City of Austin Council Message Board

Council Members:

As I said yesterday, DB90 has been an unhappy experience. Even with Council’s well motivated goals for DB90, this density program, as currently created, is proving to be divisive, difficult to utilize, and ultimately too far from achieving the goal of Council to provide more housing by allowing more density.

This is not a condemnation of density bonus programs. We need greater density to achieve the goal of more housing. However, each week, we hear from community members concerned about the impacts of DB90 on their neighborhoods with no alternative. Density bonus programs are meant to better assure affordable housing and community benefits from developments that are already occurring in our rapidly growing city. The unintended consequences we’re seeing need to be addressed.

Some of you also expressed your concern with the program last night, and I, along with Councilmembers Velasquez, Vela, Qadri, and Siegel, are bringing a resolution to initiate amendments to DB90 as well as our other density bonus programs. It’s time that we look at our programs wholistically and create a better system to secure affordable housing in all parts of the city while creating opportunity for neighborhoods to engage.

The main thrust of the resolution is creation of a hierarchy of density bonus paper districts that include both lower and higher heights than DB90. This is a critical necessity in our code, as this provides options that may allow for better outcomes.

The other critical goal of the resolution is to relook at how we can make these programs work better by considering items such as the affordability requirements, height allowances, redevelopment requirements, and commercial standards.

This resolution is broad, and it is meant to be that way. The language allows our city staff to address the issue of DB90 from all angles and think creatively about how we incentivize affordable housing.

In the last few years, the City of Austin positioned itself as a leader in progressive housing change. People across the country look to us for guidance and, as leaders, we should be willing to reexamine efforts that may not be working as intended or that are creating negative outcomes. I look forward to working with you all to further our purpose of creating more housing in the best way we can.

Thanks. Have a great weekend.

Kirk

On behalf of Mayor Watson

Thank you, Mayor, for bringing this forward. I’m proud to partner with you and the other members of our sub quorum in initiating the development of more nuanced density bonus programs that deliver on our goals as a City.

Thoughtful density will lead to increased affordability, improved community benefit and intentional land use.

I am eager to use this opportunity to meaningfully revisit City Code Chapter 4-18 on redevelopment requirements, particularly how we can replace existing naturally affordable units, and explore creative solutions to increasing affordability and mitigating displacement in our rapidly growing city.

- CMJV

Colleagues,

For most of my constituents, the most important question is not how tall the buildings are, but what benefits does the new development bring to the community. I’ve had a number of DB90 cases in District 4 and worked closely with my constituents on these cases. Almost all the DB90 rezonings in District 4 have passed with the active support of the neighborhood. DB90’s strong affordability requirements (12% at 60% compared to VMUs 10% at 80%) actually create affordable homes in District 4. And the ground floor activation requirements are very important to me and my constituents.

But DB90 is only one tool in the zoning toolbox. Like with any zoning district, DB90 may not be the right fit for a particular parcel. In some cases, a tool with lower intensity may be more appropriate. In other cases, we need tools that offer more height than DB90. We are currently seeing requests for more height in the form of LI-PDA or CH-PDA zoning. Our prior effort to reform PDA zoning didn’t quite get it right. Any reform needs to be broader than the Light Industrial/Commercial Highway zoning PDA can be applied to. We need a range of heights above 90 ft, not just one. And we need tools that have baked in affordability and placemaking requirements.

While I support them, I believe we need to take a strong look at improving our ground floor activation requirements. I do not believe that the current requirement, based on each parcel dedicating 75% of the frontage facing the principal street, captures all of the nuances involved in creating diversity of commercial and community amenities within a broader area. Connectivity is also an important consideration that should be a part of zoning, but may exist outside of zoning. This is something my office is exploring.

Finally, we must craft affordability and redevelopment requirements to ensure they are feasible and well calibrated. I do not want to break a tool that is currently working. State law only allows us to attach many of the requirements baked into DB90 as a density bonus. Unlike cities in other states, we are very limited in what requirements we can apply across the board. A landowner can always redevelop under their base entitlements without offering any income restricted units or any of the other tenant protections or community benefits contained in DB90. The Density Bonus Report, emphasizes this point: The incentives offered by density bonuses must be greater than the requirements to participate if we want developers to choose to participate in the program.

I appreciate Mayor Watson bringing forward this item and I look forward to the discussion.

Chito

Thank you, Mayor + colleagues, for bringing forward this resolution to initiate the process of amending DB90 and other density bonus programs. It's essential that we strengthen the effectiveness of these programs so they better serve our low- and moderate-income residents.

As we consider updates, my priority is ensuring that multifamily redevelopment requirements and tenant protections—particularly the one-to-one unit replacement outlined in City Code Chapter 4-18—remain central. We've seen in past redevelopment cases how critical unit replacement is to allowing long-term residents to remain in their communities.

To that end, I am bringing forward an amendment to clarify that staff should include the one-to-one unit replacement requirement in Chapter 4-18 as a key component of these program updates.

http://assets.austintexas.gov/austincou ... 101401.pdf

In community,
Vanessa

Thank you for your feedback, Mayor Pro Tem Fuentes.

I have included a version 2 incorporating your amendment, and will keep the item on the consent agenda.

http://assets.austintexas.gov/austincou ... 191225.pdf

Thanks

Kirk
On Behalf of Mayor Watson