[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6528042,"mediaKeyId","3462685-c8b8b01a7191d37f272235c409211bcf","parentId",3462685,"title","Council delays vote on Acacia Cliffs rezoning after tenants demand protections and DB‑90 reform","audioSeconds",5504,"startMs",3368000,"endMs",8872000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3462685-c8b8b01a7191d37f272235c409211bcf&start=3368&end=8872","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3462685-c8b8b01a7191d37f272235c409211bcf/thumbnail_3368000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6528042/Austin/Travis-County/Texas/Council-delays-vote-on-Acacia-Cliffs-rezoning-after-tenants-demand-protections-and-DB90-reform","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6528042-5a5a1913765070e5db06fb1b1d3662b7/orig.mp4?Expires=1771151259&Signature=GChjXai1xAIBhU-C9jEJWKqojrdbOwDSSPQ-HB5H~7JP8QlAaZRCHRqqUP-WqfhlT-SAtdN~f6SZCtTiz8iBI~r7ySPSwXZRKtTC3I3XRFmCXZsZo-VVED9H8xBm5JAwEXPlN6bweyFnIjAmXIlpGnu7ewvDT4QTsq7qv3lkwhvPpK5u~c2gJzFqE5YvwGfqGrge3bUC5WqH4i-5z0b583e4DOGXnwcjNMJFlH8YGgXamcD3fM4ecphQlFQYA6vTXcW4Obwyq2yGlBbNdziREOx4LCaB~YrSReiy5mP1hkTVfyMHGiUBs9UUTRHT~jBTYL2AMTZAgTskB7ecWAYg-w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Austin","date","2025-05-22T00:00:00Z","article","The Austin City Council postponed a highly contested rezoning request for the Acacia Cliffs apartment complex (item 70) after tenants, neighborhood leaders and housing advocates demanded stronger protections and an indefinite pause while the city revises its DB‑90 density bonus program.

What happened
- Item 70 was on the May 22 zoning agenda as a request to change the site’s zoning and to allow redevelopment under the city’s DB‑90 density bonus program. The developer and applicant representatives said the current garden‑style 50‑year‑old complex is at the end of its life and that redevelopment with a DB‑90 entitlement would produce hundreds of new homes, including the program’s day‑one affordable units and mandated tenant assistance.
- Tenants and community groups countered that the DB‑90 process, as currently written and applied, enables demolition of naturally occurring affordable housing and fails to guarantee that existing low‑cost units be replaced at the same affordability levels. Residents said 290 units at Acacia Cliffs are deeply affordable today (about 30–40% of median family income) and that the DB‑90 replacement units (proposed at higher income bands) would not keep those households in place.
- The council – after hours of testimony and an extended public record — voted 7–4 to postpone the item to June 5 (two‑week postponement) to allow further negotiation between the tenants’ association, the property owner and affordable housing partners and to allow council and staff time to consider changes to DB‑90.

Why residents opposed the rezoning
- Tenants said they had not been given a credible plan to preserve all existing affordable units at the same income levels and that the developer’s proposal would reduce the total number of deeply affordable homes in that location.
- Residents and advocates asked for an immediate postponement and for the city to pursue preservation financing, including public, philanthropic and nonprofit options, that could allow an affordable housing developer to acquire and maintain the property rather than redevelop it into higher‑cost units.
- The tenants’ association and neighborhood groups pressed the council to restore or strengthen the “right to return” and one‑for‑one replacement protections that had been removed from earlier drafts of the density bonus rules.

What the developer said
- The applicant said the property is aged and that a typical renovation is not financially feasible; they said redeveloping the site under DB‑90 would generate the tax credit and programmatic revenue needed to deliver new affordable units and pay for tenant relocation and assistance that would not otherwise be mandatory under the site’s current zoning.
- The applicant committed, if the rezoning were granted, to apply DB‑90 tenant assistance (relocation packages and other benefits) and to provide outreach and relocation specialists for residents.

Council reaction and next steps
- Several council members said DB‑90 needs revision and defended the council’s role in re‑examining density bonus rules. Mayor Kirk Watson told the audience he would post a resolution to start a DB‑90 review and asked colleagues to participate in a fix.
- Councilmember Leslie Duchin moved — and the council approved — a two‑week postponement to June 5 to allow more time for tenant/developer negotiations and for staff and council to consider amendments to the DB‑90 program. The meeting transcript records substantial public testimony and a sustained call from many residents for one‑for‑one replacement and greater displacement mitigations.

Context
- DB‑90 is a density bonus program the council adopted to drive new housing production and incentivize on‑site affordability. Residents and some council members say quick adoption of the program has produced unintended consequences for older, naturally affordable properties by creating an incentive to redevelop sites that today house low‑income households.
- Tenants and preservation advocates asked the city for a coordinated “preservation fund” approach (a model other cities have used) and for the council to prioritize acquisitions or buy‑downs that preserve affordability without displacement.

