Travis County Commssioners Court
June 22, 2004
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Item 30
[One moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> ... It is within the lcra jurisdiction. In the preliminary plat, all they need to do is present a basic preliminary plat schedule of what they intend to do, work with lcra to get the proper permits, work with txdot to get the proper approvals, and basically all we're saying here is all the agreements and as far as tnr is concerned they have done all they need to do to get the preliminary plan approved. We have several issues associated with this and I知 sure you'll hear a lot from the audience. As far as tnr is concerned, they have met all the requirements to have a preliminary plan approved. The preliminary doesn't approve for construction, it is just preliminary. They have to come for a final plat with all the proper permits. They're working also with the bcp work for mitigation. They're working with the lcra and txdot and everybody that's necessary to get this done.
>> and concerned citizens can continue to bring information forward, and that will be considered as you go along for the final platting. But it does not mean that by -- that by approving the preliminary plan that it cuts off all possibility for concerned citizens to remain active.
>> absolutely.
>> their concerns are considered.
>> absolutely true. It will be back here for final platting. It is not approved without a final plat before construction begins.
>> what are the technical deadlines related to phasing agreements and preliminary plans? We all know under platting there are definite time lines that we have to act on it or not, we don't have much choices. What kind of flexibility do we have to being able to hear from -- obviously there are quite a few folks here today, and to simply be able to mull over any kind of input that we get, even though that this is just at the preliminary process?
>> I know that they could take a long time before they come back with a final plat. The phasing agreement only says that before they do anything else they have to build certain road, infrastructure. They have no final design for water quality ponds they're working through. So I don't know the exact time frame. Maybe anna could tell me exactly how long they have before they have to have a final plat, but I know it's a long enough time. It isn't hike tomorrow.
>> in terms of order -- anna, did you want to add anything?
>> I think that we have a couple of years once they have the final plat approved before they -- before the final plat or the preliminary plan would be nullified. Is that correct, tom? If they haven't started final platting.
>> is that your question? How long do they have to submit a plat or how long do you have to decide on the preliminary?
>> the question is really do we have to act today on a preliminary plan or is it something that -- I知 just trying to remember on some things, especially contingent to a neighborhood, because there is a deadline, we have asked everybody to please go back, have more discussions and then see if there's any refinements to be brought forward in terms of nicely asking folks to play nicely with one another and be good neighbors and see what they can get worked out amenablely before it comes back to court.
>> the statutory requirement that you act within a certain time on a final plat applies to final plats, not preliminary. The way the Travis County regulations were written, we took the statute on its face and basically say that time limit does not apply to a preliminary plan, so you're not under a deadline.
>> okay, misunderstood.
>> in terms of how we're going to do things we're, here going to give the applicant a chance to make a brief presentation and bring up any kind of issues they would like. Then it looks like we have a number of people in the audience that are here to speak on this as well. So if you want to take the end seat, carol, the applicant is allowed to go first and lay out any issues you would like to report. And then we will bring up chairs and we'll hear from everybody else.
