median price more than 50 percent lower than newly constructed single-family homes.
At the same time, implementation has revealed areas where the code is unclear. The current lack of clarity has already led to litigation and stalled projects, underscoring the need for a code that is clear and consistent. These challenges are not uncommon in complex land use reforms, but they must be addressed to ensure the policy delivers on its intent.
This resolution is a technical, nuts-and-bolts item focused on clarifying and cleaning up existing code. It responds to feedback from residents, builders, and city staff. It harmonizes existing rules, resolves internal inconsistencies, and ensures that popular, neighborhood-oriented features, such as front porches, can be built without unnecessary obstacles.
Most importantly, these changes help ensure that thousands of lots across Austin remain viable for small-scale housing. By improving clarity and predictability, the resolution supports more consistent outcomes and expands access to attainable housing options. These changes will not affect neighborhood plans, conditional overlays, HOAs, deed restrictions, and other existing regulatory frameworks, as detailed in Exhibit A that will be posted in backup. If recommended by staff and supported by Council, any substantial changes would proceed through a full public process before returning to Council for consideration as an ordinance.
I’d like to thank Council Member Alter for his amendment, which I fully support. Subdivision is an important piece of the affordability puzzle, and we look forward to continuing this work together.
I’d also like to thank Council Member Qadri for his amendment, which I also fully support. As he noted, zoning regulations are complex, and we need clear, accessible information to advance these goals, particularly where there may be gaps, inconsistencies, or opportunities for improvement. As a result of this amendment, staff will review combining districts, overlay zones, and supplemental standards, including targeted analysis and presentation of policy options aligned with our city’s goals and values. That added clarity will help us better understand how these policies are working in practice and better guide next steps.
Finally, thank you to our City staff for their hard work, and to my colleagues who have already signed on as co-sponsors: Mayor Pro Tem Vela, Council Member Qadri, Council Member Velásquez, and Council Member Alter. While rents and home prices have declined, housing costs remain a top concern for many residents, and we are continuing this work so Austinites can afford to live in the communities they call home.
Warm regards,
Krista Laine
I am proud to introduce Item 26 this Thursday, which provides clarifications and targeted adjustments to the HOME initiatives passed last year. This item builds on the original HOME reforms, led by several of my colleagues still serving on the dais who helped lay the groundwork for the significant affordability gains we are now seeing. Those reforms expanded housing options across Austin and represented an important step forward in improving affordability. Early results are promising: HOME units are being delivered at a median price more than 50 percent lower than newly constructed single-family homes.
At the same time, implementation has revealed areas where the code is unclear. The current lack of clarity has already led to litigation and stalled projects, underscoring the need for a code that is clear and consistent. These challenges are not uncommon in complex land use reforms, but they must be addressed to ensure the policy delivers on its intent.
This resolution is a technical, nuts-and-bolts item focused on clarifying and cleaning up existing code. It responds to feedback from residents, builders, and city staff. It harmonizes existing rules, resolves internal inconsistencies, and ensures that popular, neighborhood-oriented features, such as front porches, can be built without unnecessary obstacles.
Most importantly, these changes help ensure that thousands of lots across Austin remain viable for small-scale housing. By improving clarity and predictability, the resolution supports more consistent outcomes and expands access to attainable housing options. These changes will not affect neighborhood plans, conditional overlays, HOAs, deed restrictions, and other existing regulatory frameworks, as detailed in Exhibit A that will be posted in backup. If recommended by staff and supported by Council, any substantial changes would proceed through a full public process before returning to Council for consideration as an ordinance.
I’d like to thank Council Member Alter for his amendment, which I fully support. Subdivision is an important piece of the affordability puzzle, and we look forward to continuing this work together.
I’d also like to thank Council Member Qadri for his amendment, which I also fully support. As he noted, zoning regulations are complex, and we need clear, accessible information to advance these goals, particularly where there may be gaps, inconsistencies, or opportunities for improvement. As a result of this amendment, staff will review combining districts, overlay zones, and supplemental standards, including targeted analysis and presentation of policy options aligned with our city’s goals and values. That added clarity will help us better understand how these policies are working in practice and better guide next steps.
Finally, thank you to our City staff for their hard work, and to my colleagues who have already signed on as co-sponsors: Mayor Pro Tem Vela, Council Member Qadri, Council Member Velásquez, and Council Member Alter. While rents and home prices have declined, housing costs remain a top concern for many residents, and we are continuing this work so Austinites can afford to live in the communities they call home.
Warm regards,
Krista Laine
-
Marc Duchen
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2025 5:40 pm
Re: Item 26
Colleagues,
I have a lot of concerns not just around the substance of Item 26, an expansion and modification of the HOME ordinance, but the way this Item has been handled.
