20 Citywide Compatibility.pdf — original pdf

Backup

ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REVIEW SHEET Amendment: C20-2023-019 Citywide Compatibility Description: Amend City Code Title 25 (Land Development) to revise height, building placement, and other related regulations that apply to property and are in addition to the base zoning regulations (also known as Compatibility Standards). Background: Initiated by Resolution No. 20230608-045. Compatibility is a regulation that restricts building height and regulates screening, building design, and noise levels based on a site’s proximity to a property with single-family zoning or a single-family use. Currently, compatibility generally applies to sites within 540 feet of a property zoned Urban Family Residence (SF-5) or more restrictive. Compatibility does not apply uniformly citywide. Different compatibility standards apply depending on a site’s location and use. Listed below are examples of where compatibility is treated differently throughout the city: • Citywide Compatibility Standards have two separate regulations for large and small sites. • The East Riverside Corridor Regulating Plan compatibility standards are less restrictive than the current citywide standards and are only triggered by single-family use. • The Lamar/Justin, MLK, and Plaza Saltillo Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Regulating Plans only apply compatibility to sites within 100 feet of the TOD boundary and within 25 feet of a triggering property. • Within the University Neighborhood Overlay (UNO), compatibility only applies within 75 feet of the UNO boundary. • Within the Educational Facility Development Standards, there are two separate compatibility height restrictions for AISD and non-AISD schools. • Neighborhood Conservation Combining Districts (NCCDs): o The E. 11th St. NCCD waives compatibility standards in lieu of its own specific compatibility standards. o The E. 12th St. NCCD waives compatibility standards within the district. o The Hyde Park NCCD deviates from the current compatibility standards by allowing parking in the rear yard. • Additional areas are exempt from compatibility, including properties zoned Central Business District (CBD), Downtown Mixed-Use (DMU), properties in the North Burnet Gateway (NBG) Regulating Plan, and developments utilizing the Affordability Unlocked density bonus program. 03/28/2024C20-2023-019For more information about the various compatibility standards in the code, see Exhibit A, Current vs Proposed Compatibility. Compatibility Standards were codified with the adoption of the current Land Development Code in 1984. Their purpose, as stated in the 1984 code, is to “preserve and protect single-family residential neighborhoods” and “to maintain the privacy and to allow the outdoor enjoyment typically provided in single family districts and neighborhoods.” Before compatibility was created, there was an ad hoc practice of creating “buffer zones” to separate single-family homes from more intensive uses. Buffer zones, defined as “strip(s) of land used to separate one land use from another incompatible land use” (§ 25-1-21(12)), were created on a case-by-case basis by assigning single-family zoning to areas of the property adjacent to single-family homes. The city often required buffer zones when rezoning property adjacent to single-family homes. For example, city staff on July 9, 1983, recommended against a rezoning from AA (SF-2) to O (LO/GO) zoning and instead recommended O zoning with a 25’-wide buffer of A (SF-3) zoning along the property line adjacent to single-family properties. No major changes to compatibility were made until December 2022, when City Council adopted Ordinance No. 20221201-056, known as “Compatibility on Corridors.” The ordinance reduced compatibility and minimum parking requirements along specific corridors and directed staff to complete an analysis of citywide compatibility regulations. Staff did not recommend adoption of the ordinance because of its minimal impact on housing capacity and the additional complexity it created in an already complex set of regulations. In December 2023, the ordinance was invalidated by a court ruling. In June 2023, City Council adopted Resolution No. 20230608-045, which initiated significant modifications to citywide compatibility standards, as described below: 1. Change compatibility standards to be in line with peer cities. 2. Re-define “triggering property.” 3. Apply height and setback limits that mirror the Corridor Overlay. 4. Modify the “no-build” setback to be equal to or less restrictive than what applies to single-family structures. 5. Provide more opportunities for waivers from compatibility requirements. 6. Remove the maximum number of stories and increase height limitations by at least five feet. 7. Ease limitations on what can be constructed within the “no-build” setback. 8. Consider reducing or eliminating compatibility standards for projects that are participating in a density bonus program. 03/28/2024C20-2023-019In September of 2023, the Housing and Planning Departments released the findings and recommendations of the citywide compatibility analysis. The report included the following recommendations: 1. End compatibility related requirements at 75 feet. 2. Further reduce compatibility for on-site affordable housing. 3. Remove compatibility requirements from SF-6, MF-1, MF-2, and MF-3 zoning districts. 4. Refine heights within the compatibility buffer. 5. Conduct additional stakeholder engagement. 6. Analyze impacts and preservation strategies for existing multi-family housing. 7. Explore programs and partnerships to bring back displaced communities. 8. Minimize potential displacements impacts on vulnerable populations. 9. Balance the impacts of other regulations on housing capacity. On February 1, 2024, City Council approved Ordinance No. 20240201-027, authorizing a Joint Public Meeting of the Planning Commission and Council, waiving the requirements under 25-1- 502, and adopting notice requirements for the meeting. On February 15, 2024, City Council set the date for the Joint Public Meeting for no earlier than May 1, 2024. Summary of Proposed Code Amendment: The proposed changes can be broken down into the following categories: 1. Applicability 2. Height limits 3. Compatibility buffer 4. Screening, noise, and design requirements 5. Site-specific compatibility amendments The following sections describe each of these categories in further detail: 1. Applicability o Sites zoned MF-4 or less restrictive within 75 feet of a triggering property must comply with compatibility standards. o Properties triggering compatibility standards are limited to those zoned Urban Family Residence (SF-5) or more restrictive with between one and three housing units. o Exemptions from compatibility standards include:  A building that is undergoing a structural alteration that does not increase its square footage, area, or height.  A property zoned Central Business District (CBD) or Downtown Mixed- Use (DMU). 03/28/2024C20-2023-019 A site zoned Multifamily-Medium Density (MF-3) or more restrictive  The following uses: Single-Family Residential, Single-Family Attached Residential, Duplex, Two-Unit Residential, Three Unit Residential, Adult Care Services (Limited or General), and Child Care Services (Limited or General). 