>> Commissioners, my name is bill gunn. I知 a long time Austin resident. I've been here since about 1969. I've built about 30 something subdivisions here in Austin, so I知 not a newcomer to the process. This particular property is 2200 and 59 acres. It's owned by the davenport hers. -- heirs. There are at present 14 undivided homes. We have had several of them under contract, which is difficult when they're scattered all over the country. We've applied for a m.u.d. This is a house bill of gonzalo barrientos, who was kind enough to sponsor our bill in the legislature. The district itself is 1795 acres of the 2259 acres. On our concept plan, of which I知 sure you have a copy, you'll notice that there is a portion of the property located right over here, which is in the little barton watershed. There is no intention to develop that. In fact, it would be open space. The total amount of open space that is contiguous that we will be using here for park facilities is 476 acres. It's a little bit bigger than zilker park. The balance of the open space, which constitutes about 430 acres, is there's canyons and hills, anything of substantial slopes, we will not be developing in those areas. The present phase 1 plan, as located with two entryways on 71. We have been to txdot to get these two entrances approved. We've agreed to build left turn lanes. We've agreed to remove the blinking light and replace it with a signal light if that's what txdot desires, and that is at our expense. At the creek road to help these folks enter and exit. And we've also taken all of the drainage facilities and given up a lot so that we can put down -- you can see here is a little detention system. Here's another one. (indiscernible) we can pick up the water we have created in excess drainage, we will detain it and filter on site and prevent it from going down into the creek to be detained in the creek. One of the problems of a development about three miles from here, in their attempts at retaining their overflows, what they of course did was place a single detention pond in the creek and dammed up the creek itself. That effort resulted in -- of course, we've had a very unusual year in the amount of rain we've had, so that system got overwhelmed. They have no redundancy at all because of that system. In our case we have in just this section that we're asking you to approve alone, we have seven different ponds, so we have seven pieces of redundancy here to prevent any type of erosion occurring in the creek. This develop, of course, will have comments coming from various residents in the area, and you will hear a lot about density. If we want absolutely no growth, then we can talk in terms of density, but our development will have everything that the county could possibly desire in the way of pollution control devices. If you're going to have acreage tracts, you will have small country roads, you will not have storm sewer, you will have absolutely no devices for storm water runoff at all. In fact, all the old subdivisions to the west of us, that's the state they're in now. They have no pollution control devices whatsoever. Everything runs directly to the lake. In our case we're also dedicating all the open space around the creeks to the public. Because they were all wanting acreage tracts at the time, they ended up deeding right to the creek. The public can get no access to the creek whatsoever. And it's that way from the time of (indiscernible) all the way to the lake. We are attempting here to develop in clusters and leave what else is around it open. We have 1894 planned lots on our concept plan on the whole 2259-acre tract. The density here is not too much off from the density across the road, except we're just closer to those developments. Ours do not have septic tanks, we will have a sewer system. This development has been in the newspaper lately, so I don't think we have to tell you how we're getting water. We're going to the lake and building our own water purification system. And I say we. And that relationship it's not the developers, it's the m.u.d. That's going to be doing the construction. In all of our street designs we have exceeded any of the county requirements by far. This major boulevard is a median boulevard. It will be heavily landscaped. This will be as first class a development as we know how to develop today. This is not unlike the developments that you already previously approved and approved their plats in falcon head, lake point and other developments, but we are a little less dense than those are. Do you have any questions at all of me?
>> mr. Davis.
>> the open space that you just mentioned that will not encroach on the creek, how much acreage --
>> that's 276 acres.
>> and then you said limited access will not be available to the public by the folks that have deeded their property to the (indiscernible) creek itself, access from the public will not be available. From what point to what point?
>> mr. Davis, we are planning to dedicate all of this tract to the district. Of course, the district has no police power and doesn't plan to exercise any police power. So of course the public can use the facilities. We'll be doing quite a few soccer fields over here is what we're planning.
>> and I guess as far as redundancy, as far as retention, you want to make sure that pollutants aren't entered into the creek, the safeguards that you have invoked is -- going to implement is that you are having several of these detention pond devices whereby you can avoid pollution entering into the creek with the multiple --
>> Commissioner, on this area here, the only area that -- if you drew a line between these two pieces right here and right there, this land, and there's a large -- by the way, the tallest peak in Travis County is sitting right here. So this is a very substantial ridge that runs through here to separate the hurst creek and bee creek watershed. We'll be doing no construction.
>> no construction at all in that area.
>> no, sir. And the only portion that is right here that is in -- and you can see the two little forks going this direction, which is hurst creek, which goes directly to hurst creek m.u.d., Which is right here, and that's the only frontage that we have on 71 that could even be considered to be developed. And where it goes into little barton, we won't touch it.
>> so txdot has also given you their blessing as far as of the access on to the highway, which is 71...
>> they wanted us to do left-hand turn lanes here. This is a second entryway and do left turn lanes here. We've been out ourselves and witnessed the traffic on 71, and make no doubt about it, it picks up speet coming down this hill. By the time you come down and come up to here, you pass through this ridge area right here and you start down into bee creek watershed, you let off the gas, and it flies. We've been out here with your sheriff's department standing right here, and at this street light, if they choose to install it, we're providing the funds if the state chooses to install it will help to considerably slow the traffic down. Right here, last weekend or weekend before is where that motorcycle fellow got killed.
