REGULAR MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, JULY 15, 2026, AT 6:00 P.M. PERMITTING AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER, ROOM 1405 6310 WILHELMINA DELCO DRIVE AUSTIN, TEXAS Some members of the Environmental Commission may be participating by videoconference. The meeting may be viewed online at: http://www.austintexas.gov/page/watch-atxn-live Public comment will be allowed in-person or remotely via telephone. Speakers may only register to speak on an item once either in-person or remotely and will be allowed up to three minutes to provide their comments. Registration no later than noon the day before the meeting is required for remote participation by telephone. To register to speak remotely, contact Nicole Corona, 737-291-3084, Nicole.Corona@austintexas.gov. CURRENT COMMISSIONERS: Mariana Krueger, Chair Jennifer Bristol, Vice Chair Haris Qureshi, Secretary Richard Brimer Isabella Changsut Annie Fierro AGENDA CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL Justin Fleury Martin Luecke Allison Morrison David Sullivan The first ten speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Environmental Commission Regular Meeting on July 1, 2026. STAFF BRIEFINGS 2. Staff briefing regarding the history of Austin Watershed Protection ordinances. Presentation by Matt Hollon, Regulatory Policy Analyst, Austin Watershed Protection. DISCUSSION ITEMS 3. 4. 5. 6. Discussion of Environmental Commission Bylaws. Discussion of Robert’s Rules of Order, the Texas Open Meetings Act, and general commission procedures. Presentation by Commissioner Sullivan. Discussion of public comment process. Discussion of the 2025-2026 goals and objectives of the Environmental Commission. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS City Code requires at least two board members sponsor an item to be included on an agenda. This section of the agenda provides members an opportunity to request items for future agendas. Staff should assume that if there is no objection from other members expressed at the meeting, the members’ silence indicates approval for staff to include on the next agenda. ADJOURNMENT The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. For assistance, please contact the Liaison or TTY users’ route through 711. A person may request language access accommodations no later than 48 hours before the scheduled meeting. Please call or email Nicole Corona at Austin Watershed Protection, at 737-291-3084, Nicole.Corona@austintexas.gov to request service or for additional information. For more information …
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING WEDNESDAY, JULY 1, 2026 The Environmental Commission convened in a regular meeting on Wednesday, July 1, 2026, at the Permitting and Development Center, Room 1405, located at 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Drive in Austin, Texas. Chair Krueger called the Environmental Commission Meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Commissioners in Attendance: Mariana Krueger, Chair Jennifer Bristol, Vice Chair Haris Qureshi, Secretary Justin Fleury Martin Luecke David Sullivan Commissioners in Attendance Remotely: Richard Brimer Annie Fierro PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL None present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Environmental Commission Regular Meeting on June 17, 2026. The minutes from the Environmental Commission Regular Meeting on June 17, 2026, were approved on Commissioner Sullivan’s motion, Commissioner Luecke’s second, on a 6-0 vote. Commissioners Brimer and Fierro were off the dais. Commissioners Changsut and Morrison were absent. STAFF BRIEFINGS 2. Staff briefing regarding Austin Watershed Protection's Reservoir Update for Fiscal Year 2025- 2026. Presentation by Brent Bellinger, Conservation Program Supervisor, Austin Watershed Protection. The presentation was made by Brent Bellinger, Conservation Program Supervisor, Austin Watershed Protection. 1 3. Staff briefing regarding Austin Resource Recovery's On-Demand Brush, Bulk, and Household Hazardous Waste Program. Presentation by Ron Romero, Assistant Director, Samuel Gilbert, Litter Abatement Division Manager, and Andy Dawson, Diversion Facilities Assistant Division Manager, Austin Resource Recovery. The presentation was made by Ron Romero, Assistant Director, Samuel Gilbert, Litter Abatement Division Manager, and Andy Dawson, Diversion Facilities Assistant Division Manager, Austin Resource Recovery. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS 4. 5. Discussion and action to recommend approval of the Austin Water Capital Improvement Projects located in the Drinking Water Protection Zone for inclusion in the five-year Capital spending plan as required by Financial Policy #8. The motion to approve the Austin Water Capital Improvement Projects located in the Drinking Water Protection Zone for inclusion in the five-year Capital spending plan as required by Financial Policy #8, and request that the 2027 report reflect any water leak detection or abatement in the drinking water zone, was approved on Secretary Qureshi’s motion, Commissioner Sullivan’s second, on an 8-0 vote. Commissioners Changsut and Morrison were absent. Approve a recommendation to Council from the Dog’s Head Working Group regarding the environmental aspects and future potential City Council action, including a vote on the creation of a Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ), for the Dog’s Head area, located between the Colorado River, US Highway 183, and State …
The History of Austin’s Watershed Protection Ordinances Austin Watershed Protection | 07/15/2026 Presentation Outline Major, historic Austin moments The impact of geography, weather, demography, and politics Key watershed protection regulations Austin’s major watershed ordinances Concluding thoughts 4 4 Geography: Edwards Plateau Barton Creek looking toward downtown 5 Geography: Blackland Prairie Gilleland Creek at SH 130 Crossing 6 Lake Travis Lake Austin Lady Bird Lake Colorado River Welcome to AUSTIN 7 Rapid Population Growth 11th largest city in the U.S. 22% population change 2010-18 2nd highest rate in top 50 U.S. cities But recently slowing in Austin Current estimated population (2025) 1.03 million in full-purpose limits 2.62 million in the 5-county MSA Development required to keep pace MSA = Metropolitan Statistical Area Austin Population 1940-2025 + Projection to 2050 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 n o i t a l u p o P Projected Past 0 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 Year Source: https://demographics-austin.hub.arcgis.com/... 8 Citizen Involvement Highly aware & educated community Politically & socially active community 9 State Involvement Highly aware & educated community Politically & socially active community 10 Flash Flood Alley The Central Texas Hill Country is the most flash-flood-prone area in North America “Texas is a land of perennial drought, broken by the occasional devastating flood.” Unnamed National Weather Service meteorologist, 1927 Pontoon Bridge, 1869 Destroyed by flood < 1 year after built 12 Original Austin Dam Completed 1891 13 Original Austin Dam Destroyed 1900 14 2nd Dam begun, 1912… Damaged in construction by two large floods… never completely built 15 1935 Flood 16 1935 Flood 17 Construction of the Highland Lakes 18 Lake Travis at Mansfield Dam, built 1942 LCRA photo 19 Tom Miller Dam, built 1940 LCRA photo 20 1981 Memorial Day Flood 21 Barton Creek Square Mall Barton Springs: ~ 2 miles downstream 22 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQNrdLTvlFc 23 Eastern Headwaters Creeks 24 2013 Onion Creek Flood 25 Key Watershed Protection Regulations (from ordinances) Watershed classification (impervious cover and more) Impervious cover limits Floodplain restrictions/prohibitions Stream setbacks/buffers Erosion hazard zone (EHZ) requirements No adverse impact flood detention ponds Water quality controls (“ponds”) 26 26 Key Watershed Protection Regulations (from ordinances, continued) Erosion & sedimentation controls Critical Environmental Feature (CEF) setbacks/buffers Steep slope protections Cut & fill …
Robert’s Rules of Order for CoA Meetings Dave Sullivan Former Planning Commission Parliamentarian & Chair Current member of Housing Investment Review Committee, Environmental Commission, ATP Advisory Committee Environmental Comm. July 15, 2026 1 Robert’s Rules…. from Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert%27s_Rules_of_Order • A U.S. Army officer, Henry Martyn Robert (1837–1923), saw a need for a standard of parliamentary procedure while living in San Francisco. He found San Francisco in the mid-to-late 19th century to be a chaotic place where meetings of any kind tended to be tumultuous, with little consistency of procedure and with people of many nationalities and traditions thrown together. • The first edition of the book, whose full title was Pocket Manual of Rules of Order for Deliberative Assemblies, was published in February 1876 by the then-Major Robert, with the short title Robert's Rules of Order placed on its cover. Environmental Comm. July 15, 2026 2 Lots of resources • https://robertsrulesmadesimple.com/ • Robert's Rules in Plain English, 2nd edition, Doris Zimmerman, HarperCollins Publishers, 2009 Environmental Comm. July 15, 2026 3 Main Principles: • Only one motion can be discussed at a time. • Everyone has the right to participate in discussion before anyone may speak a second time. • Everyone has the right to know what is going on at all times. • Only urgent matters may interrupt a speaker. Environmental Comm. July 15, 2026 4 Following presentation of an agenda item, and citizens speakers • Chair calls for a motion. • Generally, the chair facilitates the discussion, but she can also make or second a motion. • A motion, once made, must be seconded before discussion/debate begins. The maker and seconder get to explain why they put forward the motion. • Following the motion/second, the chair facilitates an orderly discussion or debate. Board rules may limit the time a member can speak. • One must wait until after everyone else has spoken before speaking a second time, unless it is to answer a question posed by another speaker. Environmental Comm. July 15, 2026 5 Types of motions… • Main motion (or base motion) on an agenda item. Req’s 2nd. • Amendment to main motion. Req’s 2nd. • Limit debate/Call for a vote. Req’s 2nd. Requires 2/3 vote… (8 yeas out of 11 members). • Postpone. Req’s 2nd. • Recess, Adjourn, Req’s 2nd. • Table a motion. Req’s 2nd. • Remove from the table (take up the issue). Req’s 2nd. …