I have tried to approach zoning and land use with the same even-handedness and data-informed approach as every other policy issue, and I’ve supported a lot of zoning cases and reforms both inside and outside District 10. This particular Item, because of vague language, represents a significant expansion of a policy I had concerns about two years ago. The consensus back then was that the chief goal was so-called “lower case” affordability: that over a long enough timeline building more units would help bring down home prices. What we’ve observed after two years is that HOME has been a “mixed bag” - and we’ve compiled examples and data that support this conclusion. Cheerleading, behaving as though HOME has dramatically moved the needle on lower-case, market-driven affordability, all while preparing to make decisions that impact an untold number of homeowners and residents without their knowledge or consent, feels inappropriate.
The most egregious part of Item 26 is the lack of clarity in subsection (B) that will, “Conform zoning regulations in all zoning districts and regulating plans where single family residential or an equivalent use is a permitted use to be consistent with HOME…”. What exact zoning districts and regulating plans are impacted, and why was this not clear when the Item was introduced?
Conflicting interpretations have been offered by different entities in City Hall. Our office contacted DSD and Law for interpretations and received answers late last week, indicating that private agreements (deed restrictions, restrictive covenants) were unaffected, and certain city plans and agreements were also not impacted, specifically FLUMs and PUDs. But that NCCDs, conditional overlays, zoning categories like RR, LA, etc., regulating plans, and perhaps more would be impacted. Given, for example, that the author’s interpretation yesterday that conditional overlays would NOT be affected, this creates a dilemma: whose interpretation do we trust here? We’re advised that an Exhibit will be added explaining this – a little over a day before we discuss it on the dais – and we’re no closer to getting clarity on this key language. If my team and I are running up against deadlines to make sense of the resolution, how on earth can we expect the general public to understand it?
Some of the zoning categories have key safety or environmental features. Other plans or overlays represent years of work hammering out agreements. I have had concerned residents reach out to understand who will be impacted, and how, and I still can’t provide them with clear answers.
The intent here appears to make the applicable zoning districts and plans subordinate (“consistent”) to HOME. It doesn’t ask staff to “investigate” or “reconcile differences”, it says all these plans and zoning categories will become “consistent” with HOME. The authors explained this week that “the intention is for staff to explore that”. Unfortunately, that’s not what the resolution language actually says. Item 26 very clearly says the “City Manager is directed to propose amendments necessary to accomplish the following”, including subsection (B) and every other provision. If there is an exploratory directive here, I fail to see where that language is. Presumably the next steps will be city staff sending purple postcards and bringing Council amendments to modify each zoning district, regulating plan, etc., to make HOME the governing policy.
We’re told this Item is introduced in response to feedback from residents, builders, and city staff. Exactly what kind of robust public engagement process took place? Which residents were solicited for feedback? Are we referring to residents who participate in special interests advocating for these changes – or the actual residents and homeowners impacted by them? I know my constituents and HOAs in RR and LA zoning have not been engaged. I’ve since heard from other impacted people across town that have been surprised by this Item. Most of them, like me, are not even sure how to interpret the language of the resolution.
If the gameplan is for Council to steamroll these changes through – fine – then let’s not pretend we’re doing anything other than that. But I’d rather see the Council take HOME reforms up seriously, understand what is and isn’t working, from both a regulatory and affordability standpoint, and make a balanced attempt to build on what passed two years ago. I’ve put together a presentation for Thursday that steps through real-world examples of when HOME appears to be meeting its (lower case) affordability goals but also cases where HOME is actually exacerbating the lack of affordability in Austin. It concludes with a series of broad recommendations.
Some of those recommendations should be part of an earlier, more methodical process that takes place, long before Council is asked to vote on an Item that it isn’t even sure what it does. We should start with a robust stakeholder process, drawn equally from industry and non-industry residents, like we used to assemble for McMansion and prior land-use policy revisions. We should clearly define who will and won’t be impacted, and solicit their feedback and suggestions. We should collect additional data rather than relying on a single report. We should look to see where HOME isn’t meeting its affordability and displacement goals, and work to close loopholes and build on successes. My read is that this resolution hasn't done any of that, and that’s why even with significant changes, this will be hard to support.
It’s not too late, though. Let’s stop shortcutting the process by allowing idealogues or special interests draft policy and instead have a defensible process with vetted language that the average resident can comprehend. Let’s amend the confusing parts of this or postpone the item to build a better product – and City.
-Marc
I have a lot of concerns not just around the substance of Item 26, an expansion and modification of the HOME ordinance, but the way this Item has been handled.