>> yes.
>> and of course, it's winding roads and a little bit of speed and he couldn't make the curve and so he swung over in the wrong lane. And my wife and I were about 10 cars behind him, as a matter of fact, so it was really a tragedy.
>> I have some questions, but I知 going to wait.
>> tell me where the soccer fields are.
>> mr. Daugherty, once you get passed this little ridge right here where these two little things are -- by the way, when you drive by on 71 and look at this property, scpaird to everything on -- compared to everything else out here, it looks flat. It has a slight slope to it and it goes up these little ridges, but once you go passed here and to the creek, there's very little slope. We plan to do all kinds of recreation facilities.
>> will you fertilize the soccer fields, and if you do, how will you take charge of that?
>> our intention is not to go out there and throw a bunch of fertilizer on it.
>> I mean, soccer fields are pretty intense. And to keep the grass growing and for them to look right, I mean, fertilization is going to need to be done. Just think about that, because that is going to be a concern.
>> we'll have questions first from the court and then the audience will have a chance.
>> this is (indiscernible).
>> mr. Daugherty, if I could, in response to the question on the fertilizing. As part of the raw water purchase agreement with the lcra, we have a series of agreements between the mu and the lcra. -- m.u.d. And the lcra, one of which is a pollution abatement plan, a pest management plan and a fertilization control plan for any publicly owned properties and privately owned properties for the public education process, but there's a distinctive plan that is now agreed to between the m.u.d. And the lcra as part of the water purchase contract about pesticides and fertilizer.
>> i've got a couple. Where are they in relation to our new parkland dedication ordinance? Was this before or after the passage of that ordinance?
>> as far as I know, they are within the -- they're working with john and the bcp mitigation.
>> we're looking at it as each final plat comes in.
>> so in terms of the parkland dedication ordinance, it was my impression that that would be dedicated to Travis County as opposed to that it would go under the control of the municipal utility district. Am I in error on that? It would be whatever the nearest either money -- the nearest metro park or dedicated parkland. Help me understand...
>> parkland with each ordinance allows for different scenarios, but nothing gets actually dedicated with a preliminary plan. That's something that the final plat stage. But the parkland dedication ordinance does allow for different scenarios done at the final plat stage.
>> also, one thing that we have completed as part of the preliminary, which -- by the way, mr. Jones is here and I would like for him to come up. We have just completed all of our calculations for the bcp, and i'd like for mr. Jones to --
>> paul can address that.
>> I need to address the bcp and the calculation on the acreage involved, if you would, please.
>> my name is paul (indiscernible). We have actually requested a determination from the bcp for the actual number, official number, and we've not received that yet. But the proximate acreage, it's in the average of zone 2 habitat, which comes in the neighborhood of $1.3 million.
>> so you will be paying for participation certificates? Paying your way out as opposed to on-site mitigation?
>> yes. Nothing has been finalized at this point of the options.
>> yes, option one, which is participate in the bcp, yes, that's what we intend to do.
>> as opposed to on-site mitigation?
>> yes, ma'am. That's what we intend to do.
>> and what kind of conversations have you had with any adjoining neighborhoods, any interest groups, anything to let folks that are in that area know what your plans are and to discuss with them what's happening on this particular property.
>> Commissioner, we've had 11 public hearings on this property, if you count the four that we had at the state for the creation of the district. We've had seven advertised public m.u.d. Meetings. We are yet to have a single person attend. I have talked to two of the neighbors extensively, and a third in some detail, about what we're doing here. As I said, one of the comments that you will mostly hear has to do with a dislike of our density. There are some comments that you will hear on drainage. At this stage with our -- we don't have final plans, nor are we required to, on our detention and water quality features; however, we certainly have more than any other subdivision has submitted. We've been -- we went to the lcra after the problem occurred three miles from us and we sat down with the lcra and said okay, what do we do to prevent what has occurred from occurring? Would you like to address that? I'd like rick to address drainage, which you will hear some of the concerns of the neighbors, I would like for you to hear rick's addressing it.