Texas Open Meetings Act Dave Sullivan Former Planning Commission Parliamentarian & Chair Current member of Housing Investment Review Committee, Environmental Commission, ATP Advisory Committee Environmental Comm. July 15, 2026 1 Resources • TOMA online handbook: • https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sit es/default/files/files/divisions/open- government/openmeetings_hb.pdf • CoA meeting rules: • https://library.municode.com/tx/austin/c odes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT2A D_CH2-1CIBO Environmental Comm. July 15, 2026 2 The TOM Act • Adopted in 1967 as article 6252-17 of the Revised Civil Statutes, • Substantially revised in 1973 • Codified without substantive change in 1993 as Government Code chapter 551.5 • The Act has been amended many times since its enactment, e.g., with development of the Internet, and most recently to allow some remote attendance at meetings during the COVID period. Environmental Comm. July 15, 2026 3 Details • Quorum requirement. • Majority vote. • Meeting in public, some executive sessions allowed. • Meeting must be pre-noticed. • Err on the side or open government. • May use Robert’s Rules of Order to conduct meetings. • May not conduct meetings with procedures inconsistent with TOMA. Environmental Comm. July 15, 2026 4 Quorum & Voting • “Absent an express provision to the contrary, a proposition is carried in a deliberative body by a majority of the legal votes cast, a quorum being present. Thus, if a body is “composed of twelve members, a quorum of seven could act, and a majority of that quorum, four, could bind the body.” But….. • For CoA Boards & Commissions, a quorum must be present to hold a meeting, and a majority of “seats” must support any resolution to pass. So, if a CoA panel has 11 seats, and only 6 members are present (or online) for a meeting, a quorum is met, but only unanimous resolutions pass. (CITY CODE: CHAPTER 2-1. - CITY BOARDS) Environmental Comm. July 15, 2026 5 Posting requirements • Notice must be posted for a minimum length of time before each meeting. Section 551.043(a) states: “The notice of a meeting of a governmental body must be posted in a place readily accessible to the general public at all times for at least three business days before the scheduled date of the meeting.” • Posting must be on the Website and in a hard-copy public space. • Posting must give the public a good idea of what will be discussed. I.e., Agenda listings such as “City Manager Report” alone, without listing topics to be discussed, is …
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, JULY 1, 2026, AT 6:00 P.M. PERMITTING AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER, ROOM 1405 6310 WILHELMINA DELCO DRIVE AUSTIN, TEXAS Some members of the Environmental Commission may be participating by videoconference. The meeting may be viewed online at: http://www.austintexas.gov/page/watch-atxn-live Public comment will be allowed in-person or remotely via telephone. Speakers may only register to speak on an item once either in-person or remotely and will be allowed up to three minutes to provide their comments. Registration no later than noon the day before the meeting is required for remote participation by telephone. To register to speak remotely, contact Nicole Corona, 737-291-3084, Nicole.Corona@austintexas.gov. CURRENT COMMISSIONERS: Mariana Krueger, Chair Jennifer Bristol, Vice Chair Haris Qureshi, Secretary Richard Brimer Isabella Changsut Annie Fierro AGENDA CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL Justin Fleury Martin Luecke Allison Morrison David Sullivan The first ten speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Environmental Commission Regular Meeting on June 17, 2026. STAFF BRIEFINGS 2. Staff briefing regarding Austin Watershed Protection's Reservoir Update for Fiscal Year 2025- 2026. Presentation by Brent Bellinger, Conservation Program Supervisor, Austin Watershed Protection. 3. Staff briefing regarding Austin Resource Recovery's On-Demand Brush, Bulk, and Household Hazardous Waste Program. Presentation by Ron Romero, Assistant Director, Samuel Gilbert, Litter Abatement Division Manager, and Andy Dawson, Diversion Facilities Assistant Division Manager, Austin Resource Recovery. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS 4. 5. Discussion and action to recommend approval of the Austin Water Capital Improvement Projects located in the Drinking Water Protection Zone for inclusion in the five-year Capital spending plan as required by Financial Policy #8. Approve a recommendation to Council from the Dog’s Head Working Group regarding the environmental aspects and future potential City Council action, including a vote on the creation of a Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ), for the Dog’s Head area, located between the Colorado River, US Highway 183, and State Highway 130. Sponsored by Chair Krueger and Vice Chair Bristol. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS City Code requires at least two board members sponsor an item to be included on an agenda. This section of the agenda provides members an opportunity to request items for future agendas. Staff should assume that if there is no objection from other members expressed …
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 2026 The Environmental Commission convened in a regular meeting on Wednesday, June 17, 2026, at the Permitting and Development Center, Room 1405, located at 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Drive in Austin, Texas. Chair Krueger called the Environmental Commission Meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. Commissioners in Attendance: Mariana Krueger, Chair Jennifer Bristol, Vice Chair Annie Fierro Martin Luecke David Sullivan Commissioners in Attendance Remotely: Richard Brimer Isabella Changsut PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL None present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Environmental Commission Regular Meeting on June 3, 2026. The minutes from the Environmental Commission Regular Meeting on June 3, 2026, were approved on Commissioner Sullivan’s motion, Vice Chair Bristol’s second, on a 7-0 vote. Secretary Qureshi and Commissioners Fleury and Morrison were absent. STAFF BRIEFINGS 2. Staff briefing regarding the Spill Response Program. Presentation by Ana Gonzalez, Environmental Monitoring and Compliance Division Manager, and Biz Yarbrough, Environmental Compliance Specialist Senior, Austin Watershed Protection. The presentation was made by Biz Yarbrough, Environmental Compliance Specialist Senior, Austin Watershed Protection. DISCUSSION ITEMS 1 3. Discussion of the environmental and drainage requirements in the Development Agreement for Dog's Head, located between the Colorado River, US Highway 183, and State Highway 130. Presentation by Andy Pastor, Endeavor Real Estate Group, and Richard Suttle, Armbrust and Brown PLLC. Sponsored by Chair Krueger, Vice Chair Bristol, Secretary Qureshi, and Commissioner Brimer. Discussed. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS 4. Approve the creation of a working group to organize and engage community stakeholders; advise the applicant, City of Austin, and City Council on the regulatory plan; and to make recommendations regarding the regulating plan of the Dog's Head development agreement. Sponsored by Vice Chair Bristol and Commissioner Brimer. The motion to approve the formation of the Dog’s Head Working Group to organize and engage community stakeholders; advise the applicant, City of Austin, and City Council on the regulatory plan; and to make recommendations regarding the regulating plan of the Dog's Head development agreement was approved on Vice Chair Bristol’s motion, Commissioner Luecke’s second, on a 7-0 vote. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS None. ADJOURNMENT Chair Krueger adjourned the meeting at 9:59 p.m. without objection. 2
Reservoir Update FY 2026 Reservoir Update FY 2026 Brent Bellinger, Ph.D. Conservation Program Supervisor Austin Watershed Protection July 1, 2026 Overview Austin Lakes Index Aquatic vegetation Harmful algal proliferations Turbid water in Lake Austin this winter 2 Austin Lakes Index • Purpose – understand conditions and drivers impacting Lake Austin, Lady Bird Lake, and Lake Walter E Long • Policy Relation – inform management recommendations to protect and/or improve the health of our lakes • Goal – maintain scores as high as possible reflecting “healthy” ecological integrity 3 Austin Lakes Index – Scores Scores fair-to-good • Water and sediment chemistry, biological communities, habitat • Drivers: land-use, pollutant inputs, climate, flow Good Fair Marginal Abundance of vegetation • Positive for water quality, aquatic invertebrates • Non-native species or excess cover negatively impacts scores 4 Aquatic Vegetation – Lake Austin Hydrilla continued to be abundant through winter Upper reservoir: some die-back Lower reservoir: similar extent TPWD recently completed survey Feb 27, 2026 5 Aquatic Vegetation – History hydrilla total vegetation grass carp population 25 years of data indicate that: • Climate (drought/flood) is a driver of hydrilla growth • Grass carp system-wide control measure ) s e r c a ( n o i t a t e g e V c i t a u q A 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Year 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 G r a s s C a r p ( # ) 6 Aquatic Vegetation – Grass Carp Implementing in a measured way to avoid catastrophic crash in lake ecology FY2026 Grass carp stocking Nov 2025 – added 1,955 May 2026 – added 2,790 May ‘26 Carp Stocking Current population as of July 1 is estimated to be: 4,467 8 fish/acre (based on February 2026 veg survey) 7 Aquatic Vegetation – Lake Austin drawdown Pros Ease of access for shoreline maintenance temporary reduction of exposed Eurasian watermilfoil, hydrilla Cons May increase hydrilla long-term Impacts to water storage & energy Impacts to recreation and businesses Guidance AW, AE, LCRA collaborating on logistics 8 Aquatic Vegetation – Management Developing a long-term guidance document Focus on …