Ending
- The council’s postponement does not resolve the issue. Tenants and neighborhood groups asked for binding preservation commitments and a formal timetable for DB‑90 review. Developers said delays would add cost and uncertainty. Council members said they want to refine DB‑90 to preserve the city’s limited naturally affordable housing while still enabling new affordable production where feasible.
","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Austin - City Council Meetings - May 22, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Austin City Council postponed a contentious rezoning request for Acacia Cliffs after tenants and neighborhood associations demanded stronger safeguards against displacement and revisions to the city’s DB‑90 density bonus program.","taxTitle","Austin, Travis County, Texas","taxId",2819,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6528047,"Austin council approves $104 million commitment for I‑35 'cap and stitch' roadway foundations, seeks private and state funding for decks",7993,87000,8080000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3462685-c8b8b01a7191d37f272235c409211bcf&start=87&end=8080","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3462685-c8b8b01a7191d37f272235c409211bcf/thumbnail_87000.jpg","/articles/6528047/Austin/Travis-County/Texas/Austin-council-approves-104-million-commitment-for-I35-cap-and-stitch-roadway-foundations-seeks-private-and-state-funding-for-decks","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6528047-202687f30ad019394a7c4e01a404cc95/orig.mp4?Expires=1771151259&Signature=YQusKBQEnFdm2CvLeU8NTwBqpGaqk8mtyNikiFFYzy0YKaZDm6PSwJ5QZw2tDyvjbfBzQJkGsa60FANFNF8~ktWF-pcOXNSPzPEhdLXOiW42lCtxtq~~Bvn0qKpYz6US4PEs0XXhUp9GHX1AXxi9mSZHqS~G4yMMu9Nc7HS8JB6-JMtpJpXs0qJJvfLrng3bFfRCsvo1uFX427BJoB1IZ2kZvoL7DBBUeEsN2ozuGdDFc01o3KQDcZV-otv59h5hFU95Hv6O3e6X-2gfeAzLa4xhV2y3gDJbwBO0XD75eSS0cm0LNXv11do6ov08~peM8LPPELZKNuoB~8dC2STdiQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Austin City Council voted May 22 to commit funding for structural roadway elements that would allow future construction of caps and smaller “stitches” over parts of Interstate 35, approving a set of narrower projects and a funding plan the council said would reduce city cash exposure while leaving room for private and state contributions.

The council approved a resolution to authorize up to $104 million in commitments to preserve the structural elements (sometimes described as “foundations” or “roadway elements”) needed for caps and stitches across several blocks downtown and at northern crossings. The actual budget appropriation the council authorized for the city to set aside immediately was $63 million; staff said the remainder would be pursued through identified loans and other funding mechanisms.

Why it matters: City leaders and neighborhood advocates framed the decision around two competing priorities: (1) reconnecting neighborhoods that I‑35 has separated for decades and building emergency green space and pedestrian connections, and (2) protecting the city’s limited debt capacity and preserving funding for parks, housing and other urgent needs. The compromise that passed funds the “roadway elements” now — so the city can accept a State Infrastructure Bank loan and certificates of obligation if needed — while looking to philanthropy, event revenue, naming rights and other outside sources to pay for the full decks or park amenities later.

What the council approved
- Item 42: Councilmember Paige Ellis moved the staff recommendation as a base motion and then considered amendments. A compromise amendment offered by Councilmember José “Chito” Cadre prevailed. The final motion commits the city to fund roadway elements to integrate caps/stitches at Cesar Chavez to Fourth Street, Fourth to Seventh Street (as additional roadway elements), and Eleventh to Twelfth streets, and to preserve the opportunity for two 300‑foot stitches near the Red Line Parkway. The council approved the final motion 8–2 with one abstention (Councilmembers Lane and Duchin opposed; Councilmember Siegel abstained). The motion directed staff to negotiate an advance funding agreement with TxDOT and to pursue other funding partners.
- Item 43: Council adopted an ordinance to appropriate funds and authorize the city manager to execute an advance funding agreement with TxDOT for the city’s commitment. Staff replaced earlier larger dollar figures in the proposed ordinance with a $63 million appropriation to be available for the advance funding agreement; staff said $41 million was available already in the capital budget and the $63 million would cover the balance of the city’s immediate commitment if needed. The ordinance instructs staff to keep looking for outside funding and to return to council with refinements.

Council direction and process notes
- Council asked staff to return with implementation steps and to keep the community and philanthropy engaged as potential funders. The city manager was directed to prepare financing options and to present those options to the city’s bond advisory and intergovernmental partners for consideration before the city commits additional general obligation or debt capacity.
- The council also voted to postpone decisions that would fund decking amenities until the city has better clarity on funding and partnerships; several council members said they wanted to avoid locking the city into long‑term operations and maintenance obligations it could not afford.