>> Commissioners, in the very early stages of the creation of this preliminary plan, we had an intensive work session with the lcra storm water quality and water resource protection group, which is tom haigmeyer and other staff folks, and we discussed a variety of options and strategies for storm water pollution control on this particular type of project where the property is fairly strung out, if you will in a linear fashion as opposed to having a large bulk and a single watershed. Which we have very many numerous, small watersheds that all ultimately culminate at the culvert where the creek crosses 71. One of those strategies was potentially to build a permanent water feature on these large canyons and tributaries, basically build a lake. And we explored that alternative and were really pretty much including that we would go that direction until the problems occurred further west of this project. And then both we and lcra concluded that perhaps that was not the best strategy, and we changed direction. Where now we're doing small, individual structural ponds within every identifiable small drainage area in each section of the subdivision. So that we're never going to have a single large structure or even multiple large structures. We'll have very small ponds that are easily maintained, cannot be overwhelmed in large storms. And these are all going to wind up probably being structural concrete structures. So we have not been independently working on this, we have had lcra's input at every step in the preliminary. Of course, we cannot obtain an nts development permit from lcra until we get to the final plat, construction plan stage. That's when they actually issue their permits. We have had that staff involved from the very beginning on drainage planning and storm water pollution plan project.
>> have you had any specific meetings where you're on somebody else's turf as opposed to somebody is expected to read public notice sections? And I知 just wondering if you made a specific outreach to any of the neighborhood associations to go visit with them at their meetings as opposed to that there was an expectation that somebody would know about your meetings and know to show up?
>> i've been contacted by a person in the neighborhood, Commissioner, and I asked them if they would please tell me who to contact. They would not tell me.
>> we might find out shortly.
>> and that person is here today and will probably talk to you. As far as -- i'll tell you one more thing we agreed to do. If our preliminary can be approved and we can close on the property, and I would like not to at this time divulge anything about the financial data except to the Commissioners, it's not public information, of course. We've agreed to sell 671 acres, which contains all of the little bee creek, both sides, to the kasmetsky family. So they would own bee creek and little bee creek. And i'd be happy to show that contract to anyone who would like to see it.
>> I have a couple more questions. It appears that the water quality issue has been addressed. And I guess working will the lcra, is there any other entity that has to be involved besides txdot and the lcra? I guess the county.
>> tceq.
>> of course. All of these particular arms of the government being involved in this, of course, the preliminary plan coming before the Travis County Commissioners court, because water quality is something that has been talked about -- I think Commissioner Daugherty talked about the water runoff as far as the soccer field fertilization process and with it being a danger of runoff and it potentially getting into the water source there. And it appears that from what I知 understanding that these modes of addressing water quality is something that you've looked -- having looked very, very closely at. And I know that a lot of the conversations that we've had have been divulged as far as looking at the drinking water protection zone, making sure that drinking water of course is -- that area is still protected, but I guess my main question is if the city of Austin -- I guess I can ask staff this question. If the city of Austin was looking at this water quality concept as far as what they presented here today before us and they were overseeing this, and I guess the lcra and all these other folks that have been involved, how would you rank that? Would you consider this being more stringent of a water quality approach as far as what they're presenting here to us today if it was in the city of Austin as far as water quality?
>> I think under normal circumstances, my understanding is lcra regs are even more stringent than the city of Austin's. I think that the fact that they have to go through tceq and lcra makes it even more difficult and more hoops to jump than than within the city. At least that's my understanding about what the staff said about lcra versus the city of Austin. So I assume that they will have much more regs relations to follow than they would. My understanding also is that lcra mirrors Texas parks and wildlife regulations, so let's is say they're stringent.
>> can I say one more thing? Obviously if it was in the city of Austin's jurisdiction, city of Austin has impervious cover limits. I don't believe lcra has impervious cover limits. That's probably the biggest distinction. Lcra has performance standards, and if you meet those performance standards, you could have as much impervious cover as you want. Austin goes the direct route of just limiting your impervious cover.