I have tried to approach zoning and land use with the same even-handedness and data-informed approach as every other policy issue, and I’ve supported a lot of zoning cases and reforms both inside and outside District 10. This particular Item, because of vague language, represents a significant expansion of a policy I had concerns about two years ago. The consensus back then was that the chief goal was so-called “lower case” affordability: that over a long enough timeline building more units would help bring down home prices. What we’ve observed after two years is that HOME has been a “mixed bag” - and we’ve compiled examples and data that support this conclusion. Cheerleading, behaving as though HOME has dramatically moved the needle on lower-case, market-driven affordability, all while preparing to make decisions that impact an untold number of homeowners and residents without their knowledge or consent, feels inappropriate.
The most egregious part of Item 26 is the lack of clarity in subsection (B) that will, “Conform zoning regulations in all zoning districts and regulating plans where single family residential or an equivalent use is a permitted use to be consistent with HOME…”. What exact zoning districts and regulating plans are impacted, and why was this not clear when the Item was introduced?
Conflicting interpretations have been offered by different entities in City Hall. Our office contacted DSD and Law for interpretations and received answers late last week, indicating that private agreements (deed restrictions, restrictive covenants) were unaffected, and certain city plans and agreements were also not impacted, specifically FLUMs and PUDs. But that NCCDs, conditional overlays, zoning categories like RR, LA, etc., regulating plans, and perhaps more would be impacted. Given, for example, that the author’s interpretation yesterday that conditional overlays would NOT be affected, this creates a dilemma: whose interpretation do we trust here? We’re advised that an Exhibit will be added explaining this – a little over a day before we discuss it on the dais – and we’re no closer to getting clarity on this key language. If my team and I are running up against deadlines to make sense of the resolution, how on earth can we expect the general public to understand it?
Some of the zoning categories have key safety or environmental features. Other plans or overlays represent years of work hammering out agreements. I have had concerned residents reach out to understand who will be impacted, and how, and I still can’t provide them with clear answers.
The intent here appears to make the applicable zoning districts and plans subordinate (“consistent”) to HOME. It doesn’t ask staff to “investigate” or “reconcile differences”, it says all these plans and zoning categories will become “consistent” with HOME. The authors explained this week that “the intention is for staff to explore that”. Unfortunately, that’s not what the resolution language actually says. Item 26 very clearly says the “City Manager is directed to propose amendments necessary to accomplish the following”, including subsection (B) and every other provision. If there is an exploratory directive here, I fail to see where that language is. Presumably the next steps will be city staff sending purple postcards and bringing Council amendments to modify each zoning district, regulating plan, etc., to make HOME the governing policy.
We’re told this Item is introduced in response to feedback from residents, builders, and city staff. Exactly what kind of robust public engagement process took place? Which residents were solicited for feedback? Are we referring to residents who participate in special interests advocating for these changes – or the actual residents and homeowners impacted by them? I know my constituents and HOAs in RR and LA zoning have not been engaged. I’ve since heard from other impacted people across town that have been surprised by this Item. Most of them, like me, are not even sure how to interpret the language of the resolution.
If the gameplan is for Council to steamroll these changes through – fine – then let’s not pretend we’re doing anything other than that. But I’d rather see the Council take HOME reforms up seriously, understand what is and isn’t working, from both a regulatory and affordability standpoint, and make a balanced attempt to build on what passed two years ago. I’ve put together a presentation for Thursday that steps through real-world examples of when HOME appears to be meeting its (lower case) affordability goals but also cases where HOME is actually exacerbating the lack of affordability in Austin. It concludes with a series of broad recommendations.
Some of those recommendations should be part of an earlier, more methodical process that takes place, long before Council is asked to vote on an Item that it isn’t even sure what it does. We should start with a robust stakeholder process, drawn equally from industry and non-industry residents, like we used to assemble for McMansion and prior land-use policy revisions. We should clearly define who will and won’t be impacted, and solicit their feedback and suggestions. We should collect additional data rather than relying on a single report. We should look to see where HOME isn’t meeting its affordability and displacement goals, and work to close loopholes and build on successes. My read is that this resolution hasn't done any of that, and that’s why even with significant changes, this will be hard to support.
It’s not too late, though. Let’s stop shortcutting the process by allowing idealogues or special interests draft policy and instead have a defensible process with vetted language that the average resident can comprehend. Let’s amend the confusing parts of this or postpone the item to build a better product – and City.
-Marc
Council Member, District 10
-
Marc Duchen
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2025 5:40 pm
Re: Item 26
Colleagues, I appreciate the opportunity to present and discuss this yesterday.
I had some requests to share yesterday's presentation, so I'm posting it here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XFghKX ... sp=sharing
I had some requests to share yesterday's presentation, so I'm posting it here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XFghKX ... sp=sharing
Council Member, District 10