On-Demand Services: Brush, Bulk and Household Hazardous Waste Samuel Gilbert, Division Manager- Litter Abatement Andy Dawson, Assistant Division Manager- HHW-RRDOC Austin Resource Recovery July 1, 2026 Brush, Bulk and HHW then and now: In January 2025 Austin Resource Recovery began city wide collection of Brush, Bulk and Household Hazardous Waste material through an appointment-based service model. This allows for: Three (3) collections per year per service Customers scheduling at their convenience Collections completed off service day to increase the curb access Previous Model Customer notifications sent by mail for upcoming brush and bulk collections Brush and Bulk collection twice annually. Collections generally six months apart Limited diversion of revenue generating bulk recyclables Appointments for HHW drop-off only with no curbside collections. 2 Brush and Bulk On-Demand Appointments CY25 Brush and Bulk On Demand Monthly Appointments • Brush - 14,146 calendar year appointments • Bulk - 52,442 calendar year appointments 3 CY25 Brush and Bulk On-Demand Tonnage Appointment based servicing has caused a decrease in the tonnage collected for both Brush and Bulk landfilled. The tons of recyclables diverted has increased. 4 Operational Costs, Revenue, Diversion, Mileage Category Metric Brush CY25 Operational Costs, Revenue, and Diversion CY24 $121,668 $107,844 $92,671 $134,405 $283,105 $205,656 $152,854 $183,254 $258,199 $172,080 $21,485 334 Overtime Fuel Costs Overtime Fuel Costs Disposal Costs Revenue Tons Diverted $140 198 Difference ($13,824) ($41,734) ($77,449) $30,400 ($86,119) $21,345 136 Bulk Bulk Fuel savings in Brush With on-demand, ARR has experienced changes by program: • Overtime savings in Brush and Bulk • • Reduced landfill cost in Bulk Increased fuel costs in Bulk • Increased revenue from diversion efforts • Brush collection experienced a significant decrease in miles driven, bulk collection showed an increase in total miles. Of the increase in bulk mileage, 22% is related to diversion related materials. Calendar Year Mileage Comparison Category Brush Bulk CY24 CY25 Difference 140,844 160,176 97,110 192,033 (43,734) 31,857 5 HHW On-Demand Program Performance The launch of the On-Demand program has helped to increase participation in HHW disposal services with almost 2,000 more residents requesting service in calendar year 2025 over the previous 12 months. HHW Program Participation CY2024 vs CY2025 40,000 36,000 32,000 28,000 24,000 34,050 35,921 CY 2024 CY 2025 Total Year Participation HHW Calendar Year 2025 Data HHW Drop-off HHW On-Demand Participation Total Disposal Cost Total Collected (lbs) Disposal Cost/lb Personnel Cost Waste/HH (lbs) …
To: From: Date: Subject: MEMORANDUM Environmental Commission, Resource Management Commission, and Water and Wastewater Commission Shay Ralls Roalson, P.E., Austin Water Director May 28, 2026 Board and Commission Review of Capital Improvement Projects in the Drinking Water Protection Zone The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a report of Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) located within the City’s Drinking Water Protection Zone (DWPZ), in accordance with Austin Water’s Financial Policy No. 8. The DWPZ designation and the associated financial policy, adopted by City Council, are included in the Appendix and outline the requirements for identifying, reviewing, and obtaining Board and Commission input on capital projects within western Austin and Travis County. The DWPZ is subject to development regulations to protect water quality and contains critical water resources that support both the environment and the community. Together, these policies establish the process through which capital projects in the DWPZ are submitted as part of the annual budget process as part of Austin Water’s comprehensive five-year capital improvement plan. The Fiscal Year 27–31 CIP includes projects located throughout the Austin metropolitan area, including the DWPZ. These projects are essential improvements to maintain and enhance Austin Water’s services and operational standards. Austin Water has a robust and comprehensive asset management and capital planning program, in which condition, capacity, and level of service are reviewed annually to validate these investments in resiliency, preparedness, and proactive infrastructure management. The CIP projects in the DWPZ are shown in the attached CIP Subproject Supplemental Information Summary and Map. Should you have any questions, please contact Randi Jenkins, Deputy Director of Technical Services of Austin Water at randi.jenkins@austintexas.gov or 512-972-0133. Page 1 of 6 Date: Subject: May 28, 2026 Board and Commission Review of Capital Improvement Projects in the Drinking Water Protection Zone Index of Attachments Attachment 1: Table outlining the CIP subprojects located within the Drinking Water Protection Zone, including their descriptions, current status, and associated five-year and total spending plans. Attachment 2: DWPZ Map displaying the geographic location of all active CIP subprojects within the Drinking Water Protection Zone. Attachment 3: Appendix provides supporting definitions. Page 2 of 6 Date: Subject: May 28, 2026 Board and Commission Review of Capital Improvement Projects in the Drinking Water Protection Zone ATTACHMENT 1: PROJECT SUMMARY Page 3 of 6 Subproject IDSubproject NameSubproject DescriptionProject StatusFY27-31 Spending PlanTotal Spending Plan2015.118Davis WTP Medium Service Pump Station ExpansionThis project is for the expansion …
. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL Environmental Commission Recommendation 20260701-005: Dog’s Head Development WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission was informed about the Dog’s Head project by Endeavor Real Estate Group, city staff, and more than 35 concerned citizens at the June 17, 2026, meeting; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission formed a working group to advise and make recommendations regarding the environmental aspects of the project; and WHEREAS, the working group, comprised of commissioners and citizens, met on June 22, 24, and 29; and WHEREAS, the working group was informed that the City of Austin has not conducted an Environmental Assessment Study or an Environmental Resource Inventory, or Tree Survey, or worked with the state to assess the existing pollutants on the property; and WHEREAS, the City of Austin is recommending expanding access to the Dog’s Head by at least 3 bridges across the Colorado River as part of the infrastructure package, yet has not conducted an Environmental Assessment or Impact Study; and WHEREAS, the working group disagrees with the statements made by the developer that the ENTIRE property is “bombed out” or totally degraded to the point that it 100% has to be restored; however, we do agree major restoration is necessary and should be guided by the City’s policies and practices; and WHEREAS, Travis County and the State Historical Commission, via the Hicks Report, recognized portions of this property to have existing historic structures from earlier farms and ranching efforts in the 1850s, and adjacent properties that are still in ranching production; and WHEREAS, the working group recognizes this project falls in the blackland prairie ecoregion, and that the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department states that less than 1% of this region is left in Texas; and WHEREAS, the working group acknowledges the project is habitat for hundreds of species of migratory and resident birds that bring in birders from around the world every year who contribute millions to the regional economy; and . WHEREAS, the working group understands the project encompasses the alluvial aquifers that store and filter water along the river to provide drinking water for Austin’s Colony, Manor, Travis County, downstream counties, livestock, and wildlife; and WHEREAS, on November 6, 2024, the Environmental Commission passed a Recommendation concerning the Colorado River Code Amendment, and subsequently the City Council passed Ordinance 20250327-084, amending section 27-7-32 of the Land Development Code as the “Colorado River Protections Ordinance”; and, WHEREAS, approximately 20% …
. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL Environmental Commission Recommendation 20260701-004: Austin Water Capital Improvement Projects located in the Drinking Water Protection Zone WHEREAS, Austin Water presented and updated the Environmental Commission on new and existing growth-related Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects located in the Drinking Water Protection Zone; and WHEREAS, the Austin Water provides adequate drinking water and reliable systems for current and future customers; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission requests that the 2027 report should reflect any water leak detection or abatement in the drinking water zone. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Environmental Commission recommends approval of the request for inclusion of the CIP projects in Austin Water’s 5-year capital spending budget. Date of Approval: July 1, 2026 Motioned By: Secretary Qureshi Seconded By: Commissioner Sullivan Vote: For: 8-0 Chair Krueger, Vice Chair Bristol, Secretary Qureshi, Commissioners Brimer, Fierro, Fleury, Luecke, and Sullivan Against: None Abstain: None Off the dais: None Absent: Commissioners Changsut and Morrison Attest: _____________________________________________ Mariana Krueger, Chair
. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL Environmental Commission Recommendation 20260701-005: Dog’s Head Development WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission was informed about the Dog’s Head project by Endeavor Real Estate Group, city staff, and more than 35 concerned citizens at the June 17, 2026, meeting; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission formed a working group to advise and make recommendations regarding the environmental aspects of the project; and WHEREAS, the working group, comprised of commissioners and citizens, met on June 22, 24, and 29; and WHEREAS, the working group was informed that the City of Austin has not conducted an Environmental Assessment Study or an Environmental Resource Inventory, or Tree Survey, or worked with the state to assess the existing pollutants on the property; and WHEREAS, the City of Austin is recommending expanding access to the Dog’s Head by at least 3 bridges across the Colorado River as part of the infrastructure package, yet has not conducted an Environmental Assessment or Impact Study; and WHEREAS, the working group disagrees with the statements made by the developer that the ENTIRE property is “bombed out” or totally degraded to the point that it 100% has to be restored; however, we do agree major restoration is necessary and should be guided by the City’s policies and practices; and WHEREAS, Travis County and the State Historical Commission, via the Hicks Report, recognized portions of this property to have existing historic structures from earlier farms and ranching efforts in the 1850s, and adjacent properties that are still in ranching production; and WHEREAS, the working group recognizes this project falls in the blackland prairie ecoregion, and that the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department states that less than 1% of this region is left in Texas; and WHEREAS, the working group acknowledges the project is habitat for hundreds of species of migratory and resident birds that bring in birders from around the world every year who contribute millions to the regional economy; and . WHEREAS, the working group understands the project encompasses the alluvial aquifers that store and filter water along the river to provide drinking water for Austin’s Colony, Manor, Travis County, downstream counties, livestock, and wildlife; and WHEREAS, on November 6, 2024, the Environmental Commission passed a recommendation concerning the Colorado River Code Amendment, and subsequently the City Council passed Ordinance 20250327-084, amending section 27-7-32 of the Land Development Code as the “Colorado River Protections Ordinance”; and WHEREAS, approximately 20% …