>> okay. And the final question is you mentioned earlier that this did go before the Texas legislature to in fact create a district, I guess through the process as far as getting the m.u.d. Established. That was basically -- where are you right now as far as the m.u.d. Is concerned. And I知 just wanting to make sure I understood what you said correctly. During this particular process, the public hearings as far as establishing the m.u.d., It indicates to me that there would be an increase as far as density is concerned in certain areas. If I heard you correctly, did you say there was not any participation as far as the public hearings?
>> no, sir, not at all.
>> pardon me?
>> there was no participation at all. No one showed. No one has attended our m.u.d. Meetings. And they are public, Commissioner. And when you say our turf, the board of directors -- it's like they're appointed by the governor. Certainly anyone can come to the m.u.d. Meetings. They're certainly not a lockout of any kind. I don't understand the inference, if you don't mind.
>> the question was more a lot of times what happens is it's in the public notice section of the statesman or another place or even an ad placed somewhere, and for all of us who don't take the statesman any more and read it online, we don't get these kind of things. So it's just a question of it may be that you've done all the proper posting, etcetera, but if somebody doesn't regularly read where you're doing your posting, they really wouldn't have a sense of what's been going on. That's really my question. It doesn't mean that you didn't do everything according to the way you should have done it, it's just that most people don't read the public notice section of any newspaper to find out that there are indeed hearings going on. And the m.u.d. -- the creation of the m.u.d., I知 suspecting that was actually during the legislative session?
>> yes.
>> there are a million laws going through there for anybody to be able to know about a specific bill without -- that's asking an awful lot of people to know that it really was coming through. A lot of times we're two blocks away and we don't know what's going on. So it's not meant to be any kind of criticism of you, it's just the reality that sometimes folks need to have more of an outreach to be able to know what's going on. So the technical requirements are often times not enough. That's all I mean.
>> just the process. Just wondering if people participated. And sometimes the process is not always intended the way it should be intended.
>> I understand.
>> input is all about outreach. Are there any further questions for the applicant from the court? Sit back and get comfy in the front row and if we could free up four seats. Anybody that's here to speak on this particular item, we've got four chairs, four microphones. We'll take you in order. And then because I think we have more than four people here, as you complete your comments, if you could let loose of that seat and let somebody else take your seat. Y'all don't be shy. Got room for one more. Thank you, sir. To make it easy for me, I知 going to is that right off from my left. Sir, if you would go ahead.
>> my name is trey (indiscernible). I知 a resident of the area. I live a little further out the corridor of highway 71 towards the pedernales river. I come before you to speak to what I consider to be the number one thing in the corridor, traffic. This road is a death tramp. My count is 40 deaths in the last 48 months in and along 71 from southwest parkway to pale face ranch road. Unfortunately, I don't have the documentation to back that up, but trust me, as my kids listen to the ambulances going up and down this highway, it's at least that much. We've got a real situation out there. The mission of the Commissioners court is to try to bust the old broken model of development which i've had validated by mr. Gunn, who called me yesterday and we spoke for a while, and stot, which i'll try to break it down in my simple mind is one of carnage, congestion, counts and concrete. And the way that works is it's worked along 183, is that you have the carnage, the deaths, you then get the congestion of the stoplights, you then start to have everybody go up as they get carnage and congestion, and then they go to txdot and they say let's get a traffic count. The traffic count is then put in place and they realize, no, now we need some concrete. My thought to you all is to go around all this and get in here, go as a Commissioners court to txdot using the developer's goodwill, which mr. Gunn spoke that he would be willing to consider giving right-of-way toward a traffic count -- traffic relieving of congestion, and that we would then move toward easing the flow through 71 where that light is going to start bringing people from 80 miles an hour to a stop and then back again, it's going to create carnage and congestion. It's not a bad way of doing things, it's just broken. And it is a bad way of doing things. We need to go in there or the Commissioners court in my opinion needs to go in there, jump in right now, call for a traffic count before the carnage escalates, the congestion will rise as this development comes in or these other developments come in, and make the request to txdot. Maybe there's a way for the Commissioners court and the developers to broker some right-of-way to be given at final plat that would then put the pressure on txdot to come forward and look at this situation right away. With that right-of-way that has been donated or sold at cheaper than prices once the strip centers get built along the road which is inevitable as construction happens, a rolling village goes up much as it has along 183 and made the cost of the concrete rise. We could then go in and build a highway first. It doesn't mean it needs to be a super highway, not in my opinion, but density will be addressed later. You will have the power to help fix a broken wheel out here. This is a bad situation. There's no reason for more people to die. The list of lost treasures as Travis County grows should not include the lives of our citizens as we go along the 71 corridor. Thank you very much for your time.
