17 C20-2024-004 - Citywide Density Bonus - Public Comment — original pdf

Backup

C20-2024-004 Citywide Density Bonus Program Public Comment as of Thursday, April 23, 2026 Prepared by Austin Planning Includes feedback and comments submitted to staff through various channels as of Thursday, April 23, 2026. 17 C20-2024-004 - Citywide Density Bonus1 of 154/23/26, 6:18 PM City of Austin, TX - Report Creation Project Survey Engagement VIEWS PARTICIPANTS RESPONSES COMMENTS SUBSCRIBERS 3,153 68 488 180 29 􏗽 All participants All participants All Time Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statement: This summary of Austin's affordable housing needs reflects your experience with or your understanding of housing affordability in Austin. Moderately Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Moderately Disagree 26 % 24 % 24 % 14 % 12 % 42 respondents https://publicinput.com/Reporting/ReportPreview/41666 1/4 17 C20-2024-004 - Citywide Density Bonus2 of 154/23/26, 6:18 PM City of Austin, TX - Report Creation Please rank the following priorities we've heard from Austinites regarding density programs in the order you think we should prioritize from 1 (highest priority) to 5 (lowest priority). Select and drag a priority into the "Next Priority" box to move it. You do not have to rank every priority. 76% 79% 72% 59% 55% Provide affordable housing in addition to a mix of other community benefits (public open space, ground-floor stores, civic/cultural spaces, bike lanes, transit amenities, Rank: 2.14 22 ✓ etc.). Be sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood context. Rank: 2.43 23 ✓ Be intentional about preserving existing affordable housing. Rank: 2.57 21 ✓ Offer a mix of income-restricted housing levels, not just deep affordability or only Rank: 2.82 17 ✓ moderate affordability. Tall buildings should be near transit; mid-rise and shorter buildings are more Rank: 3.69 16 ✓ appropriate farther from transit. 29 Respondents Existing density bonus programs in Austin generally aim to serve rental households at levels anywhere from 50% MFI ($66,900 for a 4-person household) up to 80% MFI ($104,200 for a 4-person household). The new Citywide Density Bonus Program would require a minimum of 10% of the proposed rental units to be affordable for households at 50% MFI or below, to match the area of greatest existing need in Austin. Do you agree with this approach to require units affordable at 50% MFI and below? Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Moderately Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Moderately Disagree 36 % 22 % 14 % 14 % 14 % 36 respondents https://publicinput.com/Reporting/ReportPreview/41666 2/4 17 C20-2024-004 - Citywide Density Bonus3 of 154/23/26, 6:18 PM City of Austin, TX - Report Creation Some existing density bonus programs in Austin include tenant protections and unit replacement requirements, while others do not or only require some of these items. Do you agree with the new Citywide Density Bonus Program's approach to including extra requirements when existing lower cost housing is redeveloped? Strongly Agree Moderately Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree 31 % 21 % 21 % 17 % 10 % 29 respondents Existing density bonus programs have offered either no additional height, +30', or +60'. The new Citywide Density Bonus program includes more height options (no additional height, +15', +30', +45', and +60') that can match different neighborhood contexts. Do you agree with the approach to have more height options? Strongly Agree Moderately Agree Moderately Disagree Strongly Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree 37 % 17 % 17 % 17 % 13 % 30 respondents https://publicinput.com/Reporting/ReportPreview/41666 3/4 17 C20-2024-004 - Citywide Density Bonus4 of 154/23/26, 6:18 PM City of Austin, TX - Report Creation Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statement: Many tools are needed to address affordability in Austin, and the new Citywide Density Bonus Program should be one of those tools. Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Moderately Agree Moderately Disagree 33 % 27 % 17 % 17 % 7% Neither Agree nor Disagree 30 respondents https://publicinput.com/Reporting/ReportPreview/41666 4/4 17 C20-2024-004 - Citywide Density Bonus5 of 15Raw Comment Source In response to: From your perspective, please add anything we may have missed in this summary of Austin's affordable housing needs We cannot use affordable housing as an excuse to destroy existing neighborhoods. People's back yards are private spaces and need to be kept free from new construction towering over them. Any new development needs to allow both renters and homeowners access to nature, including pollinator friendly plantings in yards, dark sky sensitivity in lighting, and fruit and vegetable gardening opportunities. We cannot have endless lawns that are scraped flat, poisoned and watered ceaselessly, and lit up in a way that destroys both human enjoyment and animal habitat. Yes to diverse plantings and nature and clean water with appropriate rain management. Survey I strongly disagree with establishing a density bonus program. The existing programs and efforts in Austin to create density are flawed. In short, they support building taller, denser buildings around transit corridors/hubs. Citizens inhabiting that housing are not going to overwhelmingly use bikes, buses, or walk. A larger building translates to higher building and maintenance costs, which trickle down to