2. Height limits o The following heights will be allowed within 75 feet of a triggering property: Figure 1. Compatibility Height Limits Table: Distance from lot line of triggering property:  Maximum building height (if allowed by base zoning district):  0’ (Compatibility Buffer) ≤25’   >25’ and ≤50’  >50’ and ≤75’  >75’  Set by zone standards  Figure 2. Compatibility Height Limits Diagram: 40’  60’  3. Compatibility buffer* o A 25’-wide Compatibility Buffer is required along a property line shared with a triggering property consisting of:  10’-wide Screening Zone with large or medium and small trees and large shrubs 03/28/2024C20-2023-019 Figure 3. Screening Zone Requirements: Screening Zone Requirements Minimum width Large or medium trees1 per 25 linear feet Small trees per 25 linear feet Large shrubs per 25 linear feet 10’   1 10 10 1 20’ minimum height at maturity  * Native plantings required (existing native plants can count)15’-wide Restricted Zone with the allowance for the following low-intensity uses: • Landscaping or gardens; • Fences, walls, or berms, • Surface parking lots, driveways, alleys, or fire lanes; • Paths, walkways, or public use trails; • Utility infrastructure; • Refuse receptacles; and • Mechanical equipment.  Green stormwater infrastructure is allowed in the screening and restricted zones.  *(Buffer requirements were adopted on Feb. 29, 2024, as part of the Density Bonus 90 (DB90) Zoning District). o The Compatibility Buffer is not required for townhome or condominium uses or sites zoned Neighborhood Commercial (LR), Neighborhood Office (NO), and Limited Office (LO). 4. Screening, noise, and design requirements o Exterior lights must be shielded from view from neighboring properties. o Mechanical equipment noise must stay under 70 decibels at the shared triggering property line. o On-site amenities for occupants and guests cannot be located within 25 feet of a shared triggering property line, except for a multi-use trail. o Screening is required for vehicle lights, mechanical equipment, outdoor storage, certain common areas, and refuse receptacles and collection areas. 5. Site-specific compatibility amendments o Allows City Council to modify or waive compatibility height requirements through a site-specific zoning amendment process with notice and protest rights. o It is not legally feasible to allow owners of triggering properties to waive or modify how compatibility applies to other sites with 75 feet. 03/28/2024C20-2023-019For more detail about the proposed changes, see the draft ordinance. For a comparison of the proposed changes to current compatibility standards, see Exhibit A, Current vs Proposed Changes. Proposed Text Amendment(s): See attached draft ordinance. Staff Recommendation: Recommended Staff recommends the proposed modifications to compatibility standards to increase housing unit capacity. Staff conducted a quantitative analysis to estimate the change in total land area impacted by compatibility and the potential change in unit capacity due to the proposed modifications to compatibility standards. The objective of the analysis was to understand how the proposed changes may impact the potential unit capacity on multifamily and mixed-use properties and to see where the impacts of the proposed changes are the greatest. A unit capacity analysis is a simplistic projection of how many housing units could be built in a community if every property were to develop or redevelop under existing zoning regulations. To estimate the impacts on unit capacity, staff calculated the potential unit yield using the existing compatibility height restrictions and compared it with the potential unit yield using the proposed compatibility height restrictions to determine the unit capacity gained back through the proposal. Due to the complexity of zoning regulations, broad assumptions are necessary to perform a citywide capacity analysis – these assumptions are explained in the detailed methodology. As seen in the chart below, unit capacity is estimated to increase by about 63,000 units with the proposed compatibility standards relative to the current regulations, supporting Strategic Housing Blueprint Goals of producing 135,000 housing units in 10 years. Over 42,000 of those estimated housing units are gained in distances beyond the proposed applicability of compatibility of 75 feet. An additional 20,000 housing units are gained within the 75 feet compatibility buffer, where additional height allowances are proposed. Housing units gained due to the general changes to the applicability of compatibility and definition of a triggering property are distributed across multiple distances. 03/28/2024C20-2023-019Cumulative Unit Capacity Gained 81% 51,257 67% 42,397 38% 24,139 53% 33,617 96% 60,098 100% 62,911 y t i c a p a C t i n U 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 - 9% 5,745 540'-300' 300'-200' 200'-100' 100'-75' 75'-50' 50'-25' 10'-25' Distance from Triggering Property In Imagine Austin, the community articulated a vision of complete communities – where residents can live, work, and play conveniently within their neighborhoods. Central to this vision is the idea of providing more housing opportunities near essential services and amenities. This approach not only enhances access to basic necessities but also promotes sustainable development patterns that reduce reliance on automobiles and encourage walking, cycling, and the use of public transportation. Staff recommends the proposed changes to compatibility as a component of implementing community goals of providing more housing opportunities close to essential services and amenities such as parks and childcare facilities. As seen in the table below, over 56,000 additional housing units could be located within a half mile of one or more of these daily needs. Amenity Grocery Stores City Parks AISD Public Schools Childcare Facility Near One or More Amenities Near Two or More Amenities Estimated Housing Unit Capacity Gained Within Half Mile ≈ 26,968 ≈ 52,457 ≈ 39,095 ≈ 43,854 ≈ 56,681 ≈ 49,911 Percent of Total Housing Unit Capacity Gained 43% 83% 62% 70% 90% 79% Staff recommends the proposed exemption for small-scale multifamily developments zoned MF- 3 and more restrictive to enable the development of additional housing units. Staff estimate that this exemption will remove over 16,000 properties from compatibility standards, increasing unit capacity by almost 5,000 housing units. These small-scale multifamily developments can facilitate a transition zone from lower-density residential to higher-density multifamily and commercial developments. 03/28/2024C20-2023-019 Zoning District SF-6 MF-1 MF-2 MF-3 Total Housing Units Gained ≈ 336 ≈ 141 ≈ 1,775 ≈ 2,491 ≈ 4,745 Properties No Longer Subject to Compatibility 5,008 639 5,751 5,229 16,627 Staff also recommends exempting sites zoned MF-3 and more restrictive from compatibility because the allowed uses are residential or civic and are generally similar in bulk, scale, and density to single-family homes. The maximum height allowed in MF-3 and more restrictive zoning districts is less than 40ft, which does not warrant additional visual screening and distance from single-family homes. Staff also found that, on average, the size of parcels zoned MF-3 and more restrictive that are currently subject to compatibility is 18% less than the average size of parcels in less restrictive zoning districts that allow residential uses; requiring a 25-foot compatibility buffer would have been out of scale to existing lot sizes for many properties zoned MF-3 or more restrictive. The proposed changes generally bring the compatibility standards in line with those of peer cities. Current compatibility height limits, which extend 540 feet from a single-family property, are considerably stricter compared to other peer cities. Peer city research shows that the average distance from a triggering property to reach a height of 60 feet is approximately 49 feet, and the average distance to reach a height of 90 feet is approximately 74 feet (excluding Austin). Both Dallas and San Antonio end all compatibility-related height restrictions after 50 feet from triggering properties, while Houston does not have specific compatibility restrictions based on adjacency to single-family zoning or use. The proposal to end compatibility height limitations at 75 feet aligns with the average standard observed across identified peer cities. 