SOS variance for aquifer development fails to win Environmental Commission support

A proposal to initiate an amendment to the Save Our Springs Ordinance to increase the allowable amount of impervious cover over the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone failed to win the Environmental Commission’s support Wednesday. Impervious cover is any human-made surface that doesn’t absorb rainfall – such as parking lots, streets and rooftops.

Builders of a proposed development, Hays Commons MUD, are also seeking to create a municipal utility district, which the commission is expected to address separately.

The developer, Milestone Community Builders, is proposing to build 700 single-family homes on a 497-acre site. The proposal includes some commercial development and over 227 acres of open space and trails. The property is located within Austin’s extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) and partly within an unincorporated area of Hays County. The developer is requesting limited annexation from the city of Austin.

The SOS Ordinance, which voters overwhelmingly passed in 1992, limits development in the aquifer recharge zone to 15 percent impervious cover. Milestone is seeking an SOS variance to increase the amount of impervious cover to 25 percent net site area.

Amendments to the SOS Ordinance can be initiated at the City Council level or the Planning Commission. Such an amendment requires a supermajority vote of the Council.

The proposal has the recommendation of the city’s Watershed Protection staff because it would guarantee higher environmental standards under the city’s purview. A new state law allows property owners to petition for release from a municipality’s ETJ, giving them the ability to develop under lesser standards.

In her presentation to the commission, Leslie Lilly, environmental conservation manager with the Watershed Protection Department, said that 16 percent “and counting” of property owners in the Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer zone have already successfully petitioned for release from the city’s ETJ.

Lilly said several considerations went into staff’s recommendation, including the developer’s commitment to apply city of Austin standards for protection of critical water quality features, creek setbacks, tree protection, floodplain regulations, light pollution reduction and bird-safe building standards. The developer would also dedicate 157 acres of conservation land around Little Bear Creek, which flows through the property.

The proposal has drawn opposition from residents in both Travis and Hays counties, as well as environmental groups.

“The proposed density is really the big problem,” said Mike Clifford of the Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance, who was joined by representatives of the Save Our Springs Alliance, Save Barton Creek Association and the Sierra Club at Wednesday’s meeting.

Bobby Levinski of the SOS Alliance told commissioners that opponents visited Council offices over the summer to discuss the proposed development. “The comments we got from the offices were, ‘While we support housing, we don’t support housing at this location.’”

Commissioners deliberated at length and raised several questions of staff and Milestone agent Jeff Howard.

 “I am very much pro-housing and subscribe to the idea of Imagine Austin,” said Commissioner Melinda Schiera. “I’m really trying to look for the value here and I’m not seeing it.”

Howard responded: “The environmental sensitivity actually (is) why you should initiate this amendment. …There’s no dispute that this property could leave the ETJ, there’s no dispute if it left the ETJ that it would not be subject to any city regulations, any environmental regulations. There’s no dispute that once it’s just in the county it could be developed commercially,” he said, noting that the impervious cover would likely be much higher, as well as the pollutant load.

“One of the reasons the city, including this commission, pushed the HOME initiative was to encourage … denser housing,” Commissioner Richard Brimer told Howard. “This seems to encourage urban sprawl.”

Howard argued that East Austin and other points of the city are bearing the brunt of more development because Austin’s environmental restrictions limit density in Southwest Austin. A development like Hays Commons would “strike the right balance,” he said.

Commissioner Mariana Krueger said the proposal did not seem to offer community value.

“I understand and can appreciate the need for some development in West Austin so that it doesn’t all fall on the east side of Austin,” Krueger said. “When you’re talking to us about why you’re doing this, what I heard is, ‘Well, if we don’t do this then the impervious cover will just be more,’ but that’s the developer’s decision. What I’m not hearing is a concern for the environment, for the community, for the neighbors. I am hearing concerns about your bottom line.”

In the end, Chair Perry Bedford made a motion to recommend initiation of the SOS amendment. The motion failed, with Bedford and commissioners Hanna Cofer and Dave Sullivan voting in favor, and Krueger, Schiera and Brimer dissenting. Commissioner Haris Qureshi abstained, and commissioners Jennifer Bristol and Colin Nickells were absent.

The proposal now goes to the Codes and Ordinances Joint Committee and the Planning Commission.

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.