[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6558972,"mediaKeyId","3222174-28d339ed36690d66d5b425db271c2535","parentId",3222174,"title","Environmental Commission recommends denying water/wastewater service extension for proposed 300‑unit multifamily project at N. FM 620","audioSeconds",522,"startMs",4316000,"endMs",4838000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3222174-28d339ed36690d66d5b425db271c2535&start=4316&end=4838","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3222174-28d339ed36690d66d5b425db271c2535/thumbnail_4316000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6558972/Austin/Travis-County/Texas/Environmental-Commission-recommends-denying-waterwastewater-service-extension-for-proposed-300unit-multifamily-project-at-N-FM-620","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6558972-57cfde7764cc231595a2c04a14d4f8e4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771143637&Signature=H3Kg7GYmD5RTN3LCKM~Cb4QOQ5xzzzyG9w6gS62g2I4bRabgPntby8yWrG6yyw6KZarUhvbDQr7DUCFbKni6-9pvbBTB1CQ6DXmRE9dL4M7SExnZ6Xlo2Hm32MaVKOKP33MymyZPAEy4luBllPSuTYEKT5FubF7Tg5Hid8R0hQxoYtG93cCdc57CDResvOP8j~kZ7pTmNs6-PwrdK~1-UnA0Dmm7knbBy8cNNktROITSLJ-C3PKGBFq9CPMQ7N~aQ-EGEssuiCYjwljo5zYXhm5SHj3uZT1cKanMzZhG36igYnuNfd8ern2MSuhK9D~tyKNb5Q6QNP14k35RDMDmnQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Austin","date","2025-05-07T00:00:00Z","article","The Environmental Commission voted May 7 to recommend denial of a water and wastewater service extension request (SER) for a proposed 300‑unit multifamily development at 10656 North FM 620. Staff recommended denial because the site is outside the City of Austin's full-purpose jurisdiction (it legally removed itself from the ETJ in September 2024), lies in the Lake Travis watershed within the North Edwards Aquifer recharge zone and drains toward known Jollyville Plateau salamander habitat upstream from Austin.

Kayla Champlin, environmental program coordinator with Watershed Protection, explained why the commission is being asked to weigh in: by code the commission must recommend on SERs located in the drinking-water protection zone and outside full-purpose jurisdiction. Champlin summarized the applicant's proposal: a 10-acre site, conceptually developed for 300 multifamily units (about 150 living-unit equivalents) with approximately 59% impervious cover and roughly 34% of the site used for parking. The applicant proposed two water-extension alignments (approximately 950 feet of 12-inch main from the south or a 1,400-foot alternative crossing FM 620) and roughly 1,300 feet of 8-inch gravity wastewater main plus upgrades to the Volantate lift station and replacement of some downstream mains.

Chamlpin said alternatives to city-served wastewater are limited on this site because soils and shallow bedrock constrain on-site sewage systems. A Texas Land Application Permit (TLAP) irrigation field would require roughly 9.3 to 10.1 acres for irrigation and storage pond and would therefore force a dramatic reduction in developable density; on-site sewage systems (OSSFs) would likewise support only about 10-13 LUEs under Travis County rules given the soil and density constraints. Direct discharge permits are not an option because state rules prohibit discharges within 10 miles of Lake Travis.

Champlin also noted that Senate Bill 2038 (state law referenced in the transcript) enables lot-by-lot removal from the extraterritorial jurisdiction, a statutory change that has led to many acres released from Austin's planning jurisdiction; she and other staff cautioned that removal from the ETJ limits Austin's ability to require city water-quality standards, impervious-cover limits (20% net site area under the Watershed Protection Ordinance) or a 40% downstream natural-area preservation requirement that would otherwise apply.

Public speakers from conservation groups urged denial and recommended that the applicant either seek annexation and comply with city environmental standards or significantly reduce impervious cover and protect downstream habitat. The applicant's representative, Richard Settle, said the project sponsor contracted to buy the property after it had already been removed from the ETJ and argued the site has limited alternate pathways to deliver deeply affordable housing; he said the developer would fund the extension work if the city allowed the connection.