03/28/2024C20-2023-01960' 90' s e i t i C r e e P Austin Average Nashville Salt Lake City Raleigh Minneapolis Las Vegas Charlotte Dallas San Antonio Atlanta Denver Kansas City Seattle Portland Houston 0 100 200 300 400 500 Compatiblity Distances in Feet Staff recommends applying the compatibility buffer requirements in § 25-8-700 to properties abutting a triggering property to create a visual barrier between uses and to improve the urban environment for the future occupants of the development and surrounding neighbors. Lower intensity zones and uses are exempt from the buffer requirement. These include Townhouse Residential and Condominium Residential uses and sites zoned Neighborhood Commercial (LR), Neighborhood Office (NO), and Limited Office (LO). Similar to the general compatibility exemption for MF-3 and more restrictive residential districts, exempting townhomes, condominiums, and sites zoned LR, NO, and LO from compatibility will facilitate neighborhood-scale development without imposing planting and setback requirements out of scale with the development. The planting requirements and allowed green stormwater infrastructure within the screening zone are in line with strategies proposed in the Climate Equity Plan, including updating codes to allow for housing development that balances protections of natural resources with the provision of housing and ensuring the species of newly planted trees are native or adapted and appropriate for the location, function, habitat, and future changes in the climate. The additional tree canopy cover will help to reduce the impacts of urban heat island effects, which are concentrated in higher-density areas. Further, the additional flexibility for low-intensity uses within the restricted zone will reduce the impact of compatibility requirements on a site’s developable area. Current compatibility regulations are complex, difficult to administer, onerous to applicants, and confusing to the public. A survey conducted for the 2023 citywide compatibility analysis also found that compatibility standards result in delays to project timelines, with 84% of respondents indicating short, moderate, or long delays. Delays were primarily caused by factors such as seeking variances, negotiations, extensive staff review and interpretation, neighborhood 03/28/2024C20-2023-019opposition, lack of clarity, financial feasibility issues, design complexity, and lengthy review timelines and legal processes. Staff recommends the proposed simplification of compatibility regulations to reduce the need for labor-intensive and time-consuming development reviews. Due the implications of compatibility for other parts of the code and other code amendments in progress, staff recommends addressing the following as part of a future code amendment: • Compatibility in Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) zones and the University Neighborhood Overlay (UNO): Staff recommends reducing compatibility standards for projects that participate in UNO or TOD density bonus programs as part of the forthcoming comprehensive update to density bonus programs. To maximize community benefits and participation in these programs, staff recommends considering reducing compatibility through careful calibration of the programs’ community benefits requirements and site development standards. Board and Commission Action: April 23, 2024 – To be reviewed by the Planning Commission Council Action: May 16, 2024 – To be considered by City Council Sponsor Department: Planning Department City Staff: Jonathan Lee, Senior Planner, Planning Department, LDCUpdates@austintexas.gov, (512) 974- 7220 (Case Manager) Paul Books, Senior Planner, Planning Department, LDCUpdates@austintexas.gov, (512) 974- 7220 (Subject Matter Expert) 03/28/2024C20-2023-019Exhibit A Current vs Proposed Changes Proposed Standards • Property zoned SF-5 or more restrictive that contains between one and three housing units. • Property zoned Townhouse and Condominium • Property zoned MF-4 or less restrictive located within 75’ of a triggering property What triggers compatibility? What is subject to compatibility? Current Standards • Property zoned Urban Family Residence (SF-5) or more restrictive, Development Reserve (DR), or Traditional Neighborhood (TN). • Property developed with a use permitted in SF-5 or more restrictive zoning, regardless of zoning (e.g. schools, parks, churches). Residence (SF-6) or less restrictive and certain civic uses (e.g. schools, parks, churches), regardless of zoning, located: o Within 540’ of a property zoned SF-5 or more restrictive, DR, or TN o Adjacent to or across the street from a property developed with a use permitted in SF-5 or more restrictive zoning Maximum building height (if allowed by base zoning district): 0’ – No-Build Setback ≤15’-25’* >15’-25’* and ≤50’ 30’ or two stories >50’ and ≤100’ 40’ or three stories >100’ and ≤300’ >300’ and ≤540’ Up 1’ in height for 10’ of distance Up 1’ in height for 4’ of distance *Varies depending on lot width • Distance to reach… o 60’ in height: 300’ in distance o 90’ in height: 420’ in distance o 120’ in height: 540’ in distance Height Limits Distance from lot line of triggering property: Distance from lot line of triggering property: ≤25’  >25’ and ≤50’ >50’ and ≤75’ 40’ 60’ Maximum building height (if allowed by base zoning district): 0’ (Compatibility Buffer) >75’ Set by zone standards 03/28/2024C20-2023-019 Current Standards Setbacks • For lots 50’- 100’ wide, minimum setbacks range Proposed Standards Minimum setbacks are set by the base zoning district. from 15’ to 25’. No structures, including parking lots or driveways, are allowed. • For lots over 100’ wide, minimum setbacks are 25’. Compatibility Buffer None required. Only standard screening is required (typically met with a 6’ tall fence along property line). No structures (anything made of concrete) can be built within the 25’ no-build setback. • 25’-wide Compatibility Buffer required along interior side and rear yards adjacent to a triggering property. (Buffer requirements were adopted on Feb. 29, 2024, as part of the Density Bonus 90 (DB90) Zoning District). o 10’ Screening Zone with large or medium and small trees and large shrubs o 15’ Restricted Zone with low-intensity uses such as trails, driveways, and fire lanes o Stormwater infrastructure allowed in the screening and restricted zones Screening Zone Requirements Minimum width Large or medium trees1 per 25 linear feet Small trees per 25 linear feet Large shrubs per 25 linear feet 10’ 1 10 10 1 20’ minimum height at maturity * Native plantings required (existing native plants can count) • Compatibility Buffer not required for townhomes, small condominium developments, and neighborhood-scale commercial and office uses • Maintain compatibility screening requirements for vehicle lights, dumpsters, mechanical equipment, Screening, noise and • Additional screening beyond what is required elsewhere in the code for dumpsters, vehicle lights, mechanical equipment, and storage. 