A rezoning proposal that would bring a 300-unit multifamily project to a 15-acre tract at the corner of City Park Road and RR 2222 failed to gain support from Austin’s Environmental Commission on Wednesday. The commission’s recommendation to reject the proposal heads to City Council, which is scheduled to take up the case once again Feb. 1. The commission advises City Council on any environmental factors that weigh on a land-use case. The plot of land, known as the Champion’s Tract, has been a topic of debate among neighbors, developers, City Council members and judges since 2016. City Council originally approved the rezoning—from general office to multifamily residential—in November 2016; however a judge late last year determined that the city did not properly post the case to the public, which necessitated a rehearing and revoting on the case. After hearing the case a second time, City Council in December decided to send the case to the environmental commission for a closer look at the environmental ramifications of the proposal, a move it failed to do the first time. Prior to the case the city zoned the property—a densely wooded and hilly plot of land known as Champion’s Tract 3—as general office following a court ruling in a 1996 settlement agreement. Planning and Zoning Department Assistant Director Jerry Rusthoven said in public testimony that this meant a 100,000-square-foot office building could be built on the 45-acre tract. However, after the sale of the tract, the new owner, Champion Assets LTD, wanted to construct a 300-unit multifamily project on the land and requested a zoning change. In exchange the developer said he would minimize the amount of concrete laid on the tract and committed to using only 15 acres, conserving the other 30 acres as natural green space. On Wednesday the environmental commission was tasked with deciding which prospective situation would be better for the environment—the 2016 zoning amendment originally approved by City Council or the 1996 settlement agreement decided by the courts. According to staff, City Council’s decision in 2016 was best for the environment because the project was condensed and only took up 15 acres. If the 2016 agreement is rejected by City Council, the land’s development rules would revert back to the 1996 settlement agreement. This scenario is worse than the 2016 agreement, according to commissioners, because the rules surrounding the development in the 1996 agreement predated many environmental policies that have been passed over the last 20 years. The rules of the tract were grandfathered in by the settlement agreement. However, after public testimony and debate the environmental commission not only rejected the 2016 zoning proposal but said the 1996 agreement was more detrimental to the environment and the city should not revert to those zoning rules. Thus, the commissioners said City Council needed to renegotiate the zoning deal, which in the event of a rejection, the developer has no obligation to do and can revert to the 1996 agreement. The rejection passed, but received two no votes from commissioners Hank Smith and Andrew Creel, who said the commission’s task was to decide between the two ordinances—1996 and 2016—for environmental superiority, not recommend a renegotiation of the deal. The case is scheduled to go before City Council on Feb. 1.