Austin Environmental Commission Rejects Development Proposal Over Aquifer Concerns
On Wednesday, the Environmental Commission of Austin did not support a proposal to change the Save Our Springs Ordinance that would allow more impervious cover over the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone. This ordinance originally aimed to protect the aquifer, which is critical for water supply in the area.
Impervious cover refers to surfaces such as roads, parking lots, and rooftops that do not absorb rainwater. The ordinance puts a cap on the amount of impervious surfaces allowed in the aquifer recharge zone, currently set at 15 percent. The proposed developer, Milestone Community Builders, wanted to increase this limit to 25 percent for their new residential project called Hays Commons MUD.
Development Plans and Community Concerns
The Hays Commons project plans to build approximately 700 single-family homes, along with some commercial spaces, on a vast 497-acre site. Included in this proposal are over 227 acres of open space and trails. The site is located in an area that falls under Austin’s extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) and partially within Hays County.
While the developer aims to minimize their environmental impact by dedicating land around Little Bear Creek, their request has raised red flags among residents and environmental advocacy groups. Many community members and organizations, including the Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance and the Sierra Club, voiced their opposition during the commission meeting, focusing primarily on the proposed density of the project.
Mike Clifford, representing the Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance, pointed out that although housing is necessary, the proposed location does not make sense given the environmental stakes. His sentiments were echoed by Bobby Levinski from the Save Our Springs Alliance, who noted that local council offices had expressed similar concerns, stating, “While we support housing, we don’t support housing at this location.”
Environmental and Planning Concerns
During discussions, the commissioners asked many questions and expressed worries about the environmental implications of allowing higher impervious cover. Commissioner Melinda Schiera spoke in favor of responsible housing development but struggled to find justification for increasing the impervious cover in this case. “I’m really trying to look for the value here and I’m not seeing it,” she stated.
In response, Milestone’s representative Jeff Howard argued that the development was necessary to strike a balance, especially given Austin’s rising housing demands. He cautioned that without the city’s regulations, the land could be developed with little to no environmental oversight if it were to leave the ETJ.
Commissioner Mariana Krueger raised doubts about the proposal, stating, “What I’m not hearing is a concern for the environment, for the community, for the neighbors.” She emphasized that the motivations behind the proposal seem aligned more with financial profits rather than genuine community needs.
Commission’s Decision
After considerable back and forth, Chair Perry Bedford put forth a motion to support the initiation of the SOS ordinance amendment. However, the motion ultimately failed. Only Bedford, along with commissioners Hanna Cofer and Dave Sullivan, voted in favor, while other commissioners voiced opposition.
The next steps for the Hays Commons proposal remain to be seen, as it will now advance to the Codes and Ordinances Joint Committee and the Planning Commission for further consideration.
The ongoing discussions around this development plan reflect a larger concern within the community regarding sustainable growth, environmental protections, and responsible urban planning in the greater Austin area.