the cost of the housing for tenants/buyers. People who can afford those costs are not going to be using public transportation for their main type of transportation. Look at Dallas' DART. Hardly anyone uses it. Look at New York City. If density translated to affordable housing, NYC would be the most affordable place in the nation. I own a rental house. If I built a larger, taller, denser building on the property, it would cost me a fair bit of money. And my property taxes, insurance, mortgage & interest, and maintenance/repair costs would be higher each year than that for a smaller building. I would charge my tenants/buyers rent or prices that cover all of my costs. So the idea that density translates to more affordable housing is not logical. If you build denser housing and subsidize it, then costs would be lower for tenants/buyers. But that is a bad idea to build housing through the city that Austin is subsidizing. If people cannot afford to live in Austin, then Austin needs to lower the property taxes and/or people need to decide to live in places they can afford.; Density is profiting those in Austin's government that have ties to real estate investments. I don't recall this: "When Austin voters approved funding for Project Connect in 2020, they also sent a clear signal that they wanted to ensure that lower-income Austinites would also benefit from the new transit by being able to afford housing along the Project Connect transit lines." being any part of that vote. I do know that I regret having voted for project connect. Forever tax increases like this and the city of austin's wasteful spending is what is driving the decrease in affordability here. Y'all have completely ignored the will of us voters. We voted down Codenext years ago. Yet, y'all keep finding a way to stuff it down our throats. Everyone should step down except for Marc Duchen. This includes the mayor! The phrase "due in part to rapid population growth" should read "due in LARGE part to rapid population growth and City of Austin policies that encourage that growth". What is actually affordable or MFI relative to another major city with a lower MFI. It Austin's MFI is much higher and lower-income households are getting pushed out to the suburbs of the Metro, then the 2025 average MFI is even more skewed for city-limits. It would seem to be in my opinion that 30% of MFI or about $1,000 per month is "affordable". As a single individual looking to build on my SF3 lot as a personal investment, I don't want to contribute to the speculating and profiteering of housing done by so many developers. $1,000 rental-income might need to be subsidized OR built "efficiently" through better design methods and still good quality. Something simple. I think if I could build a triplex of 1,030 sq ft each dwelling, there might be room or could substitute for some smaller dwellings, around 500 sq ft designated "affordable". Austin needs to protect existing affordable housing. This proposal is about giving developers more flexibility. Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey It would be helpful if you provided an affordability table for a 1 or 2 person household, since many of us don't live in a 4-person household. Survey My understanding is that cost to build is up an average 58% since 2017, and that as a result some builders have exited the market (or simply don't try to build in Austin proper, instead moving to a surrounding area to build). And as a result, several city council districts are not meeting their affordable housing goals. The Housing Blueprint needs to be updated, and needs to reflect new information and innovations to reduce cost to build City subsidies and coddling developers is a mistake. I strongly oppose any incentives to developers and citizens. City staff don't understand the marketplace. Just let the marketplace function! Survey Survey 17 C20-2024-004 - Citywide Density Bonus6 of 15It doesn't appear that you have taken into consideration our water supply, electric grid, traffic patterns, taxpayer burden. Please halt growth until you all can figure out the above. More is not always better, and those of us who live and work here are impacted by the growing density on a daily basis. Common sense approach, not more taxpayer funded programs, please. Thank you for asking. Survey No Multifamily housing units shall be placed where a there currently is/was a single family dwelling. Don't mess up our neighborhoods by increasing housing density! Survey In response to: Do you generally agree with these priorities? Is there anything you would add? Encourage more natural building through straw bale and cob training programs. Flood prevention needs to be more aesthetically integrated. Don't allow land to be entirely scraped of trees. Survey I oppose everything I read about this Density Bonus Program. These programs and laws are ruining Austin and the neighborhoods in it. People used to want to come and live in Austin. That is changing, because Austin is just becoming another Dallas or Houston. There is nothing unique or special about denser buildings. The city is just becoming a lot of tall, uninteresting buildings that degrade citizens' quality of life.; I do not agree with the priorities other than to be sensitive to surrounding neighborhoods. Do not give lip service to community engagement.; I do not generally agree with these priorities. Council Staff is forcing a plan on us which neighborhoods do NOT want! Who are you listening to? Why would anyone want a