After deliberation the commission voted to recommend denial, citing the property's status outside full-purpose jurisdiction, its location in the North Edwards recharge zone upstream of sensitive salamander habitat, proposed impervious cover far above the 20% limit that would apply under city jurisdiction, and site constraints that make non-city wastewater options infeasible without dramatically lowering density. The vote was recorded as a recommendation to deny the SER; the item will proceed to the Water and Wastewater Commission and then to City Council for final action.

Ending: Staff said they will forward the commission's recommendation and associated findings to subsequent bodies in the SER process; the applicant may pursue annexation or redesign as alternative paths forward.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Austin - Environmental Commission - May 07, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Commission recommended denial of a service extension request for a proposed 300‑unit, 10‑acre multifamily development at 10656 N FM 620 because the tract is outside Austin's jurisdiction, in the North Edwards recharge area, and would exceed the city's impervious-cover and natural-area protections.","taxTitle","Austin, Travis County, Texas","taxId",2819,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6558977,"Environmental Commission recommends approval to remove 32-inch pecan for LifeWorks Tillery supportive housing; conditions required",692,1772000,2464000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3222174-28d339ed36690d66d5b425db271c2535&start=1772&end=2464","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3222174-28d339ed36690d66d5b425db271c2535/thumbnail_1772000.jpg","/articles/6558977/Austin/Travis-County/Texas/Environmental-Commission-recommends-approval-to-remove-32-inch-pecan-for-LifeWorks-Tillery-supportive-housing-conditions-required","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6558977-1feb3d2fedc3e67034f0e5990e5ca2f8/orig.mp4?Expires=1771143637&Signature=cXVp7ly-8ZskeYIUIgTe8KV-L1NelqiRIlXqRyLDdV4e3YVqGq-bPOMy6RREfXSL2sqCm5N4rKgbMJjbxpTvZZ9t9b1P3dQkcFOImf6hYzk211vTbsfhePH29t22UA9i9rEvncM7f2jRoFBhqDSXRh6VTHuylZHC-tXF~fMLTHtb0cwJvJT9eA~0uF8jyW-IDSsLqlFulnFiYwVWPvSzNdPzh36ZDsyNfi84IOPWKIypFIukfcfDwHm8xC6e3O5ujTVZkPJLguhGr9rH6ToTT3cvM3HSvGwmF3P0qZ-FhXA-6G9F8YaegZ7USEMcWeFxFblwZrRqloKrf7AqPNCfhw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Environmental Commission voted May 7 to recommend approval of a Land Use Commission variance allowing the removal of a 32-inch-diameter heritage pecan (tree number 3510) on the 1-acre portion of a 13-acre site where LifeWorks plans a 120‑unit permanent supportive housing project at 819 Tillery Street. The recommendation passed on a roll call vote: eight in favor, one opposed and one abstention.

City arborist Naomi Rotramel told commissioners the request is a variance under the city's heritage tree ordinance (transcript citations provided to the commission) and that staff's technical review determined the subject pecan has \"poor structural integrity\" and documented defects including repeated large limb failures and a cavity beneath a major branch union. Rotramel said staff requested advanced assessments (climbing inspection, resistograph/tomography) and that multiple staff and a board-certified master arborist verified internal structural weakness in the crown above a major load-bearing union. Rotramel said the \"variance is recommended.\"

Rotramel said the applicant provided multiple alternative layouts and design iterations; staff reviewed those options and met with Fire, Transportation and other reviewers. The applicant committed to preserving 34 other heritage trees on the property and to transplanting one heritage tree where feasible. Rotramel described the mitigation standard in the Environmental Criteria Manual as 300% mitigation per inch for a heritage tree; for certified affordable developments the mitigation rate is $75 per inch (the applicant proposed a $7,200 payment), with a preference for on-site replacement plantings where possible.

