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

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.