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 2026, AT 6:00 P.M. PERMITTING AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER, ROOM 1405 6310 WILHELMINA DELCO DRIVE AUSTIN, TEXAS Some members of the Environmental Commission may be participating by videoconference. The meeting may be viewed online at: http://www.austintexas.gov/page/watch-atxn-live Public comment will be allowed in-person or remotely via telephone. Speakers may only register to speak on an item once either in-person or remotely and will be allowed up to three minutes to provide their comments. Registration no later than noon the day before the meeting is required for remote participation by telephone. To register to speak remotely, contact Nicole Corona, 737-291-3084, Nicole.Corona@austintexas.gov. CURRENT COMMISSIONERS: Mariana Krueger, Chair Jennifer Bristol, Vice Chair Haris Qureshi, Secretary Richard Brimer Isabella Changsut Annie Fierro AGENDA CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL Justin Fleury Martin Luecke Allison Morrison David Sullivan The first ten speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Environmental Commission Regular Meeting on June 3, 2026. STAFF BRIEFINGS 2. Staff briefing regarding the Spill Response Program. Presentation by Ana Gonzalez, Environmental Monitoring and Compliance Division Manager, and Biz Yarbrough, Environmental Compliance Specialist Senior, Austin Watershed Protection. DISCUSSION ITEMS 3. Discussion of the environmental and drainage requirements in the Development Agreement for Dog's Head, located between the Colorado River, US Highway 183, and State Highway 130. Presentation by Andy Pastor, Endeavor Real Estate Group, and Richard Suttle, Armbrust and Brown PLLC. Sponsored by Chair Krueger, Vice Chair Bristol, Secretary Qureshi, and Commissioner Brimer. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS 4. Approve the creation of a working group to organize and engage community stakeholders; advise the applicant, City of Austin, and City Council on the regulatory plan; and to make recommendations regarding the regulating plan of the Dog's Head development agreement. Sponsored by Vice Chair Bristol and Commissioner Brimer. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS City Code requires at least two board members sponsor an item to be included on an agenda. This section of the agenda provides members an opportunity to request items for future agendas. Staff should assume that if there is no objection from other members expressed at the meeting, the members’ silence indicates approval for staff to include on the next agenda. ADJOURNMENT The City of Austin is committed to …
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3, 2026 The Environmental Commission convened in a regular meeting on Wednesday, June 3, 2026, at the Permitting and Development Center, Room 1405, located at 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Drive in Austin, Texas. Chair Krueger called the Environmental Commission Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners in Attendance: Mariana Krueger, Chair Haris Qureshi, Secretary Justin Fleury David Sullivan Commissioners in Attendance Remotely: Jennifer Bristol, Vice Chair Richard Brimer Annie Fierro PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL Becky Woodward, Environmental and noise pollution concerns of data centers. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Environmental Commission Regular Meeting on May 20, 2026. The minutes from the Environmental Commission Regular Meeting on May 20, 2026, were approved on Commissioner Sullivan’s motion, Commissioner Luecke’s second, on a 6-0 vote. Commissioner Fierro was off the dais. STAFF BRIEFINGS 2. Staff briefing regarding the Technical Advisory Review Panel (TARP). Presentation by Brydan Summers, Land Development Rules Administrator, Austin Development Services. The presentation was made by Brydan Summers, Land Development Rules Administrator. DISCUSSION ITEMS 3. Discussion of the Bond Election Advisory Task Force. Presentation by Commissioner Sullivan. Sponsors: Chair Krueger and Commissioner Sullivan. 1 The presentation was made by Commissioner Sullivan. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Discussion and action to approve a recommendation to Council regarding the environmental requirements of the Development Agreement for Dog’s Head, located between the Colorado River, US Highway 183, and State Highway 130. Sponsored by Vice Chair Bristol and Commissioner Brimer. Approve the creation of a working group regarding the Development Agreement for Dog's Head. Sponsored by Vice Chair Bristol and Commissioner Brimer. ADJOURNMENT Chair Krueger adjourned the meeting at 8:01 p.m. without objection. 2
Spill Response Program City of Austin Environmental Commission Presented by: Biz Yarbrough, Water Quality Compliance Austin Watershed Protection | June 17, 2026 Who is Water Quality Compliance? A field team of environmental regulators, emergency first responders, and pollution investigators that protect Austin surface water from polluting discharges through the application of water quality regulations and authority. 2 Water Quality Compliance Team, June 2026 3 4 What is the Spill Response Program? DETECT ELIMINATE 5 DETECT Monitor Sediment-laden water flows into storm drain 6 DETECT Monitor Call Intake 7 DETECT Monitor Call Intake Respond Water Quality Compliance collaborates on spill with Fire Department on South Lamar Bridge 8 DETECT Monitor Call Intake Respond Investigate Screenshot of map depicting water, sewer, stormwater infrastructure 9 DETECT Monitor Call Intake Respond Investigate Assess Water Quality Compliance uses a sonde to measure physical, chemical, and biological properties of water 10 ELIMINATE Intervene Timeout! 11 ELIMINATE Intervene Control & Contain Water Quality Compliance uses absorbent pads and booms to mitigate and minimize spill impacts 12 ELIMINATE Intervene Control & Contain Educate / Inform Water Quality Compliance provides technical advice 13 ELIMINATE Intervene Control & Contain Educate / Inform Direct Compliance Contractors work on remediating petroleum from a leaking underground storage tank, which was discovered through a spill investigation 14 ELIMINATE Intervene Control & Contain Educate / Inform Direct Compliance Enforce Water Quality Compliance issues written NOVs 15 Prioritization and Rapid Response The “Rolling Command Center” Trained Spill Responder Emergency Response Vehicle + = A powerful resource Emergency Response work truck 16 Where do we regulate? Anywhere within the Planning Jurisdiction (City Limits + ETJ) 17 Where do spills occur? 18 What types of pollutants do we find? Chemicals 5% Yard Wastes 2% Soaps 1% Sewage 28% Food Grease 5% Paint 5% Wastewater 8% Trash 9% Sediment 14% Petroleum 23% 19 Spill Response numbers • Investigate an average of 940 incidents each year • Direct mitigation of 16.1 million gallons of pollutants each year, on average • Oversee recovery of around 1,300 cubic yards of pollutants annually S T N E D C N I I # 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 YEAR Emergency Non-Emergency 20 Why? So that… Austin waterways provide maximum benefit for all We meet obligations: • State and Federal Requirements • COA Emergency Operations Plan • Agreements / Memorandum of Understandings (MOUs) Austin skyline …
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3, 2026, AT 6:00 P.M. PERMITTING AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER, ROOM 1405 6310 WILHELMINA DELCO DRIVE AUSTIN, TEXAS Some members of the Environmental Commission may be participating by videoconference. The meeting may be viewed online at: http://www.austintexas.gov/page/watch-atxn-live Public comment will be allowed in-person or remotely via telephone. Speakers may only register to speak on an item once either in-person or remotely and will be allowed up to three minutes to provide their comments. Registration no later than noon the day before the meeting is required for remote participation by telephone. To register to speak remotely, contact Nicole Corona, 737-291-3084, Nicole.Corona@austintexas.gov. CURRENT COMMISSIONERS: Mariana Krueger, Chair Jennifer Bristol, Vice Chair Haris Qureshi, Secretary Richard Brimer Isabella Changsut Annie Fierro AGENDA CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL Justin Fleury Martin Luecke Allison Morrison David Sullivan The first ten speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Environmental Commission Regular Meeting on May 20, 2026. STAFF BRIEFINGS 2. Staff briefing regarding the Technical Advisory Review Panel (TARP). Presentation by Brydan Summers, Land Development Rules Administrator, Austin Development Services. DISCUSSION ITEMS 3. Discussion of the Bond Election Advisory Task Force. Presentation by Commissioner Sullivan. Sponsors: Chair Krueger and Commissioner Sullivan. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS City Code requires at least two board members sponsor an item to be included on an agenda. This section of the agenda provides members an opportunity to request items for future agendas. Staff should assume that if there is no objection from other members expressed at the meeting, the members’ silence indicates approval for staff to include on the next agenda. ADJOURNMENT The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. For assistance, please contact the Liaison or TTY users’ route through 711. A person may request language access accommodations no later than 48 hours before the scheduled meeting. Please call or email Nicole Corona at Austin Watershed Protection, at 737-291-3084, Nicole.Corona@austintexas.gov to request service or for additional information. For more information on the Environmental Commission, please contact Nicole Corona at 737- 291-3084, Nicole.Corona@austintexas.gov.