03/28/2024C20-2023-019 Areas or uses with different compatibility standards North Burnet Gateway Regulating Plan East Riverside Corridor Regulating Plan Current Standards design regulations • Reflective roofs cannot exceed a certain pitch • Exterior lighting must be hooded or shielded • Mechanical equipment cannot exceed 70db at • No trash pickup or commercial deliveries 10pm-7am • Regulations around design and massing, many non- property line enforceable Proposed Standards and storage; add a requirement to screen outdoor common spaces. • Maintain existing compatibility regulations regarding exterior lighting and noise; remove redundant or unenforceable requirements around design and massing, roof reflectivity, delivery hours, and outdoor noise. Waiver Process • The Planning Commission, or Council on appeal, can: o Reduce setbacks to a minimum of 5’ o Modify height limits only under limited circumstances • In TODs, owners of triggering properties can agree to waive the application of compatibility onto nearby property • City Council has the full discretion to modify or waive elements of compatibility following a site-specific zoning amendment process with notice and protest rights. Compatibility waivers would go to the Land Use Commission before Council. • Compatibility does not apply. • No changes proposed • Has separate compatibility standards that are less restrictive than the current citywide standards but more restrictive than the proposed standards. Compatibility is triggered by single-family use, not zoning. • No changes proposed. Proposed update to Regulating Plan (scheduled for consideration in December 2024) may amend compatibility standards. Lamar/Justin, MLK and Plaza Saltillo TODs • Compatibility applies to properties within 100 ft of TOD boundary and within 25 ft of a triggering property. • No changes proposed. Reductions in compatibility for TOD density bonus programs to be considered through comprehensive density bonus analysis. 03/28/2024C20-2023-019 University Neighborhood Overlay (UNO) Density Bonus 90 (DB90) Combining District Vertical Mixed Use (VMU) Buildings Neighborhood Conservation Combining Districts (NCCDs) Affordability Unlocked Educational Facilities Development Standards South Central Waterfront Overlay* Current Standards • Compatibility does not apply within UNO, except to Proposed Standards • No changes proposed. Reductions in compatibility for properties within 75’ of the UNO boundary. UNO density bonus program to be considered through comprehensive density bonus analysis. • Compatibility does not apply, except for compatibility buffer and screening/noise design regulations. • No changes proposed • Compatibility applies normally, except for properties along a future light rail line, where compatibility ends at 100’ • Proposed citywide compatibility standards will apply. • E 11th St NCCD: Modifies compatibility (not aligned • No changes proposed. Proposed compatibility standards will apply to properties within NCCDs where applicable. If there is conflict, NCCD regulations supersede. with proposed changes) • E 12th St NCCD: Compatibility does not apply • Hyde Park NCCD: Allows parking in rear yard • North Hyde Park NCCD: No changes to compatibility • North University NCCD: No changes to compatibility, but has its own more restrictive height limits • Fairview NCCD: No changes to compatibility • Compatibility does not apply. • Schools have their own compatibility rules (different for AISD and non-AISD schools). AISD standards in LDC are misaligned with standards approved in the 2023 AISD-City of Austin School District Development Standards Agreement • N/A • No changes proposed. • No changes proposed. • Compatibility does not apply. (*Proposed for adoption as part of the South Central Waterfront Combining District) 03/28/2024C20-2023-019 Equitable Transit-Oriented Development (ETOD) Overlay* *To be considered for adoption on May 16, 2024 Corridor Overlay* *(Ordinance 20221201-056 (Compatibility on Corridors) was invalidated in December 2023) Current Standards • N/A Proposed Standards • Compatibility Buffer applies • Compatibility matches DB90 within 25’-50’ (allowing up to 90’ in height) • Compatibility waived from 50’ and beyond (allowing up to 120’ in height, depending on base zone) • Properties along future light rail lines and certain • Repeal the Corridor Overlay streets had varying compatibility standards that were less restrictive than the current citywide standards but more restrictive than the proposed standards. Corridor Type Compatibility ends at: Light Rail Line or Large Corridor Medium Corridor 200’ (100’ with on-site affordable units) 300’ (additional height allowed with on-site affordable units) • Allowed 5’ of additional height compared to citywide compatibility. Compatibility was triggered by zoning, not use, and could not be triggered by property across a corridor. 03/28/2024C20-2023-019Proposed Compatibility Unit Capacity Analysis Result and Methodology Staff conducted an update the quan�ta�ve analysis completed in 2023 to es�mate the change in total land area impacted by compa�bility and the poten�al change in unit capacity due to the proposed modifica�ons to compa�bility standards. The objec�ve of the analysis was to understand how the proposed changes may impact the poten�al unit capacity on mul�family and mixed-use proper�es and to see where the impacts of the proposed changes are the greatest. A unit capacity analysis is a projec�on of how many housing units could be built in a community if every property were to develop or redevelop under exis�ng zoning regula�ons. To es�mate the impacts on unit capacity, staff calculated the poten�al unit yield using the exis�ng compa�bility height restric�ons and compared it with the poten�al unit yield using the proposed compa�bility height restric�ons. Results Total Land Area Impacted by Compatibility Staff es�mated the total area of proper�es subject to the current citywide compa�bility standards, the area of proper�es that would be subject to the proposed standards, and the percent change in area impacted by compa�bility. Total Sq. Mi of Subject Properties Impacted by Current Compatibility Percent Change of Subject Properties Impacted by Compatibility Total Sq. Mi of Subject Properties Impacted by Proposed Compatibility 4.6 75.4 -93.4% Staff analyzed the change in area impacted by compa�bility within each Council district. The change ranged from a low of 85% in District 9 to a high of 96% in Districts 10 and 2. Change in Compatibility Applicability by Council District (Acres) 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 -85% -96% -95% -93% -97% -92% -93% -92% -96% -95% 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Subject Not Subject 03/28/2024C20-2023-019Current compa�bility buffers may, in some instances, allow for heights beyond those allowed under the base zone. For the purposes of this area analysis, proper�es which are allowed to reach their maximum