store on their next door neighbor's front yard? This is totally unwanted. Survey Survey The priorities are generally ok. The crucial missing element is how does the city council revise outdated rules or laws to support quality of life, for all residents, in a densely-built city. Austin has not adapted this reality while focusing on the physical building of structures. Survey Regardless of what you call it No More Codenext! Survey I disagree with creating more affordable housing. Rent control and subsidized housing reduce the incentive for developers to build new units, which can tighten supply over time and paradoxically drive up market-rate prices. Survey 17 C20-2024-004 - Citywide Density Bonus7 of 15I generally agree with these priorities, however, as a homeowner who has resided in the same home since 1998, I would add that it is damaging to the fabric of a neighborhood, when developers are given looser regulations around trees, or setbacks, in exchange for CURRENT city priorities. I watched, in my own neighborhood - Dawson, as Mercury Hall was "developed" from a heavily wooded event site to a dense multi-story apartment complex, called the Mercury. The tree protections were a joke...literally there were no fences around the CRZ of the protected trees as they bulldozed the lot! When I spoke to the city arborist’s office about it, I was told they don't oversee commercial development. The insanity of not requiring a developer to follow the same rules as a homeowner boggles the mind. If I pull a permit to install a deck near protected trees the city arborist will come out and check the holes I dig for the piers...but if I am a big developer I can use heavy equipment near those same trees all in the name of expedience for development of housing units that now are sitting empty because of over-development in the past few years. The lifespan of those apartments is maybe 50 years, but the trees they were allowed to remove were in some cases 100+ years old. We can't re-build the environmental services back that were destroyed by the city's unequal rules around those trees and land development. Also, the push for increased density on transit corridor streets makes sense when there is ample room to expand the street to handle the increased traffic. However, on a street like S. First Street, we feel every additional car from the Mercury development...the solution of barricading the center stripe in front of the garage entrance off of S. First is a band-aid. A street without a dedicated turn lane, like S. First, is not appropriate for the same level of density as a street with a dedicated turn lane, like S. Congress or S. Lamar. So, making sure that the changes to the density programs address the capacity of the road, not just whether there are buses on the road is important. Finally, I wholeheartedly agree that we need more affordable housing solutions, but rather than shoehorning giant apartment buildings into the edges of existing single family neighborhoods I think it would be better to encourage the redevelopment of sites along larger roadways that have already been paved. It shouldn't be the environment vs housing. If the incentives are handled with sensitivity we can maintain our urban tree canopy, work with existing traffic patterns, and redevelop underused and blighted sites into the larger developments that the city is trying to encourage. For example, twice the number of units that were built at the Mercury could have been located just a few blocks south of Mercury Hall along one of the numerous blighted sites on Ben White/Hwy 71, while encouraging a much smaller development at Mercury Hall that would have protected the native flora and fauna that guarded against urban heat islands, and flooding via pervious cover. It is much more complex than just incentivizing more housing units! I can not agree. The general idea of increasing density (people + cars) with a fixed quantity of roadways plus limited public transportation along with a decreasing water supply just seems like a dangerously short sighted idea. I'm concerned about quality of life in future Austin. Keep the application and enforcement processes as simple as possible VMU's density bonuses (at least originally) did not include extra height but included removing FAR limits, side setbacks and caps on units per acre in exchange for on-site affordable units. That approach seems to have been very successful. I am concerned about undoing VMU's density bonuses. Extra height is frequently quite unpopular and is frequently not necessary for achieving the laudable goal of extra density. Extra density can be achieved through the use of VMU's existing density bonus toolkit (i.e., removing FAR limits, side setbacks and density caps). Our community also badly needs walkable supportive housing for seniors and adults with limited mobility. I disagree. Austin has done a great job making housing more affordable thru increasing supply. Many affordable units end up more expensive than market rate units while adding to more paperwork for developers and the City. Street level amenities would be great as the offer a benefit to the developer and the neighborhood. I would love to see better streetscapes with more trees (this may require undergrounding utilities, another plus) and higher quality architecture so Austin does not look like one big grey box after another. Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Council must be sensitive to overburdening established communities as the more dense populated units will put a strain on services. Council must also consider the change in quality of life issues when changing the nature of a community by increasing the density. Survey Based on what I have seen in Austin and other cities, "tall buildings" are by their very nature not conducive to so-called "affordable housing" The city should examine what heights of residential construction results in an optimum height. (i.e. three stories, four stories, five stories...?) Regardless of the type of buildings however, the fundamental problem is excessive population growth and policies that promote that growth. Current Neighborhood HOA rules override policy unless approved by resident owners Survey Survey 17 C20-2024-004 - Citywide Density Bonus8 of 15There is a lot of nuance in the "middle". SF3 lots may be a good starting point on this. Survey I do not generally agree with the priorities as written, except for the one to preserve existing affordable housing. I would like to see affordable housing prioritized over other community benefits. I don't like the phrasing of "Tall buildings should be near transit". Instead, the tall buildings should be on major thoroughfares or larger streets, not based on whether or not there is transit. Some smaller streets have transit. I don't agree that a mix of affordability levels is preferable in all situations. The affordability levels offered should be specific to the type of project and what will work out financially for it. I generally agree that you should be sensitive to the neighborhood context, but that is a loaded statement that has been used in the past to oppose all proposed affordable housing or density projects in some neighborhoods. no mention of mixed income, multigenerational housing - only "affordable housing". My sense is that Austinites don't love the IDEA of affordable housing (I know it's not the same as in year's past, but many think of "Cabrini Green" (Chicago) old school housing. We can do better than that (and I believe better than the current model of affordable housing) Austin has done an abysmal job of respecting existing neighborhoods. I'm sick and tired of Austin coddling and subsidizing rich developers!! The influence of the developers is corrupting Austin city government!! Again, it is not the burden of taxpayers to provide for others, unless voluntarily. I do believe that cutting some of the bureaucracy and entitlements and bloated budgets might help with the long range plans for our great city. no, i don't think it's appropriate to tax new development or treat tall buildings as incompatible with existing neighborhoods In response to: If a density bonus development is proposed near your neighborhood, what factors would make you more likely to support it? Large buffer zone of big trees so that privacy is maintained. If the development is beautiful straw bale and cob homes with vegetable gardens and nature instead of acres of concrete I would feel more enthusiasm. If co-housing style HOA documents were in place to encourage community connection. Not building it. I will oppose it as much as possible. Revise quality of life rules by understanding best practices from other densely-built U.S. Cities. Some animals, e.g. roosters, are incompatible with dense urban life. So is air pollution created by deliberate idling trucks and vehicles. Large U.S. cities have ordinances against these things. Austin has not even thought about these impacts yet as they rush to build. I would not support it and don't want it anywhere in the city. No tall buildings. I didn't support Codenext and I won't support any density development. It's not a bonus! Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey 17 C20-2024-004 - Citywide Density Bonus9 of 15Absolutely nothing. Concentrating subsidized housing in specific areas can depress surrounding property values, which shrinks the local tax base. That means less revenue for schools, roads, and services the whole community depends on. I bought my house and I don’t get any magical support or help with my mortgage, and I work a full time job. Why do I get punished? Poorly planned affordable housing developments can concentrate poverty, which correlates with higher crime, weaker schools, and fewer commercial amenities. The track record of large public housing projects in the U.S. — Cabrini-Green, Pruitt-Igoe — is a cautionary tale. From a free-market perspective, the core issue is that affordable housing policies substitute bureaucratic judgment for price signals. Prices communicate scarcity and direct resources; overriding them with subsidies and mandates tends to create shortages, misallocation, and political capture of who gets what. Survey I would support density bonuses if you encourage development along larger roadways like Ben White, where the environmental destruction has already occurred, that allow for the land to truly be maximized and used to its highest potential. Places where the additional traffic can be absorbed by the roadways. I am tired of paying off developers to make the same ugly building, with pencil diameter trees, on a clear-cut lot, they were going to build anyway. My tax dollars should not be spent to encourage the clearcutting of functioning urban woodlands or to encourage traffic jams where there is no way of mitigating the traffic. Density around transit only works when people use the transit. Planning in isolation without taking into account all of the impacts of the changes that will be set in motion by