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 2026 The Environmental Commission convened in a regular meeting on Wednesday, May 20, 2026, at the Permitting and Development Center, Room 1405, located at 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Drive in Austin, Texas. Chair Kruger called the Environmental Commission Meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Commissioners in Attendance: Mariana Krueger, Chair Haris Qureshi, Secretary Annie Fierro Justin Fleury Allison Morrison David Sullivan Commissioners in Attendance Remotely: Richard Brimer Isabella Changsut PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL None present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Environmental Commission Regular Meeting on May 6, 2026. The minutes from the Environmental Commission Regular Meeting on May 6, 2026, were approved on Commissioner Sullivan’s motion, Secretary Qureshi’s second, on a 6-0 vote. Commissioners Changsut and Fierro were off the dais. Vice Chair Bristol and Commissioner Luecke were absent. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS 2. Discussion and action to approve a recommendation regarding potential environmental impacts of the MoPac South Project, as presented to the Environmental Commission on May 6, 2026. The motion to approve a recommendation to Council regarding potential environmental impacts of the MoPac South Project was approved on Secretary Qureshi’s motion, 1 Commissioner Sullivan’s second, on a 7-0 vote. Commissioner Changsut was off the dais. Vice Chair Bristol and Commissioner Luecke were absent. 3. Discussion and action to approve a recommendation to Council regarding the Barton Springs Road Bridge Project, as presented to the Environmental Commission on May 6, 2026. The motion to approve a recommendation to Council regarding the Barton Springs Road Bridge Project was approved with the following amendments on Secretary Qureshi’s motion, Commissioner Sullivan’s second, on an 8-0 vote. Vice Chair Bristol and Commissioner Luecke were absent. The following amendment was made by Commissioner Changsut, seconded by Commissioner Brimer, and approved on an 8-0 vote. Vice Chair Bristol and Commissioner Luecke were absent. The amendment was to include the following addition to the main motion: • Deputize a public liaison for this project, create an easy-to-use online, public portal with relevant project documents (including the full Environmental Impact report), and hold more frequent, targeted meetings in the community for continued stakeholder engagement. The following amendment was made by Commissioner Brimer, seconded by Commissioner Sullivan, and approved on an 8-0 vote. Vice Chair Bristol and Commissioner Luecke were absent. The amendment was to include the following addition to the main motion: • Include a full environmental …
Technical Advisory Review Panel (TARP) Overview Brydan Summers Land Development Rules Administrator Austin Development Services What are Administrative Rules? The difference between City Code and Administrative Rules City Code Adopted by Council, authorized by the City Charter Encompasses all ordinances, regulations, and the Land Development Code (LDC) Zoning Site Plans/Subdivisions Environmental Protections Administrative Rules Drainage Requirements Transportation Requirements Utilities Adopted by departments to administer, enforce, or comply with the Code 2 The Authority to Adopt Rules In 1992, City Council adopted Chapter 1-2 of City Code authorizing departments to develop rules Ord. 031106-11; Ord. 031211-11 “This chapter applies to a department with administrative duties under the Code, an ordinance, or another law.” “A department may adopt rules to implement, administer, enforce or comply with the Code, and ordinance or another law for which the department is responsible.” 3 List of Administrative Criteria Manuals Building Criteria Manual Drainage Criteria Manual Environmental Criteria Manual Fire Protection Manual Standard Specifications Manual Standards Manual Transportation Criteria Manual Utilities Criteria Manual 4 Rules Adoption Process 1 3 2 Rules Adoption Process Interdepartmental Review Phase 1- Two-week period Phase 2- Technical Advisory Review Panel Phase 3- Notice of Proposed Rule: Must be after the public comment period but no later than 70 days after the Notice of Proposed Rule Phase 4- Notice of Rule Adoption: - Public comments open for 31 days - All comments must receive a written department response Phase 5- Appeal Process: - A person may submit a written appeal to the adoption of the rule - The City Manager may affirm, amend or withdraw the appealed rule. If the City Manager does not act within 60 days, the rule is withdrawn Phase 6- Publication: The rule is posted on Municode The Technical Advisory Review Panel (TARP) 7 Administrative Rules and TARP Background Criteria Manuals are essential to implement the LDC, but rules have the potential to complicate the development process Common concerns about rules adopted by COA departments: Creates conflicts and inconsistencies Some rules are unnecessary to implement the LDC Drives up costs of development, including housing There has been limited opportunity for stakeholder engagement on rule development 8 TARP Development In response to concerns regarding criteria manuals, Council: Approved creation …
Bond Election Advisory Task Force Final Recommendation Dave Sullivan BEATF member Environmental Commission, June 3, 2026 BEATF History • City Council Resolution No. 20240718-093 directed the City Manager to prepare and present a comprehensive bond package for a bond election no later than November 2026. • Bond Election Advisory Task Force (BEATF) was designated by City Council Resolution 20240829-138 to suggest projects for consideration for a comprehensive general obligation (GO) bond election. • 22 members, each Council member appointing 2 members. • GO bonds pay for capital projects – buildings, roads, land purchase, parks, sidewalks, stormwater controls, etc., not operations and maintenance. BEATF History • BEATF met twice a month (generally) and created 6 work groups to consider potential bond items: • Community Engagement • Stormwater/Watershed Protection • Parkland and Open Space • Affordable Housing • Facilities and Assets (Libraries, Rec Centers, etc.) • Transportations and Electrification • City staff presented a list of $3.9 billion worth of city capital needs. BEATF History • A City Council “sub-quorum” suggested a smaller ~$375M to $400M bond package, and the BEATF obliged. This smaller package included $250M-$260M for Parks & Open Space, $50M-$60M for Facilities & Assets, and $70M-$80M for Transportation. • From our Community Engagement WG research, Housing and Transportation are the top priorities. Across all engagement methods, these categories emerged as the most consistent and widely supported, with additional support for quality-of-life investments such as parks, recreation, and community facilities. • City staff has proposed postponing the GO Bond election from Nov. 2026 to Nov. 2028. In 2028 we would have a larger number of voters, and debt from earlier bond elections paid off. $200M $147M $175M $113.4M $131M Watershed / Stormwater projects Stormwater$MOpen Space Acquisition12Small Scale Stormwater & Drainage Asset Management9Stormwater & Drainage Partnership Opportunities14Stormwater Resilience Program3Tannehill Creek - Bartholomew Park Stormwater Treatment Retrofit1.4Walnut Creek - North Acres Storm Drain4Tannehill Creek - Morris Williams Stormwater Improvements8.5Boggy Creek - Kealing Park Green Infrastructure Program1.3Walnut Creek - McNeil Dr Low Water Crossing Improvements1.5Colorado River - CAPEX Water Quality Control21.65Williamson Creek - Brassiewood Dr. Ph 3 Neighborhood Stormdrain Improvements20Boggy Creek - MLK TOD Stormwater Conveyance Improvements Ph 31.5Waller Creek - Guadalupe St Flood Risk Reduction Project Ph 1-315.575Total113.425 Well, we proposed a little more than $750M • City staff’s recommendation reflected a different set of priorities than those used by the BEATF, and proposed $0 for Affordable Housing, • $251M for Transportation …
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3, 2026 The Environmental Commission convened in a regular meeting on Wednesday, June 3, 2026, at the Permitting and Development Center, Room 1405, located at 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Drive in Austin, Texas. Chair Krueger called the Environmental Commission Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners in Attendance: Mariana Krueger, Chair Haris Qureshi, Secretary Justin Fleury David Sullivan Commissioners in Attendance Remotely: Jennifer Bristol, Vice Chair Richard Brimer Annie Fierro PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL Becky Woodward, Environmental and noise pollution concerns of data centers. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Environmental Commission Regular Meeting on May 20, 2026. The minutes from the Environmental Commission Regular Meeting on May 20, 2026, were approved on Commissioner Sullivan’s motion, Commissioner Luecke’s second, on a 6-0 vote. Commissioner Fierro was off the dais. STAFF BRIEFINGS 2. Staff briefing regarding the Technical Advisory Review Panel (TARP). Presentation by Brydan Summers, Land Development Rules Administrator, Austin Development Services. The presentation was made by Brydan Summers, Land Development Rules Administrator, Austin Development Services. 1 DISCUSSION ITEMS 3. Discussion of the Bond Election Advisory Task Force. Presentation by Commissioner Sullivan. Sponsors: Chair Krueger and Commissioner Sullivan. The presentation was made by Commissioner Sullivan. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Discussion and action to approve a recommendation to Council regarding the environmental impacts of the Dog’s Head development agreement. Sponsored by Vice Chair Bristol and Commissioner. Approve the creation of a working group regarding the Dog's Head development agreement. Sponsored by Vice Chair Bristol and Commissioner Brimer. ADJOURNMENT Chair Krueger adjourned the meeting at 8:01 p.m. without objection. The minutes were approved at the June 17, 2026, meeting on Commissioner Sullivan’s motion, Vice Chair Bristol’s second, on a 7-0 vote. Secretary Qureshi and Commissioners Fleury and Morrison were absent. 2