height under compa�bility standards were included. This means that while compa�bility does apply to these areas, there may not be a significant loss of development poten�al in all areas. Number of Triggering Proper�es As proposed, the scope of proper�es that trigger compa�bility standards has been narrowed to ensure proper�es are both zoned and used as low-density housing. The current compa�bility standards are triggered by proper�es that are zoned as SF-5 or more restric�ve OR contain a use allowed within an SF- 5 or more restric�ve zoning district. In many instances, uses such as schools and public parks are on proper�es zoned SF-5 or more restric�ve, thereby triggering compa�bility. This reduces the unit capacity of neighboring proper�es adjacent to these essen�al services. By changing the defini�on to ensure proper�es are both zoned and used as low-density residen�al, the number of triggering proper�es was reduced by approximately 33%. See the map below, where proper�es mee�ng the proposed defini�on of triggering property are shown in yellow, and exis�ng triggering proper�es that do not meet the proposed defini�on are shown in red. As seen, many larger parcels, including four schools and city parkland are iden�fied as triggering proper�es as well as exis�ng single-family proper�es within commercial or mul�family zoning districts. Unit Capacity Impacted by Compatibility The area impacted by compa�bility provides an overall idea of the scale of the proposed changes. However, to grasp how compa�bility impacts housing produc�on, it is essen�al to consider the unit capacity that may be lost due to the height restric�ons. Staff conducted a quan�ta�ve analysis to es�mate the change in total land area impacted by compa�bility and the poten�al change in unit capacity due to the proposed modifica�ons to 03/28/2024C20-2023-019compa�bility standards. The objec�ve of the analysis was to understand how the proposed changes may impact the poten�al unit capacity on mul�family and mixed-use proper�es and to see where the impacts of the proposed changes are the greatest. A unit capacity analysis is a simplis�c projec�on of how many housing units could be built in a community if every property were to develop or redevelop under exis�ng zoning regula�ons. To es�mate the impacts on unit capacity, staff calculated the poten�al unit yield using the exis�ng compa�bility height restric�ons and compared it with the poten�al unit yield using the proposed compa�bility height restric�ons. Due to the complexity of zoning regula�ons, broad assump�ons are always necessary to perform a citywide capacity analysis – these assump�ons are explained in the detailed methodology. Es�mated Total Unit Capacity Gained The chart below shows the es�mated unit capacity gained at each buffer distance for subject proper�es along with the cumula�ve percentage when each row is added to the previous ones. This cumula�ve percentage loss helps gauge where the impacts of the reduced applicability of compa�bility standards are greatest as well as the impacts of the increased height allowances within the proposed compa�bility standards. Unit capacity is es�mated to increase by over 62,000 units due to the proposed compa�bility standards rela�ve to the current restric�ons. Over 42,000 of those es�mated units are gained in distances beyond the proposed applicability of compa�bility of 75 feet. An addi�onal 20,000 units are gained within the 75 feet compa�bility buffer, where addi�onal height allowances are proposed. Units gained due to the general changes to the applicability of compa�bility and defini�on of a triggering property are scatered throughout this chart. Cumulative Unit Capacity Gained y t i c a p a C t i n U 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 - 81% 51,257 67% 42,397 38% 24,139 53% 33,617 96% 60,098 100% 62,911 9% 5,745 540'-300' 300'-200' 200'-100' 100'-75' 50'-25' Distance from Triggering Property 75'-50' 10'-25' 03/28/2024C20-2023-019Es�mated Total Unit Capacity Gained in Small-Scale Mul�family Zones In Resolu�on No. 20230608-045, which ini�ated changes to citywide compa�bility standards, City Council directed staff to create an exemp�on for development of 16 or less dwelling units. In response to this direc�on, staff proposed an exemp�on for development of uses that are permited in MF-3 or more restric�ve zoning district that comply with MF-3 or more restric�ve zoning district site development standards. To analyze the impacts of this exemp�on, staff researched the extent of current compa�bility standards on MF-3 and less restric�ve zoning districts where compa�bility currently applies. The results, which found that over 16,000 proper�es will no longer be subject to compa�bility, are summarized below. Zoning District SF-6 MF-1 MF-2 MF-3 Total Units Gained ≈ 336 ≈ 141 ≈ 1,775 ≈ 2,491 ≈ 4,745 Properties No Longer Subject to Compatibility 5,008 639 5,751 5,229 16,627 Nearby Ameni�es and Transit In Imagine Aus�n, the community ar�culated a vision of complete communi�es – where residents can live, work, and play conveniently within their neighborhoods. Central to this vision is the idea of providing more housing opportuni�es in close proximity to essen�al services and ameni�es. This approach not only enhances access to basic necessi�es but also promotes sustainable development paterns that reduce reliance on automobiles and encourage walking, cycling, and the use of public transporta�on. Changes to compa�bility aid in this goal by providing more housing opportuni�es close to essen�al services and ameni�es such as parks and childcare facili�es. As seen in the table below, over 56,000 addi�onal housing units could be located within a half mile of one or more of these daily needs. Amenity Grocery Stores City Parks AISD Public Schools Childcare Facility Near One or More Amenities Near Two or More Amenities Estimated Unit Capacity Gained Within Half Mile ≈ 26,968 ≈ 52,457 ≈ 39,095 ≈ 43,854 ≈ 56,681 ≈ 49,911 Percent of Total Capacity Gained 43% 83% 62% 70% 90% 79% ETOD Density Bonus By separate ordinance, staff has proposed modifying compa�bility standards for proper�es par�cipa�ng in the Equitable Transit Oriented Development (ETOD) Density Bonus combining district. This relaxa�on would allow a par�cipa�ng development to reach 90 feet in height a�er 50 feet in distance from a triggering property while maintaining requirements for the compa�bility buffer and screening, similar to the provisions adopted for the Density Bonus 90 (DB90) combining district. This change allows for addi�onal units to be located along Phase 1 Light Rail lines, which increases compe��veness for funding opportuni�es and future ridership of the light rail system. Analysis of the proposed modifica�on of the compa�bility standards indicate there could be an addi�onal 8,180 unit capacity through the increased 03/28/2024C20-2023-019height allowance. This increase in poten�al unit yield, creates an addi�onal affordable housing unit capacity of up to 1,227 units depending on income levels. Proposed Applicability Distance from Triggering Property 0 - 10 10 - 25 25 - 50 50 - 75 Total Units Gained 0 0 ≈ 3,217 ≈ 4,963 ≈ 8,180 Allowed Height (In Stories 0 0 7 10 Note: The change in compa�bility proposed for proper�es par�cipa�ng in the ETOD Density Bonus program are not included in the overall citywide analysis as they are being considered by separate ordinance. Impacts to High Opportunity Areas, Displacement