Connor Kenny, project manager for developer Capital A Housing, and Liz Schoenfeld, chief executive officer of LifeWorks (the nonprofit owner/operator), said the project is a 120-unit, four-story permanent supportive housing building for youth exiting foster care or otherwise experiencing homelessness, coupled with on-site services and proximity to ACC Eastview and LifeWorks's East Campus. Kenny said the project was offered the 1-acre parcel under a below-market lease arrangement that requires a shared site development permit across the larger 13-acre property; he said the developer lacks legal rights to the remainder of the property and that the landowner of the larger site declined to accept the subject pecan if it were transplanted to their portion. Kenny and civil engineer Nat (Civilitudes) described site constraints: a concrete conveyance channel (Boggy Creek), floodplain, fire-lane access and required ADA and water-quality infrastructure that together push building mass into the corner where the pecan stands.

Kenny said moving the subject pecan off-site or raising the building height to preserve it were infeasible under the project's funding constraints. He said the developer is saving more than 97% of the heritage trees on the overall site and has committed to an arborist-backed tree care plan for preserved trees.

Public comment included residents and tree advocates who urged preservation, asked whether mitigation dollars could be used to plant a replacement pecan in a nearby pecan park, and requested an explicit commitment to tree-planting on the East Side. One commenter asked whether mitigation funds would be transparent and used promptly.

After public comment the commission debated the tradeoffs between tree preservation and a deeply affordable, service-integrated housing project. Commissioners pressed staff and proponents on the tree's condition, the feasibility and cost of transplanting (applicants cited prior local moves that cost six figures for paired large trees), and the degree to which the developer had explored alternatives. Naomi Rotramel and staff said eight heritage trees on the site met dead/diseased/imminent-hazard criteria and that several others were in poor condition; two were in fair or good condition but staff and the applicant concluded retention would prevent reasonable use because of the tree's central location within the buildable area.

The commission's recommended approval included multiple conditions added during deliberations and recorded in the motion: submittal and implementation of a tree care plan for the preserved heritage trees for the duration of the lease (as read by staff), annual reporting on tree care activities, adherence to oak-wilt prevention practices, maximization of on-site planting using urban forest replenishment funds (prioritizing native, climate-resilient species), coordination with parks and community organizations on youth-focused tree-planting and education initiatives, and development of on-site interpretive materials to tell the site's pecan grove story. The motion also specified the applicant would pay the required mitigation ($7,200) into the Urban Forestry Replenishment Fund if on-site planting could not satisfy mitigation requirements.

Roll call on the motion read by the commission secretary recorded eight votes in favor (Commissioners Firo, Qureshi, Flurry, Lokey, Ganguly, Secretary Cofer and Chair Bridal among them), one opposed (Commissioner Krueger), and one abstention (Commissioner Breimer). The commission staff will forward the recommendation and the motion language and conditions to the Land Use Commission (Planning Commission) and to Council as part of the public process.

Ending: The developer said it intends to break ground this summer if the variance and other permits proceed; staff and the applicant will return in later permitting stages with landscape and planting plans showing how many replacement trees are planted on-site versus fed to the replenishment fund.","The commission recommended approving a variance to remove a 32-inch heritage pecan on a 1-acre lease for a 120‑unit LifeWorks permanent supportive housing project at 819 Tillery Street, with mitigation, a tree-care plan and community-focused conditions; the motion passed 8-1-1.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6558982,"Austin Watershed presents 2024 Annual and State of the Environment reports to Environmental Commission",694,435000,1129000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3222174-28d339ed36690d66d5b425db271c2535&start=435&end=1129","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3222174-28d339ed36690d66d5b425db271c2535/thumbnail_435000.jpg","/articles/6558982/Austin/Travis-County/Texas/Austin-Watershed-presents-2024-Annual-and-State-of-the-Environment-reports-to-Environmental-Commission","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6558982-28d0ddec1d94e6848b99a13636367441/orig.mp4?Expires=1771143637&Signature=SbRO~yKaBF2cA6cAgfEw3oC7IpSoG4S73tU9Y7Bzj5GMyhT3ap8wKnSGDcr~bHoxkPF3wQoeSofZkwJnoej1520N0wRZgQvHQZcsPmhuPru76q4rg1QOOBhPUJS0vc2bULqqxKZkxTf5aD5sg0cHCh-6a~usRNVL5V8JjvSm3tjFY3Jbst3vu40afpiHfCFPXp21a3v90YVAPaK~M6lXkIllcdcY7zoEYT8-EQTuX5zNgmHJ8LGLFB6-UiCsmzYfYweaItPF97Fa1TFotJImbNNDMpDSADFadz8FBERF5Rb9T4fK5HLmrqQqSHJHnB-34AA6rtM2MtIEQiBwN-RVig__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Environmental Commission heard a presentation May 7 from the City of Austin Watershed Protection Department on its 2024 Annual Report and the forthcoming State of the Environment report.