Public input and controversy
- Dozens of residents and local advocates spoke during multiple meetings and the May 22 session. Supporters — neighborhood advocates, climate and urbanists groups and some business leaders — argued caps would reconnect east and west, lower surface temperatures, create parkland and spur economic activity near transit. Opponents warned the caps would be extremely expensive, divert money from urgent needs such as affordable housing, and could worsen water and maintenance burdens in Austin’s drought‑prone future.
- Several speakers asked the council to require stronger guarantees that philanthropic and non‑city sources would actually pay for decks and amenities before the city assumed significant risk.

What’s next
- Staff will negotiate an advance funding agreement with TxDOT and return to council with a refined financing plan, including any philanthropic commitments or alternative funding streams identified. Councilmembers asked staff to continue pursuing private donors, naming rights, event revenues and other dedicated sources that would reduce the city’s direct debt exposure.

Ending note: The council’s vote preserves the technical underpinnings needed to build caps later while directing city and regional partners to harden external funding plans before the city accepts much larger construction or operating obligations. The move leaves open the possibility of different outcomes later — from no decking to limited stitches or to fully built caps — depending on future funding results.","After weeks of public debate, the Austin City Council agreed to fund roadway foundations needed to enable future caps and surface 'stitches' across I‑35, approved an advance‑funding appropriation of up to $63 million and directed staff to continue seeking philanthropic and other non‑general‑fund sources for decking and park amenities.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":46,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6528038,"Council clears settlements: $4.5 million in APD protest case, $95,000 in AFD crash case",8454,418000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3462685-c8b8b01a7191d37f272235c409211bcf&start=418&end=8872","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3462685-c8b8b01a7191d37f272235c409211bcf/thumbnail_418000.jpg","/articles/6528038/Austin/Travis-County/Texas/Council-clears-settlements-45-million-in-APD-protest-case-95000-in-AFD-crash-case","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6528038-32402b7b3ddd7743b24bd56b1e7af1ce/orig.mp4?Expires=1771151259&Signature=Uu~a9hWhmMlIGmnaxKQasvMsxM2UCWGLCVl8AR5J5xh3iO5~wN3tvhkmOxKyqzoiTgstdqOaNozIF7ajeVV2HapkQd-wZu-7uP3gfQiG0~L5UzlGDwp6JyNEOy9I3tsSiaWSMh8UhG97mnyapSSxAIpZajyDuZ0h-Th6Qac9JDorJOHkWCcXGlH8I4kgRjW6xewux00KB60cDDHtbvQmX-~MlSjRB2D-mFqKUZsAtVzCTheE7nq3br3xwcsMLUMLA-QMpYgSpOnBw~8AvMCaC9K25Ww5a5XowKrRiPCJuiFc59CtWbgVFu6gL~MJIJ-eSEMN3jUi7Q9aV0NzZZXi0w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Austin City Council on May 22 approved two legal settlements on the consent agenda.

Sam Kirsch v. City of Austin — $4.5 million
- The city attorney asked the council to approve a $4,500,000 settlement to resolve claims brought by Sam Kirsch related to injuries he sustained from a use‑of‑force incident at a protest on May 31, 2020. The settlement includes a dismissal with prejudice of the federal lawsuit Mr. Kirsch had filed, and releases the city and the named Austin Police Department officers from claims arising from that incident.
- Assistant City Attorney Jeremy Thompson briefed the council in closed‑session procedural remarks and answered brief questions in open session. Mr. Kirsch was present in the hearing and the law department reiterated its recommendation to approve the settlement.

Kita Woods v. City of Austin — $95,000
- The law department asked the council to approve a $95,000 settlement resolving a claim brought by Kita Woods arising from a motor vehicle collision involving an Austin Fire Department vehicle in December 2023. The settlement resolves the claim and dismisses the lawsuit in District Court.

Why the council approved on consent
- Law department staff framed both agreements as prudent settlements to resolve litigation risk and reach an agreed resolution rather than protracted litigation.
- Council did not take public debate on either settlement beyond accepting the law department briefing; a speaker had been listed for one settlement but did not testify.

What happens next
- The payments will be processed according to standard settlement procedures and recorded in the city’s financial statements. The law department will ensure dismissal filings are completed in the relevant courts.
","On the consent agenda the council approved two legal settlements: a $4.5 million payment to Sam Kirsch resolving claims from a 2020 protest use‑of‑force incident, and a $95,000 payment to Kita Woods arising from a December 2023 collision with an Austin Fire Department vehicle.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council delays vote on Acacia Cliffs rezoning after tenants demand protections and DB‑90 reform

Austin council approves $104 million commitment for I‑35 'cap and stitch' roadway foundations, seeks private and state funding for decks

Council clears settlements: $4.5 million in APD protest case, $95,000 in AFD crash case