the actions of the code changes has to stop. The answer is not as simple as: more housing good...and this is not a NIMBY point of view...it is a point of view that understands the complexity of any change. In an age of climate emergency, housing insecurity, and general instability, it is important to look at the big picture if we are going to succeed as a community. We can build more houses without destroying what makes Austin a place people want to live: the natural beauty and the existing neighborhoods. Don't incentivize things that developers were going to do anyway...they want to build houses. Incentivize them to build better houses while protecting our environment. Corresponding transit improvements. I would support it if the development is vertical mixed use with ground floor retail, if it includes housing targeting to seniors and includes public spaces such as pocket parks. Better streets, bulb outs, trees, nice looking streetlights, good street level architecture, small storefronts, intersection treatments (brick or pavers), basically anything that will make the neighborhood I live in better. The increase in housing units (and commercial space) will make housing more affordable (as studies show). If it changes the quality of life and the reason I moved here to have a residential experience, I would oppose it. I do not see any benefit to my neighborhood and would need to know how it benefits rather than challenges my quality of life. For well established Single Family Residential neighborhoods, NO FACTOR would make me support density bonus development in those neighborhoods. There are ample previously developed commercial areas within the city limits of Austin where some form of density bonus may be appropriate and possible, but NOT within SFR neighborhoods. If it's based on the Mueller model where families apply under strict rules, I would be more than likely. But in my neighborhood, it makes no sense. It typically means building an apartment in a nice neighborhood full of medium to large single family homes. Intentional Developers! That is something I would need to think about. Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey 17 C20-2024-004 - Citywide Density Bonus10 of 15There is a lot of construction noise in my neighborhood, so that is a big concern. If they can restore or renovate existing buildings, that would be less expensive and also less disruptive to the neighborhood. New projects need to provide more affordable housing than they destroy by tearing down or renovating an existing building. If a project doesn't do that, and many don't, it's not worth it for the community; the benefits go to the developers. The project would need to provide a significant amount of affordable housing, or fee-in-lieu for affordable housing; other types of community benefits are lower priority. If it offered community benefits needed in the neighborhoods (a grocery store, pocket park), or deeper affordability levels Not call it anything "Affordable Housing"... Instead, we need to streamline permitting, do city-owned developments to reduce or eliminate "rent seekers" (developer 20% margins, realtor fees, reduce code requirements when they can't demonstrate verifiable safety OUTCOMES, innovative efficiency programs like distributed thermal networks, incorporated solar, green spaces, more walkable with "remote", and reduced parking...etc). Goal would be for the city to develop their own expertise, look at cost drivers, and eliminate/reduce them... I'm sure you're aware that in some european cities (and not low-cost ones) frequently build city owned developments, sometimes created as "eco-districts", that regularly lease at rates for 2-3 bedrooms that meet your stated MFI cost-burden objectives. Respect the existing efforts citizens have made to create and preserve wonderful neighborhoods. Save us from the greedy developers!! Nothing at this point. Traffic, crime, street peddlers, congestion are all very real to those of us who are affected. Please listen and stop building for now. None In response to: Existing density bonus programs in Austin generally aim to serve rental households at levels anywhere from 50% MFI ($66,900 for a 4-person household) up to 80% MFI ($104,200 for a 4-person household). The new Citywide Density Bonus Program would require a minimum of 10% of the proposed rental units to be affordable for households at 50% MFI or below, to match the area of greatest existing need in Austin. Do you agree with this approach to require units affordable at 50% MFI and below? Please explain the main reason for your level of agreement or disagreement. I disagree with this entire proposal. The word "bonus" should never be used in association with Citywide Density Programs. Rent control and subsidized housing reduce the incentive for developers to build new units. Government-managed or heavily regulated housing tends to deteriorate faster than market-rate housing because the feedback loop between tenant, owner, and market is broken. There’s less incentive to maintain what you don’t fully own or compete for. I support a free market, not a welfare state. This density bonus approach only serves one level of affordability (50% MFI). It should instead serve multiple levels of affordability so that more of the community can benefit from this program. 