Risk Areas, Vulnerable Popula�ons, and Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing To evaluate the impact compa�bility standards have on different popula�ons, staff used exis�ng datasets based on a range of demographic and housing market data. The data and geography for High Opportunity Areas is based on the Aus�n Strategic Housing Blueprint and data from Opportunity360, a na�onal database of opportunity metrics developed by Enterprise Community Partners. Both the Vulnerable Areas and Displacement Risk Areas typologies were developed by the Uprooted Report, published by the University of Texas in partnership with the City of Aus�n. Staff used a dataset of Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH), as defined by the Housing Department, to evaluate impacts to exis�ng residen�al units. Compa�bility has func�oned as an exclusionary tool that perpetuates exis�ng paterns of segrega�on, reducing housing choice within High Opportunity areas by limi�ng height of mul�family developments. Further, High Opportunity areas heavily overlap with stricter watershed regula�ons that limit development yield, crea�ng less poten�al housing capacity in these areas. However, the proposed modifica�ons to compa�bility standards are es�mated to increase capacity by over 10,000 units in High Opportunity areas without impac�ng watershed regula�ons. The proposed reduc�on in compa�bility standards for proper�es par�cipa�ng in the ETOD Density Bonus program will create addi�onal increases in the unit capacity, and affordable unit capacity, within High Opportunity areas and adjacent to transit. Staff acknowledges that the proposed reduc�on in compa�bility standards will increase development pressure on exis�ng mul�family uses and Vulnerable Areas and Displacement Risk Areas. Housing staff iden�fied NOAH complexes in Aus�n, defining NOAH as non-subsidized complexes with rental rates at or below 2023 60% Median Family Income. The analysis found that NOAH is evenly distributed across the city, with the highest number of NOAH complexes in Council Districts 9, 4, 3, and 5. Housing staff 03/28/2024C20-2023-019es�mate that 252 of these NOAH complexes will see a full removal of compa�bility with the largest share of these complexes in Districts 4, 9, and 3. The proposed changes to compa�bility will increase unit capacity within Vulnerable Areas by over 37,000 units, represen�ng 60% of the units gained by the modifica�on. The City of Aus�n’s Displacement Risk Index defines four categories of displacement risk: Ac�ve, Vulnerable, Chronic, and Historic. Ac�ve and Vulnerable areas have the highest displacement risk, with Chronic and Historic represen�ng areas that have already undergone significant displacement and neighborhood change. Areas of higher displacement risk, (Ac�ve, and Vulnerable) will see 39% units gained by the modifica�on. This significant por�on can be explained, in part, by the fact that almost one third (32%) of subject proper�es are in areas of higher displacement risk . Areas classified with compara�vely lower of displacement risk (Chronic, Historic, and Stable), will see 59% of the increase in es�mated unit capacity. 03/28/2024C20-2023-019Methodology Defini�ons - Unit Capacity Unit capacity refers to an es�ma�on of the maximum number of dwelling units a par�cular property could theore�cally hold a�er redevelopment. In this analysis, staff considered development standards under § 25-2-492 - SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, impervious cover, and applicable density bonus programs. However, the analysis did not consider site-specific factors which may constrain development such as floodplains or topography. A limi�ng factor of 60% was applied to account for these factors on development generally. Triggering Properties: Exis�ng Compa�bility Standards: According to Title 25, Chapter 2, Subchapter C, Ar�cle 10. Compa�bility Standards, height limita�ons for a structure are triggered based on proximity to proper�es “zoned SF-5 or more restric�ve district or on which a use permited in an SF-5 or more restric�ve zoning district is located.” To iden�fy proper�es that trigger compa�bility, staff used an internal Land Use database to find proper�es that are zoned SF-5 or more restric�ve or have a current use permited in an SF-5 or more restric�ve zoning district. Proposed Compa�bility Standards: The proposed defini�on of a triggering property is a property zoned SF-5 or more restric�ve and developed with 1-3 dwelling units. Staff used an internal Land Use database to select proper�es mee�ng this defini�on. Subject Properties: Exis�ng Compa�bility Standards: To locate proper�es subject to compa�bility, staff selected all proper�es in SF-6 and less restric�ve zoning districts. Staff removed proper�es within CBD and DMU zones, which are exempt from compa�bility standards. Proposed Compa�bility Standards: To locate proper�es subject to compa�bility, staff selected all proper�es in MF-4 and less restric�ve zoning districts. Staff removed proper�es within CBD and DMU zones, which are exempt from compa�bility standards. Compatibility Buffers: Exis�ng Compa�bility Standards: From the triggering property layer, buffers were created at 10 feet, 25 feet, 50 feet, 75 feet, 100 feet, 150 feet, 200 feet, 250 feet, 300 feet, 400 feet, and 540 feet, where compa�bility ends. Using the buffers created from the triggering proper�es, subject proper�es within 540 feet were selected. These impacted proper�es were then divided using the buffering distances, which allowed staff to determine impacts to capacity as described below. Proposed Compa�bility Standards: From the triggering property layer, buffers were created at 25 feet, 50 feet, and 75 feet, where the proposed compa�bility standards end. Using the buffers created from the triggering proper�es, subject proper�es within 75 feet were selected. These impacted proper�es were then divided using the buffering distances, which allowed staff to determine impacts to capacity as described below. Impacted Property: A subject property that falls within a compa�bility buffer. 03/28/2024C20-2023-019 Unit Capacity Calcula�on To es�mate the unit capacity, staff performed the following steps on all subject property land area in the compa�bility buffer: 1. Calculated the area in each exis�ng compa�bility buffer. 2. Mul�plied the area in the compa�bility buffer by the permited heights and maximum building coverage allowed by the zoning district. Adjusted the maximum building coverage to account for watershed regula�ons. 3. For proper�es where residen�al development is an allowed use, the result was divided by an average unit size of 1,200 sf or adjusted to dwelling units per acre requirements if applicable to calculate the housing capacity permited by current zoning. 4. Applied a general limita�on factor of 60% to the poten�al unit capacity to account for other regula�ons such as floor to area ra�o and front or side yard setbacks. To account for rear yard setbacks that reduce developability within the 10 foot compa�bility buffer, staff modified the permited height to zero for all zoning districts that require a rear yard setback. 5. Repeated steps 2-4 but modified the allowable height to the maximum height allowed under exis�ng compa�bility standards. 6. Subtracted the es�mated number of units allowed under exis�ng compa�bility standards from the es�mated units permited by current zoning. 