Council OKs restrictive covenant for Southwest Parkway apartments

The owners of 9.6 acres of undeveloped land at 8413 Southwest Parkway are moving forward with plans to build a total of 438 apartments, including 219 units available to households earning 60 percent of the median family income, as well as 88 units reserved for families at or below 50 percent of the median family income. Another 10 percent of units will be reserved for families at or below 80 percent of median family income.

Building the apartment complex is possible because City Council last week voted to approve changes to a public restrictive covenant for the property. This procedure is atypical of how the city usually approves land use changes in that no zoning change was required – a detail that has neighbors up in arms.

Developer Manifold RE Inc. plans to build the apartment complex on property previously reserved as the site of an office building. Council Member Mackenzie Kelly abstained, but the rest of Council voted in favor of the changes.

A few minutes later, Council unanimously approved a motion to support the developer’s application for a 4 percent low-income housing tax credit. If the Travis County Housing Finance Corporation approves it, the tax credit will be accompanied by private activity bonds. Attorney Richard Suttle represented the developer.

The property is in District 8, which had attained only 2 percent of its 10-year goal for new affordable housing units set as part of the 2017 Strategic Housing Blueprint, according to a 2022 report from HousingWorks Austin. There is little reason to believe that that number has changed significantly since that report. Council Member Paige Ellis strongly supported making the changes to allow for building more affordable units in her district.

A number of neighbors showed up to protest the change in the restrictive covenant, arguing that the site is unsuitable for environmental reasons, lacks access to amenities and is generally incompatible with the neighborhood. However, the project had the support of the Austin Housing Coalition, the Planning Commission and the Environmental Commission. Both of the latter conditioned their support on adherence to certain parts of the Save Our Springs Ordinance – which had not been enacted at the time of the original restrictive covenant.

Justin Jensen is the caretaker of 11 acres of property that shares a border with the property proposed for development. Jensen explained that he manages the land on behalf of the Pottawatomie tribe.

“The land was acquired with an understanding of surrounding building regulations,” he said, noting that it includes an operating honeybee farm, which is difficult to maintain. In addition, he said the property acts as a wildlife refuge for foxes, coyotes and bobcats, birds and possibly an ocelot.

“The plan clear-cuts the forest bordering our property,” he said.

But that may not be the case once the city’s Watershed Protection Department has a look at the plans during the site plan review process.

City arborist Keith Mars said, “So when we talk about heritage trees or what they’re proposing to do, you know, someone can propose eliminating all the heritage trees, but we have our rules in place that might require either a redesign or something of that nature. Just because someone proposed it … (that) doesn’t mean that’s what we’re going to see because of our regulations.”

Jason Svatek, president of Travis Country West Homeowners Association, said he and his neighbors are not opposed to affordable housing. But he said the proposed development is not part of the neighbors’ plan for the area. Among his complaints were a “consolidation of poverty,” minorities and people with low household incomes. He stated that Oak Hill Elementary School is the “lowest performing” school among elementaries in District 8. Svatek complained that there were already a sufficient number of affordable housing units in the area and that the area did not need more of them. That brought considerable pushback from Mayor Kirk Watson, who rarely stops progress of the meeting to argue with a speaker.

Watson said, “It seems to me that that at a time when you say that we need more affordable housing – you suggest you agree we need more affordable housing – that what you would do is you would wipe out affordable housing simply because it’s near additional affordable housing in a district that doesn’t have as much affordable housing as some other areas of the city.”

Several people spoke in favor of the project, including a paramedic with the city of Austin, Cassi Lydon, who told Council, “We have a lot of employees who would really love to be able to live in District 8 and can’t afford to do so currently. For example, we actually have three EMS stations that are within District 8.” For new employees, she said, “it’s just out of their reach to be able to live and work that close together. For example, I believe for a family of four, one of our medics would have to work with us for over 10 years to be able to afford to live in the area for the most part.”

KVUE ran a story on the case this weekend, with the reporter suggesting that Svatek and his neighbors were looking for a way to file suit to stop the project.

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: Housing, District 8