10% is too high for 50% MFI, unless you are doubling the size of the building this is a significant subsidy on market rate units. This will drive market rates up and make them less affordable. This traps residents in income restricted units which may be hard to find, require extra paperwork and incentive residents to keep their income level to avoid pricing themselves out. Ultimately, market rate housing is best when possible. Also, the MFI should be determined by the market rates of the units being delivered. If the building is very expensive, offering 100% MFI could be reasonable, a cheaper development on the edge of town may have not problem offering 50% MFI since their rents may be close anyways. Not clear on this point Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey 17 C20-2024-004 - Citywide Density Bonus11 of 1510 percent is way too low. It should be at least 30 percent. And it should be tiered, for example: 10% of units at 30% MFI, 10% at 40% MFI, and 10% at 50% MFI. Also, 40 years is too short. Should be at least 60 years. too high a %, CoA has barely met its goals to build less than 50% MFI housing units. Better for community I can see both sides I think it should be 15% I think there should be more. Some housing advocates say that we should provide more housing for people at 30% MFI or below. If the level is at 50% MFI, not enough housing may be provided for people at or below 30%. I don't think it should be above 50% MFI if they are only proving 10% affordable units, but maybe there could be opportunities for layered benefits where the developer provides additional affordable units at a higher MFI level. Agree, but also requiring a lower percentage of units to serve populations at or below 40 or 30% MFI also serves a high need population I believe all people should have opportunity to live where they want/work instead of what they can afford. Not ambitious enough - some cities, elsewhere, regularly set goals of 70% "affordable" - but not by subsidies for developers - instead, driving out costs to make "housing affordable" (not affordable housing, if you see the distinction) Traffic, congestion, water rationing, electricity costs, waste management, crime. I agree deeper affordability should be prioritized, but implementing an unfunded density requirement will result in a drop in housing overall and increase the cost of living burden for a broader set of the population than subsidizing density bonuses. In response to: Some existing density bonus programs in Austin include tenant protections and unit replacement requirements, while others do not or only require some of these items. Do you agree with the new Citywide Density Bonus Program's approach to including extra requirements when existing lower cost housing is redeveloped? Please explain the main reason for your level of agreement or disagreement. As a landlord, why would I want those restrictions as outlined? It eats into my profits. If people cannot afford to live here, then they need to live elsewhere. Or the city needs to lower property taxes. I'm in favor as long as it doesn't require a high rise of building over 2 stories high. I am a supporter of a free market, not a gov controlled welfare state. This is a great way to combat the notion of "gentrification". Even though gentrification could be fought by allowing enough housing to be built for everyone in every neighborhood, this will help put people at ease. Unclear how this works Perhaps if the city would make building less onerous and expensive to build, we wouldn't need all this additional expense. Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey 17 C20-2024-004 - Citywide Density Bonus12 of 15Tenants don't have enough rights. Housing is a right, should be less of a means for developers to make money. Better for renter Survey Survey The city should provide incentives to retain as much as possible of existing affordable rental housing. It is the least expensive option for providing affordable housing, and it also allows tenants to continue to live where they are. Providing strict requirements to help existing tenants and requiring a higher percentage of affordable units with redevelopment are both good policies because they may limit the amount of redevelopment and increase the number of new affordable units if redevelopment occurs. The measures to mitigate displacement costs are essential for the tenants. I recommend raising the MFI level above 70% for the existing affordable housing included in this program so more of it is included. I also recommend increasing the potential maximum percentage of affordable units required. Survey See other comments. Too much emphasis on complex "programs" that attempt to incentivize developers/builders (and thus do nothing to solve total cost to build problem). Survey In response to: Existing density bonus programs have offered either no additional height, 30', or 60'. The new Citywide Density Bonus program includes more height options (no additional height, 15', 30', 45', and 60') that can match different neighborhood contexts. Do you agree with the approach to have more height options? Please explain the main reason for your level of agreement or disagreement. I oppose denser, taller buildings. Shouldn't be anything over 30' +0 should be the only option and no subdividing lots. Government overreach I think that it is all about the right solution to the right spot. Having more lower height options (including no extra ht) makes sense in properties that back up on to existing residential properties Flexibility is important This seems reasonable. We badly need lots of additional housing at all income levels. If more developers use the tool