7. Repeated steps 1-5 but modified the allowable height to the maximum height allowed under the proposed compa�bility standards. 8. Subtracted the es�mated number of units allowed under proposed compa�bility standards from the es�mated units permited by current zoning. 9. Subtracted the result of step 8 from the result of 6 to iden�fy the unit capacity gained back from proposed compa�bility standards. The following graphics illustrate how this calculation works on an example site. The example site is in the urban watershed, so step 3 in the list above was not needed because no adjustments were needed to the maximum building coverage. 03/28/2024C20-2023-019Example Property: Size: 106,764sf Zoning: CS-MU Max Height: 60 �, 5 stories Max Building Coverage: 95% Limita�on Factor: 60% Rear Setback: 0 � Compatibility Buffer Area 10 25 50 75 100 200 5,341 8,010 13,350 13,348 13,346 53,369 Step 1: Calculate the area in each existing compatibility buffer Step 2: Multiplied the area in the compatibility buffer by the permitted heights and maximum building coverage allowed by the zoning district. Adjusted the maximum building coverage to account for watershed regulations. Step 3: Divided the result by an average unit size of 1.200 sf or adjusted to dwelling unit per acre requirements if applicable to calculate the housing capacity permitted by current zoning. Step 4: Applied a general limitation factor of 60% to account for other regulations such as setbacks, and floor-area ratios (FAR). To account for zoning setbacks that significantly reduce developability in the 25- foot setback, even without the compatibility buffer, staff applied a limitation factor of 30%. Es�mated Unit Capacity from Base Zoning Standards 0’ – 10’: ((5,341sf x 5 x .95)/1,200) x .6 = 8 units 10’ – 25’: ((8,010sf x 5 x .95)/1,200) x .6 = 10 units 25’ – 50’: ((13,350x 5 x .95)/1,200) x .6 = 20 units 50’ – 75’: ((13,348sf x 5 x .95)/1,200) x .6 = 20 units 75’ – 100’: ((13,346sf x 5 x .95)/1,200) x .6 = 20 units 100’ – 200’: ((53,369 x 5 x .95)/1,200) x .6 = 80 units Total Units: 160 Step 5: Repeated steps 2-4 but modified the allowable height to the maximum height allowed under existing compatibility standards. 03/28/2024C20-2023-019Step 6: Subtracted the estimated number of units allowed under existing compatibility standards from the estimated units permitted by current zoning. Es�mated Unit Capacity from Compa�bility Standards 0’ – 10’: ((5,341sf x 0 x .95)/1,200) x .6 = 0 units 10’ – 25’: ((8,010sf x 0 x .95)/1,200) x .6 = 0 units 25’ – 50’: ((13,350 x 2 x .95)/1,200) x .6 = 8 units 50’ – 75’: ((13,348sf x 3 x .95)/1,200) x .6 = 12 units 75’ – 100’: ((13,346sf x 3 x .95)/1,200) x .6 = 12 units 100’ – 200’: ((53,369 x 4 x .95)/1,200) x .6 = 64 units Total Units: 96 Difference in Zoning Capacity and Current Compa�bility Es�mated Unit Capacity Permited in Zoning: 160 Es�mated Unit Capacity in Current Compa�bility: 96 Total Units Lost: 64 Es�mated Unit Capacity from Proposed Standards 0’ – 10’: ((5,341sf x 0 x .95)/1,200) x .6 = 0 units 10’ – 25’: ((8,010sf x 0 x .95)/1,200) x .6 = 0 units 25’ – 50’: ((13,350 x 3 x .95)/1,200) x .6 = 12 units 50’ – 75’: ((13,348sf x 5 x .95)/1,200) x .6 = 20 units 75’ – 100’: ((13,346sf x 5 x .95)/1,200) x .6 = 20 units 100’ – 200’: ((53,369 x 5 x .95)/1,200) x .6 = 80 units Total Units: 132 Step 7: Repeated steps 1-5 but modified the allowable height to the maximum height allowed under the proposed compatibility standards. Step 8: Subtracted the estimated number of units allowed under the proposed compatibility standards 03/28/2024C20-2023-019from the estimated units permitted by current zoning. Difference in Zoning Capacity and Proposed Compa�bility Es�mated Unit Capacity Permited in Zoning: 160 Es�mated Unit Capacity in Proposed Compa�bility: 132 Total Units Lost: 28 Step 9: Subtracted the result of step 8 from the result of 6 to iden�fy the unit capacity gained back from proposed compa�bility standards. Difference in Current Capacity and Proposed Compa�bility Es�mated Unit Capacity Lost in Current Compa�bility: 64 Es�mated Unit Capacity Lost in Proposed Compa�bility: 28 Total Units Gained: 36 Changes in Methodology The unit capacity analysis performed for the proposed compa�bility changes is an update from the previous staff analysis completed in 2023 with some changes to the methodology: • The prior analysis was dependent on a geographic database of Travis County parcels where as the updated analysis u�lizes an internal Land Use database which includes all parcels within the City of Aus�n jurisdic�on, including those outside of Travis County. • Previously only high-density residen�al and commercial zoning districts were included while the updated methodology analyzes all proper�es where mul�family residen�al is a permited use. • The invalida�on of the VMU2 and Residen�al in Commercial programs was accounted for. • Changes to the selec�on criteria of triggering proper�es and subject proper�es were made for specific regula�ng plans, Neighborhood Conserva�on Combining Districts, and Transit Oriented Development Districts. 03/28/2024C20-2023-019Affordability Impact Statement Citywide Compatibility Update Initiated by: Resolution No. 20230608-045 Case number: C20-2023-019 Date: March 26, 2024 Proposed Regulation The proposed amendment would: • Reduce the applicability of compatibility standards to properties within 75 feet of a triggering property and create an exemption for small-scale multifamily buildings on sites zoned MF-3 or more restrictive. • Redefine triggering properties to be properties zoned SF-5 or more restrictive that contain between one and three housing units. • Increase compatibility height limits within 75 feet. • Remove scale and clustering requirements. • Require a 25-foot-wide compatibility buffer along lot lines shared with a triggering property with planting requirements while allowing for more flexibility within the compatibility buffer including allowances for pedestrian access, stormwater infrastructure and other low-intensity uses. • Modify screening, design, and noise regulations along property lines abutting a triggering property. • Allow City Council to modify or waive compatibility height requirements through a site-specific zoning amendment process with notice and protest rights. 1 03/28/2024C20-2023-019Land Use/Zoning Impacts on Housing Costs The proposed changes would have a positive impact on housing costs via land use and zoning. • Recent analyses indicate that compatibility severely constrains housing supply in Austin. The Planning Department estimates that compatibility standards limit the City’s capacity for high-density residential housing by 82,000 units. The 2023 Compatibility Regulations Analysis carried out by the City of Austin Housing Department found, through interviews with housing developers, that compatibility standards cause significant project delays, leading to higher construction costs, and caused nearly all respondents to abandon projects.1 By implementing the Analysis’s recommendation to reduce the number of triggering properties and to end compatibility standards at 75 feet from a triggering property, the proposal will help to mitigate these impacts, and remove a regulatory limitation of residential unit • The proposal’s changes are additionally aligned with existing policies and recommendations from the Central Texas Assessment of Fair Housing, an analysis required by the Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The report names compatibility standards as an impediment to fair housing in the City of Austin and recommends regulatory changes to compatibility standards.2 supply. Impact on Development Cost The proposed changes would have a positive impact on development costs. • Increasing development timelines adds costs to projects, in terms of raw costs and increased interest accrual on the various loans used to fund development. Decreased unit yield often leads to higher per- unit development costs.1 By simplifying compatibility standards, reducing their restrictiveness, and reducing the number of situations in which they apply, the proposal will likely reduce the per-unit development costs for residential buildings. 