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 2026, AT 6:00 P.M. PERMITTING AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER, ROOM 1405 6310 WILHELMINA DELCO DRIVE AUSTIN, TEXAS Some members of the Environmental Commission may be participating by videoconference. The meeting may be viewed online at: http://www.austintexas.gov/page/watch-atxn-live Public comment will be allowed in-person or remotely via telephone. Speakers may only register to speak on an item once either in-person or remotely and will be allowed up to three minutes to provide their comments. Registration no later than noon the day before the meeting is required for remote participation by telephone. To register to speak remotely, contact Nicole Corona, 737-291-3084, Nicole.Corona@austintexas.gov. CURRENT COMMISSIONERS: Mariana Krueger, Chair Jennifer Bristol, Vice Chair Haris Qureshi, Secretary Richard Brimer Isabella Changsut Annie Fierro AGENDA CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL Justin Fleury Martin Luecke Allison Morrison David Sullivan The first ten speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Environmental Commission Regular Meeting on May 6, 2026. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS 2. Discussion and action to approve a recommendation regarding potential environmental impacts of the MoPac South Project, as presented to the Environmental Commission on May 6, 2026. 3. 4. 5. Discussion and action to approve a recommendation to Council regarding the Barton Springs Road Bridge Project, as presented to the Environmental Commission on May 6, 2026. Discussion and action to approve a recommendation to Council to purchase property located at 6202 and 6204 Caddie Street, 1600, 1604, 1606, 1608, 1610, 1612, and 1614 Montopolis Drive, and 6205, 6211, and 6215 Fairway Street. Presented by Susana Almanza, Poder. Sponsors: Vice Chair Bristol and Secretary Qureshi. Discussion and action to approve a recommendation to Council regarding implementation of efficient, local, natural gas-powered peaker generation units as part of Austin Energy’s Resource, Generation, and Climate Protection Plan to 2035. Sponsors: Vice Chair Bristol and Secretary Qureshi. COMMITTEE UPDATES 6. Update from the Urban Forestry Committee regarding the meeting on May 13, 2026. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS City Code requires at least two board members sponsor an item to be included on an agenda. This section of the agenda provides members an opportunity to request items for future agendas. Staff should assume that if there is no objection from other members expressed …
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 2026 The Environmental Commission convened in a regular meeting on May 6, 2026, at the Permitting and Development Center, Room 1405, located at 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Drive in Austin, Texas. Chair Kruger called the Environmental Commission Meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. Commissioners in Attendance: Mariana Krueger, Chair Haris Qureshi, Secretary Richard Brimer Isabella Changsut Justin Fleury Martin Luecke Allison Morrison David Sullivan Commissioners in Attendance Remotely: Jennifer Bristol, Vice Chair Mar Moretta-Urdiales PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL None present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Environmental Commission Regular Meeting on April 15, 2026. The minutes from the Environmental Commission Regular Meeting on April 15, 2026, were approved on Commissioner Sullivan’s motion, Commissioner Brimer’s second, on an 8-0 vote. Commissioners Changsut and Moretta-Urdiales were off the dais. Commissioner Fierro was absent. STAFF BRIEFINGS 2. Staff briefing regarding the Barton Springs Road Bridge Project. Presented by Eric Bailey, Deputy Director, Austin Capital Delivery Services. The presentation was made by Eric Bailey, Deputy Director, Austin Capital Delivery Services. 1 The meeting was recessed from 8:09 p.m. until 8:18 p.m. without objection. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Name: SoLa Mixed Use, SP-2024-0397C Applicant: Hannah Riemer, P.E., LJA Engineering, Inc. Location: 2700 and 2800 South Lamar Boulevard Council District: 5 Staff: David Michael, Environmental Review Specialist, Austin Development Services, 512-974- 2263, David.Michael@austintexas.gov Applicant Request: Redevelopment Exception in the Barton Springs Zone, per City Code 25-8- 26 Staff Recommendation: Recommended The public hearing was conducted and a motion to close the public hearing was approved on Commissioner Brimer’s motion, Commissioner Sullivan’s second, on a 10-0 vote. Commissioner Fierro was absent. The motion to recommend the project SoLa Mixed Use, SP-2024-0397C, located at 2700 and 2800 South Lamar Boulevard, to Council with conditions was approved on Secretary Qureshi’s motion, Commissioner Brimer’s second, with the following amendment, on a 10- 0 vote. Commissioner Fierro was absent. The conditions were to: • Augment community benefit and promote alignment with the City’s Comprehensive Vision Plan and the Comprehensive Austin-Travis County Food Plan: • Increase affordable housing units to 25% of all units from 30 - 60% Median Family Income (MFI) • Utilize bird-friendly building design • • Incorporate a community garden on the ground or rooftop level Incorporate dense, native plantings throughout the property, and utilize no- mow and no leaf-blowing principles year-round The amendment was made by Commissioner Fleury, seconded by …
. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL Environmental Commission Recommendation 20260520-003: Barton Springs Road Bridge Project WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission was given a briefing by Austin Capital Delivery Services on May 6, 2026, regarding the update for the Barton Springs Road Project; and WHEREAS, the bridge is noncompliant with current ADA standards; and WHEREAS, the Zilker Park area was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1997 as the Zilker Park Historic District with the existing historic bridge as a contributing feature to the Historic District; and WHEREAS, the citizens of Austin approved a Bond package in 2020, funding $11.1 million for the Barton Springs Road Bridge over Barton Creek; and, WHEREAS, the Austin City Council voted on May 2, 2024, to authorize a professional services contract for engineering services for the design of Barton Springs Road Bridge over Barton Creek in the amount of $9 million; and, WHEREAS, Austin Capital Delivery Services presented to the Environmental Commission on May 6, 2026, the preliminary plan for the new Barton Springs Road Bridge over Barton Creek; and, WHEREAS, the Historic Land Commission, on May 6, 2024, voted to request Council reconsider its decision to demolish the existing Barton Creek Bridge; and, WHEREAS, the Section 106 document supplied by Capital delivery services states, “Removal and replacement of the existing bridge would have as significant an impact on Zilker Park…and the larger mass and scale of the bridge and new design elements would not be complementary to the historic district’s existing physical aesthetics and would impact the historic district’s integrity of design, setting materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. As such, it is recommended that the bridge replacement option would have an adverse effect on the NRHP-listed Zilker Park Historic District.” WHEREAS, the carbon dioxide (CO2) impact of replacing the current bridge is twice the impact of repairing the existing Bridge; and, WHEREAS, construction of the new Bridge may require up to seven acres of Zilker Park to be “taken” for the purposes of constructing the new Bridge; and, WHEREAS, the Bridge is currently rated as a “6” and is “satisfactory” with “minor to moderate deterioration, such as cracks, rust or spalling, which may benefit from maintenance”; and, WHEREAS, the Bridge deck is in need of replacement, and subsequently, some of the spandrel . beams may need to be replaced, and other critical repairs made for the purposes of safety and utility; and, WHEREAS, the …
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission acts in an advisory capacity on all projects and programs that affect the quality of life for the citizens of Austin, and to make recommendations for standards and recommend and initiate specific studies; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission reviews and analyzes the policies relating to the environmental quality of the City; and WHEREAS, community-based organizations, People Organized in Defense of Earth and her Resources (PODER), have brought forward a recommendation to Austin City Council to purchase the properties at Montopolis and Fairway to secure them for future low-income single-family housing; and WHEREAS, in 2001, the Austin City Council adopted the Montopolis Neighborhood Plan, which called for sustaining its single-family zoning in the heart of Montopolis; and WHEREAS, the 2018 report, “Uprooted: Residential Displacement in Austin’s Gentrifying Neighborhood and What Can be Done About It,” commissioned by the Austin City Council and completed by University of Texas experts recommended that the city make strategic, anti- displacement investments in Montopolis to protect it from further gentrification; and WHEREAS, for years, the Montopolis Neighborhood Plan Contact Team, along with other supporters, have been fighting to sustain its single-family zoning; and WHEREAS, Montopolis already has the highest concentration of multifamily, commercial, and industrial zoning of any planning area in the city, and building under these zoning categories have been constructed at the permitted restriction of 80% impervious coverage, worsening the urban heat island effect, erosion of the Colorado River, and flooding without natural drainage from green spaces that once made Montopolis the most undeveloped neighborhood in East Austin; and WHEREAS, the 1.9 acres, known as the Montopolis-Fairway Zoning case, is currently zoned for single-family housing and includes properties at 6202, 6204 Caddie Street; 6205, 6211, 6215 Fairway Street; 1600, 1604, 1606, 1608, 1612, and 1614 Montopolis Drive; and WHEREAS, while the zoning request from the developer to change the zoning from single-family to vertical mixed-use was denied, the property remains vulnerable to future gentrifying developments; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Environmental Commission recommends that the City of Austin purchase the property included in the Montopolis-Fairway zoning case to build low- income single-family housing and protect the neighborhood from future gentrification.