because of the flexibility that is great. But it needs to be clear what is required so this does not become a tool to stall projects Unclear I agree with more options for bonus heights. I disagree with no maximum FAR and no maximum residential density. I don't trust the city to make the height appropriate for most neighborhoods. Understand the intent. But what will guide a developer to choosing a height that is "right" for a neighborhood. Privacy Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey 17 C20-2024-004 - Citywide Density Bonus13 of 15It seems good to provide more height options, but I don't know the practical impact of this policy on development decisions. I think the lack of a maximum FAR or minimum lot size might create problems in some situations, but I don't know what the particular circumstances might be; those policies could impact other standards like tree cover, setbacks, and impervious cover. Too complex. And incentivizing with extra height, while it might be helpful, is not necessarily so. Height above "mid-rise" types frequently are much more expensive to build (increased code requirements, structural, overly expensive elevator requirements etc.) Neighborhoods should definitely have a vote. Government usually is not responsive or knowledgable. I agree in principle but given past experiences I do not trust city staff or council to apply appropriate height limits. Survey Survey Survey Survey Especially when it comes to affordability requirements, the same standards at 15' and 30' additional height as 60' makes developers less inclined to use a density bonus program at all at the lower tiers. Survey In response to: Please let us know any additional thoughts you would like to share about the new Citywide Density Bonus Program. Do not move forward with the Density Bonus Program. Destroying single family neighborhoods only enriches the developers at everyone else's expense. It does not make living in Austin more affordable, it just has negative long-term consequences to families and our schools. The new Citywide Density Program aka Codenext is not a bonus! Survey Survey Survey Rent control and subsidized housing reduce the incentive for developers to build new units, which can tighten supply over time and paradoxically drive up market-rate prices. Price floors and ceilings almost always produce unintended consequences — this is basic economics, not ideology. Survey If state law is making it easier to build housing, Austin should embrace that. Austin and the State often have conflicting priorities, so I do not understand why the City would be against this. Austin should also consider offering expedited or fixed permitting timelines for developers as an option in addition to height. Developers would be keen on reducing the risk in their project and this can help more housing get built faster with no impacts to neighborhoods. Need more information to support. Since you like to fund things, pay moving expenses for existing neighbors negatively impacted. Where the data on existing home values once these taller buildings at within eye sight. Big miss. Focusing on providing more affordable housing for less than 50% should be the main goal. The city has barely met its previous goals, this could be a big step that would continue to set Austin apart, and keep its lower income residents in the city - improving the side affects of all the accompanying issues of growing urban sprawl. Qualifying should be determined by net income, not gross. Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey I agree that we need a density bonus program, but I don't know how the outcomes from the proposed Citywide Density Bonus Program will differ from the current programs, so I can't evaluate whether it will be better. Survey Agree - but you're looking in the wrong places IMHO. Instead of incentives going to rent seekers, work on removing barriers to build, policies/code revisions that make it more cost-effective to build. Survey 17 C20-2024-004 - Citywide Density Bonus14 of 1590’ heights are completely inappropriate at 25’ from a single family home. In addition some uses - notably restaurants or bars - should require additional regulations to operate in close proximity to residences (noise, trash, hours, dumpsters, grease pits etc). Survey Density shouldn't need a bonus. Unfunded affordability requirements result in less housing. This approach is misguided but a citywide density bonus program is better than no additional density at all. Survey Dear COA, Please correct the Error Loading issue below with your policy page. I cannot get any info on the proposed program. Seriously, you are hosting meetings on it and the info is not available! I have tried browser searches and they all lead to this as the source and there is no information available. Things like this make members of the public think this may be a ploy to keep them unaware of the program. Please alert me when this is corrected. Email You lose a lot of the audience by throwing in MFI percentages rather than stating working in the actual dollars, or tiers stating income language which year, why do you not mention those in presentation and conversations which most people can more easily understand. Virtual Open House Grant the bonus entitlements by right and use the extra tax revenue for affordable housing Density bonus programs produce less housing than granting the entitlements by right In-Person Open House In-Person Open House 17 C20-2024-004 - Citywide Density Bonus15 of 15