Planning Commission OKs affordable Sunset Ridge site plan in District 8

A plan to build affordable housing on Southwest Parkway continues to move forward, despite continued opposition from surrounding neighborhoods and the Save Our Springs Alliance. 

“There’s always a reason to stop housing. There’s always an excuse to sue to stop housing – especially housing that’s affordable to so many. I’m excited that we get to vote on over 400 homes in District 8, half of which are going to be income-restricted, for families that have very little chance of living in this area otherwise,” Commissioner Greg Anderson said. “I’m excited for kids on both sides of the crash gate to be able to play together and I hope we all … reject all calls to limit them from doing so.” 

In May, City Council approved changes to a restrictive covenant on 9.6 acres at 8412 Southwest Parkway. Developers returned to the Planning Commission last month to get approval on their site plan, which proposes 444 units in eight multifamily buildings. Of those, 101 units will be affordable at or below 50 percent of the Median Family Income (MFI), 77 units will be affordable at or below 60 percent MFI and 44 units will be affordable at or or below 80 percent MFI for the next 40 years, allowing developers to participate in the Affordability Unlocked program. The project will also allow up to 55 percent impervious cover – human-made surfaces that don’t absorb rainfall – in an area where it is usually limited to 25 percent. 

Commissioners voted to support staff’s recommendation and the site plan, with Commissioner Grayson Cox abstaining and Commissioner Alberta Phillips off the dais. 

Jason Svatek, president of the Travis Country West homeowners’ association, spoke against the project and explained that all the surrounding neighborhoods opposed the development in its current form.

“This is not against affordable housing. … We want affordable housing and density in our area,” Svatek said. “This is a fight against anything of this size, scope and density on this parcel of land.”

He also said that, though he appreciated the inclusion of a “crash gate” that will bar connectivity between the new development and his neighborhood, it didn’t go far enough. Svatek expressed worry that pedestrians would simply duck under “to trespass on privately held land.”

“It’s like me asking you to build a pool in your backyard and build a playscape and then tear down all your walls and all your fences and ask 500 of your neighbors to come use your amenities for free,” he said. “That’s what’s about to happen to us.”

He suggested the development should be reduced in scope and impervious cover, as well as be required to put in amenities “to prevent the incursion and trespassing that is about to be happening” and that the crash gate should be “built in such a way that pedestrians can’t just pop underneath and come over.”

Bobby Levinski, who is with the Save Our Springs Alliance, said it was “not a fun task” to speak against income-restricted housing, but the restrictive covenant in question applied to 800 acres of land in the Save Our Springs zone and its interpretation was extremely important to the group.

Levinski said the site plan was not compliant with the impervious cover requirements of city code and that amending the restrictive covenant on the land in order to get around SOS requirements was not a legal tool. “We have to legislate by ordinance,” he said. 

“I think this a really bad situation that the city is in, and it’s going to put this income-restricted housing at risk,” he said. 

Attorney Richard Suttle, representing the developers, said the issue of the restrictive covenants had long been settled. 

“I’m not going to debate Levinski on the arguments, because if he’s really sure, he will sue us. I understand that,” he said. “But I can tell you that the city law department and the city environmental department have all agreed that what we are doing has the SOS (required) water quality, just not the impervious cover.”

Suttle also addressed other concerns raised by neighbors who spoke in opposition to the project. In terms of traffic and safety, Suttle said that they had preemptively agreed to put a light in at Southwest Parkway, with the blessing of Transportation Department staff and without going through a transportation study. And, though he acknowledged the plan would remove heritage trees, he said their removal did not require a public process and had been approved by the city arborist.

The Austin Monitor’s work is made possible by donations from the community. Though our reporting covers donors from time to time, we are careful to keep business and editorial efforts separate while maintaining transparency. A complete list of donors is available here, and our code of ethics is explained here.

Posted In: Planning, District 8