People Organized in Defense of Earth and her Resources TO: Mariana Krueger, Chair, and Environmental Commission Members FROM: Susana Almanza, Director DATE: May 13, 2026 Subject: Adoption or Resolution for City of Austin to Acquire Montopolis-Fairway Properties For years, the Montopolis Neighborhood Plan Contact Team, along with other supporters, has been fighting to sustain its single-family zoning. The 1.9 acres, known as the Montopolis-Fairway Zoning case, includes properties at 6202, 6204 Caddie Street; 6205, 6211, 6215 Fairway Street; 1600, 1604, 1606, 1608, 1612, and 1614 Montopolis Drive, which have been under constant threat from profit-seeking real- estate developers with little to no regard for the Montopolis community’s fragile natural and cultural environment, or its iconic history. Our green spaces, like our single-family zoning, are precious and limited. Help us to protect our families and our community by purchasing properties located in the Montopolis-Fairway zoning case. Montopolis already has the highest concentration of multi-family, commercial, and industrial zoning of any planning area in the city, and buildings under these zoning categories have been constructed at the permitted restriction of 80% impervious coverage, worsening the urban heat island effect, erosion of the Colorado River, and flooding without natural drainage from green spaces that once made Montopolis the most undeveloped neighborhood in East Austin. PODER request that the Environmental Commission support our Resolution to have the Austin City Council to purchase the Montopolis-Fairway Properties. PODER P.O. Box 17294 Austin, TX 78744 512-770-7896 email: poder.austin@gmail.com
. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL Environmental Commission Recommendation 20260520-005: Austin Energy Gas Peakers and Alternatives WHEREAS, it is the Environmental Commission’s responsibility to advise “on projects and programs which affect quality of life for the citizens of Austin”; and WHEREAS, the greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal established by the Austin City Council in the Climate Equity Plan is to achieve “net-zero community-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 2040, utilizing a steep decline path followed by negative emissions,” which translates to approximately 75% reduction in emissions by 2030; and WHEREAS, meeting the greenhouse gas reduction goals adopted by the Austin City Council in the Climate Equity Plan isn’t possible without significant emissions reductions by Austin Energy in the near, medium, and long-term; and WHEREAS, any increase in greenhouse gas emissions does not align with the Climate Equity Plan or the greenhouse gas reduction goals adopted by the Austin City Council; and WHEREAS, reducing and eliminating local air pollution, especially in and near historically and currently marginalized and lower-income parts of the community, is an important equity and community health priority reflected in the Climate Equity Plan; and WHEREAS, methane - the primary component of natural gas - has 86 times the global warming potential as carbon dioxide when emitted directly into the atmosphere, which is a well- documented problem, and natural gas also releases carbon dioxide emissions when combusted; and WHEREAS, the Austin Energy Resource, Generation and Climate Protection Plan includes a commitment to “incorporating community input, prior to bringing a [natural gas peaker] project forward for approval”, and WHEREAS, the Austin Energy Resource, Generation and Climate Protection Plan states, “should Austin Energy seek Council approval for any peaker units, we will show any analysis performed demonstrating why a carbon-free alternative was not available and how the requested action will impact the utility’s ability to reach the goal of 100% carbon-free by 2035”, and . WHEREAS, the Austin City Charter states that all purchases greater than $5,000 must be let through a competitive bidding process, and WHEREAS, Texas state law requires municipalities to use competitive purchasing for purchases over $50,000, and WHEREAS, Austin Energy is requesting authorization to develop and execute a contract to purchase 400 megawatts of gas-burning peaker power generation without issuing a request for proposals or bids and without revealing to the public the cost, with whom the contract would be with, where the peakers would be located, how the …
. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL Environmental Commission Recommendation 20260520-002: Mopac South Expansion WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission was given a presentation on May 6, 2026, regarding the MoPac South Expansion; and WHEREAS, the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority (CTRMA) proposes adding two new toll lanes in each direction, a total of 4 new lanes, from Cesar Chavez Street to Slaughter Lane; and WHEREAS, CTRMA has expanded the project, proposing to add between one and three new auxiliary and free lanes in each direction along the eight-mile route; WHEREAS, the proposed bridge over Lady Bird Lake, Zilker Park, and Austin High School would be expanded from 8 lanes to 13 lanes; and WHEREAS, the Austin City Council has passed Resolution 20241212-066 expressing concern about the environmental impact of the MoPac South expansion, lack of consideration of viable alternatives, and integration with existing public transportation; and WHEREAS, the Austin City Council passed Resolution 20190808-078 declaring a Climate Emergency on August 8, 2019, declaring greenhouse gas emissions from transportation a leading cause of climate change; and WHEREAS, the Austin City Council passed Resolution 20260423-064 expressing concern that the CTRMA Draft Environmental Assessment for the MoPac South Expansion is incorrect in its assertion that the Mopac South Expansion, “is likely to have no significant environmental effects on air and water quality, endangered species, caves and karst features, public parkland and community spaces, and vulnerable school-aged communities”; and WHEREAS, the City of Austin Urban Transportation Commission Recommendation 20260203-006 recommends that the CTRMA produce a complete Environmental Impact Study with a thorough study of alternatives before moving forward with the project; and WHEREAS, Hays County, over the objection of the Travis County Commissioners Court and with a contractor led by the former CTRMA Executive Director, is simultaneously moving forward with studies and planning aimed at connecting State Highway 45 Southwest to Interstate 35 (I-35), with roughly half of this project located in Travis County; and WHEREAS, if these two projects are both completed, MoPac would be converted from a local commuter highway into an alternative freeway, inviting large amounts of . interregional and interstate traffic, including truck traffic, onto MoPac, with harm to the environment, neighbors, and local commuters from Travis County, northern Hays County, and Williamson County; and WHEREAS, both construction and operation of the project would do direct harm to Lady Bird Lake parkland, Austin High School, Lady Bird Lake, Zilker Park, Barton Springs, the Barton …
Testimony provided 05/20,2026 to the Environmental Commission related to Barton Springs Road Bridge Project Hello and thank you for all of your countless hours of work on this commission. I realize that it can be a thankless job at times. My name is Katerina Dittemore. I have 30 yrs experience in grant writing, grant administration and environmental. I am here tonight to discuss the Historic Sec 106 Report which I am handing out now. PLEASE ACCEPT THE 2 HANDOUTS AS PART OF THE RECORD. THIS IS MY ATTEMPT TO FILL IN SOME OF THE INFORMATION GAP THAT IS SURROUNDING THIS PROJECT. It was prepared JAN 2023 by Ama Terra, most likely as part of the Bridge Infrastructure Fund Grant application for the BSpRd Bridge. I do not have access to the Attachments A, B or C. Please note Page 1 and Page 11- the proposed action would result in a change in setting, design, mlts, workmanship and feeling of the Zilker Park Historic District …having an adverse effect on historic properties. Historic is considered a part of the environmental it is in your wheelhouse. The same conclusion is reached on page 11 with regards to rehab. Now the definition of rehab, that is your 2nd packet. This is the conceptual design as presented by City staff to the Historic Commission. The reason I bring up the definition of rehab is because the bridge does need to be addressed, but not in the way as conceived in the packet. In order to reduce confusion, I am recommending that we approach the design as a retrofit/rehab. I also recommend hiring a Preservation Civil Engineer with heavy experience in historic structures. I want to bring your attention to the following: 1. Original intention/ purpose of the bridge In 1926 the bridge was constructed to provide safe crossing for vehicular traffic across a flood prone Barton Springs AND to serve as a gateway to Zilker Park. To connect the public to recreation. 2. Road Classification of Barton Springs Road- it is a MINOR ARTERIAL AND SCENIC ROADWAY. That means it is to provide LOCAL access. The Scenic classification requires additional site plan/ design considerations. THIS CLASSIFICATION says nothing about ACL / 3C 18 wheeler trucks bringing in equipment or about connecting to a major thoroughfare such as MoPac. 3. Current NEPA- In my opinion, the NEPA should be stopped until the new design is …
20260520-003, Barton Springs Road Bridge Project Public Comment Chair Krueger, Vice Chair Bristol, Commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Barbara LaFollette, President of the Barton Hills Neighborhood Association, and I’m here to ask you to oppose demolition and full replacement of the Barton Springs Road Bridge, and instead urge the City to pursue a lower-impact rehabilitation and roadway “diet” alternative. First, the environmental footprint of full replacement is enormous and has not been fully presented to this Commission. Demolishing a nearly century-old bridge in the middle of Barton Creek’s floodplain will require heavy construction in and adjacent to the channel, deep foundations, dewatering, and staging areas that will permanently convert parkland and temporarily clear even more acreage during construction. Staff materials and past briefings acknowledge parkland takings and substantial construction easements, but this Commission has not been given a current, comprehensive environmental impact summary. Proceeding toward demolition without that information before the Environmental Commission is exactly backward. Second, the bridge is located within the Zilker Park Historic District, and the federal Section 106 process has already concluded that the proposed project would adversely affect historic resources. The City’s own historic consultants found that replacement would damage the setting, design, materials, workmanship, and feeling of Zilker Park’s historic entrance, which is part of the “human environment” your body is charged to consider. In plain terms, we are talking about tearing out a contributing historic structure at the front door of Austin’s most iconic park and replacing it with a much wider, more intrusive modern bridge. Third, scale matters. Commissioners have already raised concerns that the proposed bridge cross-section almost doubles the width—from roughly 60 feet today to on the order of 100 feet or more—despite Barton Springs Road already operating as a single lane in each direction for safety. A much wider deck, longer construction duration, and larger footprint directly translate to more shade changes, more concrete over Barton Creek, more habitat disturbance, and more permanent encroachment into parkland, all to push additional vehicle capacity into a constrained, two-lane roadway on either side. That is not a context-sensitive solution in a sensitive riparian corridor. Fourth, the record shows that rehabilitation is feasible and that cost differences between rehabilitation and replacement are small. Commissioners have noted that engineering estimates characterize the cost difference as negligible, while life-cycle expectations are on the order of 50 years for rehabilitation …
. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL Environmental Commission Recommendation 20260520-002: MoPac South Expansion WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission was given a presentation regarding the MoPac South Expansion on May 6, 2026; and WHEREAS, the Austin City Council passed Resolution 20241212-066 expressing concern about the environmental impact of the MoPac South expansion, lack of consideration of viable alternatives, and integration with existing public transportation; and WHEREAS, the Austin City Council passed Resolution 20190808-078 declaring a Climate Emergency on August 8, 2019, declaring greenhouse gas emissions from transportation a leading cause of climate change; and WHEREAS, the Austin City Council passed Resolution 20260423-064 expressing concern that the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority (CTRMA) Draft Environmental Assessment for the MoPac South Expansion is incorrect in its assertion that the MoPac expansion, “is likely to have no significant environmental effects on air and water quality, endangered species, caves and karst features, public parkland and community spaces, and vulnerable school-aged communities”; and WHEREAS, the City of Austin Urban Transportation Commission Recommendation 20260203-006 recommends the CTRMA produce a complete Environmental Impact Study with a thorough study of alternatives before moving forward with the project; and WHEREAS, Hays County, over the objection of the Travis County Commissioners Court and with a contractor led by the former CTRMA Executive Director, is simultaneously moving forward with studies and planning aimed at connecting State Highway 45 Southwest to I-35, with roughly half of this project located in Travis County; and WHEREAS, if these two projects are both completed, MoPac would be converted from a local commuter highway into an alternative freeway, inviting large amounts of interregional and interstate traffic, including truck traffic, onto MoPac, with harm to the environment, neighbors, and local commuters from Travis County, northern Hays County, and Williamson County; and WHEREAS, the City of Austin Urban Transportation Commission Recommended (202504-003) that the MoPac South Extension be removed from the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) 2050 Regional Transportation Plan; and . WHEREAS, both construction and operation of the project would do direct harm to Lady Bird Lake parkland, Austin High School, Lady Bird Lake, Zilker Park, Barton Springs, the Barton Creek Greenbelt, Barton Creek, Gaines Creek, Williamson Creek, the Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer recharge zone, and other parkland and neighborhoods along the project route; and WHEREAS, the expansion will cause harm to natural wildlife such as the Barton Springs salamanders as well as local cave ecosystems; and WHEREAS, the expansion …
. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL Environmental Commission Recommendation 20260520-003: Barton Springs Road Bridge Project WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission was given a briefing regarding the update for the Barton Springs Road; and, WHEREAS, the bridge is noncompliant with current ADA standards; and, WHEREAS, the Bridge deck is in need of replacement, and subsequently some of the spandrel beams may need to be replaced and other critical repairs made for the purposes of safety and utility; and, WHEREAS, the Zilker Park area was added to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in 1997 as the Zilker Park Historic District with the existing historic bridge as a contributing feature to the Historic District; and, WHEREAS, the citizens of Austin approved a Bond package in 2020, funding $11.1 million for the Barton Springs Road Bridge over Barton Creek; and, WHEREAS, the Austin City Council voted on May 2, 2024, to authorize a professional services contract for engineering services for the design of Barton Springs Road Bridge over Barton Creek in the amount of $9.0 million; and, WHEREAS, Austin Capital Delivery Services presented to the Environmental Commission on May 6, 2026, the preliminary plan for the new Barton Springs Road over Barton Creek; and, WHEREAS, the Historic Land Commission, on May 6, 2024, voted to request Council reconsider its decision to demolish the existing Barton Creek Bridge; and, WHEREAS, the Section 106 document supplied by Capital Delivery Services states, “Removal and replacement of the existing bridge would have as significant an impact on Zilker Park…and the larger mass and scale of the bridge and new design elements would not be complementary to the historic district’s existing physical aesthetics and would impact the historic district’s integrity of design, setting materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. As such, it is recommended that the bridge replacement option would have an adverse effect on the NRHP-listed Zilker Park Historic District.”; and, WHEREAS, the carbon dioxide (CO2) impact of replacing the current bridge is twice the impact of repairing the existing Bridge; and, . WHEREAS, construction of the new Bridge may require up to seven acres of Zilker Park to be “taken” for the purposes of constructing the new Bridge; and, WHEREAS, the Bridge is currently rated as a “6” and is “satisfactory” with “minor to moderate deterioration, such as cracks, rust or spalling, which may benefit from maintenance”; and, WHEREAS, the City must legally show that there is “no feasible …
. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL Environmental Commission Recommendation 20260520-004: City Land Acquisition for Montopolis-Fairway Properties WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission was given a presentation regarding the Austin City Council proposed purchase of property located at 6202 and 6204 Caddie Street, 1600, 1604, 1606, 1608, 1610, 1612, and 1614 Montopolis Drive, and 6205, 6211, and 6215 Fairway Street; and, WHEREAS, the Montopolis area has a high concentration of multi-family, commercial, and industrial zoning; and, WHEREAS, buildings under these zoning categories have been constructed at the permitted restriction of 80% impervious coverage, worsening the urban heat island effect, erosion of the Colorado River, and flooding without natural drainage from green spaces that once had Montopolis as one of the most undeveloped neighborhoods in East Austin. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT NOW RESOLVED, that the Environmental Commission supports the Austin City Council purchasing the Montopolis-Fairway Properties to responsibly develop community-focused and environmentally friendly affordable housing and green space in the area to benefit the Montopolis community and Southeast Austin. Date of Approval: May 20, 2026 Motioned By: Secretary Qureshi Seconded By: Commissioner Sullivan Vote: For: 8-0 Chair Krueger, Secretary Qureshi, Commissioners Brimer, Changsut, Fierro, Fleury, Morrison, and Sullivan Against: None Abstain: None Off the dais: None Absent: Vice Chair Bristol and Commissioner Luecke Attest: _____________________________________________ Mariana Krueger, Chair
. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL Environmental Commission Recommendation 20260520-005: Austin Energy Gas Peakers and Alternatives WHEREAS, it is the Environmental Commission’s responsibility to advise “on projects and programs which affect quality of life for the citizens of Austin”, and WHEREAS, it is Austin Energy customers who will bear the financial risk of any capital investments that become stranded assets or become economic liabilities; and WHEREAS, innovation and competition are projected to result in continued declining renewable energy and energy storage costs, and sources such as Bloomberg’s Levelized Cost of Electricity 2026 report project the cost of battery storage to decrease by 25% and the cost of solar to decline by 30% by 2035; and WHEREAS, natural gas prices can be volatile and EIA and Wood Mackenzie project significant increases to Henry Hub natural gas prices over the next year and through 2035; and WHEREAS, the greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal established by the Austin City Council in the Climate Equity Plan is to achieve “net-zero community-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 2040, utilizing a steep decline path followed by negative emissions” that translates to approximately 75% reduction in emissions by 2030; and WHEREAS, meeting the greenhouse gas reduction goals adopted by the Austin City Council in the Climate Equity Plan isn’t possible without significant emissions reductions by Austin Energy in the near, medium and long-term; and WHEREAS, any increase in greenhouse gas emissions does not align with the Climate Equity Plan or the greenhouse gas reduction goals adopted by the Austin City Council; and WHEREAS, reducing and eliminating local air pollution, especially in and near historically and currently marginalized and lower-income parts of the community, is an important equity and community health priority reflected in the Climate Equity Plan; and WHEREAS, the American Lung Association’s 2026 State of the Air Report assigns Travis County an F grade for ozone pollution, a D grade for short-term particle pollution, and a failing grade for annual particle pollution; and . WHEREAS, methane - the primary component of natural gas - has 86 times more global warming potential than carbon dioxide over a 20-year time horizon when emitted directly into the atmosphere, which is important because of high leakage rates in the Texas natural gas production system; and WHEREAS, the Austin Energy Resource, Generation and Climate Protection Plan to 2035 includes a commitment to “incorporating community input, prior to bringing a [natural gas peaker] project forward …
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 2026 The Environmental Commission convened in a regular meeting on Wednesday, May 20, 2026, at the Permitting and Development Center, Room 1405, located at 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Drive in Austin, Texas. Chair Kruger called the Environmental Commission Meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Commissioners in Attendance: Mariana Krueger, Chair Haris Qureshi, Secretary Annie Fierro Justin Fleury Allison Morrison David Sullivan Commissioners in Attendance Remotely: Richard Brimer Isabella Changsut PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL None present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Environmental Commission Regular Meeting on May 6, 2026. The minutes from the Environmental Commission Regular Meeting on May 6, 2026, were approved on Commissioner Sullivan’s motion, Secretary Qureshi’s second, on a 6-0 vote. Commissioners Changsut and Fierro were off the dais. Vice Chair Bristol and Commissioner Luecke were absent. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS 2. Discussion and action to approve a recommendation regarding potential environmental impacts of the MoPac South Project, as presented to the Environmental Commission on May 6, 2026. The motion to approve a recommendation to Council regarding potential environmental impacts of the MoPac South Project was approved on Secretary Qureshi’s motion, 1 Commissioner Sullivan’s second, on a 7-0 vote. Commissioner Changsut was off the dais. Vice Chair Bristol and Commissioner Luecke were absent. 3. Discussion and action to approve a recommendation to Council regarding the Barton Springs Road Bridge Project, as presented to the Environmental Commission on May 6, 2026. The motion to approve a recommendation to Council regarding the Barton Springs Road Bridge Project was approved with the following amendments on Secretary Qureshi’s motion, Commissioner Sullivan’s second, on an 8-0 vote. Vice Chair Bristol and Commissioner Luecke were absent. The following amendment was made by Commissioner Changsut, seconded by Commissioner Brimer, and approved on an 8-0 vote. Vice Chair Bristol and Commissioner Luecke were absent. The amendment was to include the following addition to the main motion: • Deputize a public liaison for this project, create an easy-to-use online, public portal with relevant project documents (including the full Environmental Impact report), and hold more frequent, targeted meetings in the community for continued stakeholder engagement. The following amendment was made by Commissioner Brimer, seconded by Commissioner Sullivan, and approved on an 8-0 vote. Vice Chair Bristol and Commissioner Luecke were absent. The amendment was to include the following addition to the main motion: • Include a full environmental …
