Council approves Acacia Cliffs rezoning despite tenants' pleas; DB90 debate to continue

The Austin City Council approved a rezoning for the Acacia Cliffs apartment complex (agenda item 103) on second and third reading after a lengthy public hearing and technical testimony on June 5.

The rezoning will allow the property owner to pursue redevelopment under the staff-recommended plan. Mayor Kirk Watson moved the motion to approve the staff recommendation on second and third reading; Council Member José Velásquez seconded it. The council adopted the motion (the final roll call was recorded as 10 yes, 0 no, 1 abstention; Council Member Paige Ellis was shown as abstaining).

The approval followed more than three hours of public testimony and a technical presentation about slope stability at the site. Dozens of Acacia Cliffs residents said the complex — home to about 290 units of naturally occurring affordable housing — should be protected from demolition and that the city should postpone approval until the city’s DB90 density-bonus program is amended to require stronger tenant protections and 1-for-1 replacement of affordable units. “This rezoning would mean the loss of the 290 naturally occurring affordable housing units,” tenant organizer Noe Elias said during public comments. Several tenants described the property as their only affordable option near jobs and transit.

Neighborhood leaders and engineers also testified. Jim Montgomery, president of the Judges’ Hill Neighborhood Association, and geotechnical experts raised slope and foundation concerns because the site sits below a Butte limestone rim and above Del Rio clay — a geology associated with past slope failures in the Shoal Creek corridor. Professor Robert Gilbert of the UT Austin Civil Engineering Department described earlier slope failures in the area and explained that a deep cut for a parking structure would require substantial geotechnical mitigation. Philip Bullock, a professional geologist, emphasized that the proposed development footprint encroached on the city-identified canyon rim feature and its buffer.

The applicant and its consultant said they will move forward with further geotechnical study and that they recorded a restrictive covenant committing to tenant-protection measures, including relocation assistance and notice. Michael Whalen, speaking for the applicant, said the team has committed in writing to provide a relocation specialist and relocation payments consistent with the city’s DB90 requirements; he said the applicant would pay a standardized moving/payment amount to all tenants and that no redevelopment is planned before 2027. “We recorded a restrictive covenant that binds the property to the same tenant protections that are provided under DB90,” Whalen said.

Tenants, advocacy groups and some council members said the recorded covenant and the DB90 protections did not go far enough. Tenants and organizers urged explicit, legally binding language requiring 1-for-1 replacement of affordable units at existing rents or at the same rental tiers, stronger relocation standards, and a preservation fund to let affordable developers make competitive purchase offers. Eric Gomez, a resident and tenants’ leader, told council that “the amendments of DB90 cannot be just a menu of options for real estate developers. It must set forth protections for the tenants.”

Council members debated risks both ways: some said denying or postponing the rezoning could make an affordable redevelopment by a nonprofit infeasible and risk loss of maintenance and tenant protections today; others said approving the rezoning under the current DB90 construct would make displacement more likely and would leave tenants with inadequate protections. Council discussion repeatedly returned to a core point: DB90 has produced “unintended consequences” and needs revision before it is used on existing multifamily properties. Council members agreed to pursue a package of follow-up work: Mayor Pro Tem Vanessa Fuentes’ amendment to DB90 (to require stronger replacement and tenant protections) will be part of the DB90 review; Council Member Mark Duchin said he will pursue creation of a preservation fund for naturally occurring affordable housing; staff will return with technical analysis and next steps for codifying stronger tenant protections. Councilmembers also asked the applicant and neighborhood to complete a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to define the geotechnical study and community review steps before site-plan approval.

Ending: The council’s vote lets the owner pursue the staff-recommended redevelopment path, but the decision is not the last word. Tenants and housing advocates said they will press the council and staff to complete amendments to DB90 and to build a preservation fund. Several council members said they will continue work on DB90 changes and follow-up protections and that staff will return with additional policy and technical analysis. The developer and neighborhood indicated they will continue work on an MOU and on geotechnical design commitments.