Jorge Morales, director of the Watershed Protection Department, told commissioners the department began producing annual reports in 2020 to \"showcase what we're doing,\" and walked the commission through major projects and metrics from the fiscal year that runs October 2023 through September 2024.

The presentations summarized recent emergency repairs at Barton Springs Pool, the completion of phase 2 of the Confluence at Waterloo Park, and the Little Bear Recharge Enhancement Project, which diverts water from a relatively clean stream into the aquifer. Morales said the department has \"actually created a position for grants\" in recent years to diversify funding beyond the drainage utility charge after some federal grant programs paused.

Interim environmental officer Liz Johnston said the State of the Environment report is a \"code-mandated requirement\" presented to City Council each April and stressed the document draws on data across multiple departments: Watershed Protection (lakes, creeks, aquifers and the salamander program), the Office of Climate and Resiliency (air and climate data), Development Services Community Tree Division (urban forest), Parks (open space), and Austin Water (wildlands). Johnston walked commissioners through the ArcGIS story map format and the report's tabs for trees, water quality, erosion, emergency response and outreach videos.

Commissioners praised the report's accessibility and interactivity, and asked for more localized content for specific watersheds. Commissioner Flurry and others said they found the reports easy to use on mobile devices but had trouble finding detailed references to Onion Creek in the 2024 materials; staff said watershed-specific data are available in an interactive map viewer where users click watershed segments to retrieve data. Commissioners also asked about the department's equity work and its ongoing strategic plan update \"Rain to River.\"

On grants and funding, Morales confirmed some earmarks and federal grant programs paused or were canceled, citing a previously anticipated $50 million grant for Falwell Lane near Onion Creek that was terminated. He said staff will continue to pursue other state and board funding sources for priority projects. On endangered species work, Johnston explained that watershed staff have aquatic specialists (for salamanders and mussels) and that newly considered listings (monarch, a bat species, and some plants) are not yet part of the department's BCC permit and therefore are not fully documented in the watershed tab.

Commissioners asked about community engagement; staff said they run a social media campaign each year, provide council briefings on request, and will attend district events on invitation. Multiple commissioners thanked staff for the report's format and the time invested in producing videos, maps and metrics.

The commission did not take formal action on the reports; staff said the items are informational and will return as needed for Council and community engagement.

A closing note: Morales invited commissioners to suggest additional metrics or topics for next year's report.

Ending: The department emphasized the reports are interactive, meant for public use, and available through the commission's meeting backup materials and the Watershed Protection website. Staff asked commissioners to send suggestions for metrics to include in the 2025 editions.","Watershed Protection Department staff previewed the department's 2024 annual report and the code-mandated State of the Environment report, highlighting flood-response work, recharge projects and public outreach while commissioners asked for more local watershed detail.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Environmental Commission recommends denying water/wastewater service extension for proposed 300‑unit multifamily project at N. FM 620

Environmental Commission recommends approval to remove 32-inch pecan for LifeWorks Tillery supportive housing; conditions required

Austin Watershed presents 2024 Annual and State of the Environment reports to Environmental Commission