2 03/28/2024C20-2023-019Impact on Affordable Housing The proposed changes would have a positive impact on income-restricted Affordable Housing. • The proposed modifications would increase Austin’s medium and high-density residential unit capacity by about 63,000 units and lower the per-unit development cost.1 This would enable new income- restricted developments, or projects using density bonus programs that produce income-restricted units or provide funds for the same, to include more units in many cases. In turn, this would increase the quantity of income-restricted units and/or the amount of funds generated through fee-in-lieu programs relative to current conditions. • Compatibility has functioned as an exclusionary tool that perpetuated existing patterns of segregation. After the U.S. Supreme Court banned explicit racial zoning in 1917 and after the Fair Housing Act banned racially restrictive covenants in 1968, large minimum lot sizes and zoning restrictions that excluded apartments have been used as a proxy to maintain racial segregation. As people of color are far more likely to be renters than white people, excluding multifamily rental properties provided a legal means of discrimination towards people of color and low-income households in general.3,4,5 Further, excluding multifamily buildings pushed those buildings, and the people in them, closer to highways and their associated air pollutants.6 The proposed modifications would remove compatibility as a contributor to this effect. City Policies Implemented Reducing compatibility is in line with several existing plans and analyses. • Facilitating increased residential capacity aligns with goals in the 2023 Climate Equity Plan, namely, “By 2027, preserve and produce 135,000 housing units, including 60,000 affordable housing units, with 75% of new housing located within ½ mile of activity centers and corridors.” Facilitating dense development patterns aligns with the goal that “50% of trips in Austin are made using public transit, biking, walking, [or] carpooling.” • The proposed amendments align with goals found in the Austin Strategic Mobility (ASMP). The ASMP asserts that Austin could manage congestion spurred by population growth by achieving a 50/50 mode share for trips: that is, 50% of Austinites’ trips are driving alone, 50% of Austinites’ trips use transit, walking, bicycling, carpooling, or teleworking. Increasing potential density creates an environment that is more conducive to transit use and active transportation options relative to current conditions. 3 03/28/2024C20-2023-019• The proposed amendments align with Imagine Austin’s Core Principles for Action, to “Grow as a compact, connected city,” and “Sustainably manage water, energy and other environmental resources,” as low-density development patterns strain infrastructure and use resources inefficiently. Other Housing Policy Considerations Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing • The proposed modifications would increase unit capacity on some occupied residential properties. This could increase redevelopment pressure on naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH). NOAH is market-rate housing without any government subsidies or interventions, affordable to low and moderate-income individuals and families due to age, condition, or location. • Housing staff analyzed the spatial distribution of NOAH properties that would be impacted by the proposed modifications, defining NOAH as non-subsidized complexes with rental rates at or below the 2023 60% Median Family Income. The analysis found that NOAH is evenly distributed across the city, with the highest number of NOAH complexes in Council Districts 9, 4, 3, and 5.7 After evaluating the impact of proposed modifications to compatibility regulations, staff estimate that 252 of these NOAH complexes could opt to reach their allowable zoning capacity with the largest share of these complexes in Districts 4, 9, and 3. • In the Austin Strategic Housing Blueprint, the City set a goal to “Preserve 10,000 Affordable Housing Units Over 10 Years.” 8 Between 2018 and 2022, the city acquired 5,725 units of affordable housing for preservation. 9 This sets the city on track to meet its goal. The City should continue to prioritize the acquisition of existing NOAH to reduce the potential negative impacts of redevelopment on existing tenants and to preserve current affordability levels. • Increasing residential unit capacity of market-rate developments will increase the number of units that may be affordable to future Austinites as the units age; that is, the proposed amendments may help produce Austin’s future stock of NOAH. Other Regulations that Limit Housing Supply The Compatibility Regulations Analysis shows that compatibility restricts unit capacity most severely in Displacement Risk Areas (as defined by the Uprooted Report).1, 10 Conversely, only 23% of the potential units prevented by compatibility are in High Opportunity areas (as defined by the Austin Strategic Housing Blueprint).1 This spatially disproportionate effect is largely the result of zoning overlays in West Austin that 4 03/28/2024C20-2023-019restrict development intensity. As a result, even though compatibility is being modified citywide, development will still be significantly restricted in West Austin relative to Displacement Risk Areas, which are more common in the eastern crescent. Compatibility will make it easier to develop adjacent to single-family housing, but additional development reforms are needed to make sure that growth is fairly distributed across the city. Manager’s Signature ______________________________________________________________ Citations 1. Compatibility Regulations Analysis. Austin, TX: City of Austin Housing Department, 2023. 2. Rep. Central Texas Assessment of Fair Housing. Denver, CO: Root Policy Research, 2019. 3. Rigsby, Elliott Anne. Understanding Exclusionary Zoning and Its Impact on Concentrated Poverty. The Century Foundation, 2016. 4. Exclusionary Zoning: Its Effect on Racial Discrimination in the Housing Market. The White House Council of Economic Advisers, 2021. 5. Historic housing discrimination in the U.S. Habitat for Humanity. 6. Brennan, Maya, Peiffer, Emily, and Burrowes, Kimberly. How Zoning Shapes our Lives. Housing Matters, 2019. 7. City of Austin Housing Department GIS Analysis of CoStar Group Data, www.costar.com 8. Austin Strategic Housing Blueprint. City of Austin, 2017. 9.Austin Strategic Housing Blueprint Scorecard. Housing Works, 2022. 10. Way, Heather, Elizabeth Mueller, and Jake Wegmann. Rep. Uprooted: Residential Displacement in Austin’s Gentrifying Neighborhoods and What Can Be Done About It , n.d. 5 03/28/2024C20-2023-019