>> thank you for your comments.
>> I have one more question. As far as the notification is concerned, I drive that corridor everyday. I drive 71 everyday. And I don't know if the county could ask for it or request it, but some signs have been posted upon that land, then I probably would have seen it and stopped, much like in the city of Austin they have those yellow signs when there's a zoning or a m.u.d. It's just a simple thought that we could go to the legislature and ask them to start posting visible signs when a new m.u.d. Is going to be put in.
>> thank you. And we've got another seat opening up. Thank you, sir. Yes, sir.
>> good morning. My name is john salazar. I知 a resident of travis settlement, which is basically across the road from where this new development is going in. I知 one of the board of directors of travis settlement homeowners association, and I have to admit as Commissioner Sonleitner so aptly pointed out, that I do not read those portions of the Austin statesman or the chronicle that advertise these public hearings, so I had never heard of any of these public hearings before. I知 not here representing my board of directors, but I am here to acquire information for them. And here as a private citizen. I would definitely like to get the contact information for mr. Gunn to we can have the opportunity at our board to listen to him and his presentation. That's one of the things i'd like to do today. As an aside about a year ago, our board of directors took the initiative and did write a letter to txdot addressing the traffic issues and asking that they put in some turn lanes because even before I knew about this development it was very obvious that that highway along that part of the road is really a death trap. And we do have to do something about that. It's going to be totally exacerbated by what's going on with this development, and we have to make sure that txdot takes that into account because as somebody mentioned, it's going to be total carnage out there with the additional traffic. So basically I知 here as a private citizen, primarily to acquire information. And I appreciate the opportunity you gave us to hear about this.
>> sir, can you tell us what neighborhood association you're with?
>> travis settlement homeowners association. We have about 150 homes across the street and about 390 lots. So it's a significantly sized association.
>> what's the average size of --
>> anywhere from the smallest is about an acre and a half and the largest is around 10 acres of the and obviously the quality of life for all of those people there, we're going to live like a little island because our lots are probably a little bit larger than normal, than what's standard in that area, but still we're going to be affected. We all have to put up with the traffic, and the traffic is already bad. It's going to get significantly worse. And the water quality is something that we're also very concerned about.
>> thank you.
>> we have another seat opening up where mr. Salazar is. Good morning.
>> good morning. My name is christie miews and I reside in cross land, which is a small subdivision off of bee creek road. Very near this development. I am not affiliated with any organization. I am a concerned citizen, a very concerned citizen. I've spent the bulk of my time over the past two months studying the growth issues along the highway 71 corridor. And the bulk of my time, I have a two-year-old, a six-year-old, a home based business and a husband two travels, so it's been like the leftover time that i've spent working on this, but what I first -- when I first learned about the damage that west cypress hills had caused to the creek, I decided it was time to find out everything I could about proposed development along highway 71. At that time I learned that the development at 71 and bee creek road. At that time it was known as the lazy 9. It was very close to securing a surface water line from the lcra, which has since been postponed, wisely. Along with surface lines along hamilton pool road. That corridor is struggling with development issues as well. Well, now the lazy 9 is referred to as sweetwater, which is what we're talking about today. Today we're lookingty phasing agreement and yes the preliminary plan for sweetwater. I知 asking you not to move forward on these items today. And here's why: Commissioner Daugherty, I appreciate very much, has started to bring together a group of people to work together and compromise on development issues along highway 71. The lcra has also made publicly clear that they see the need to participate in the planning process for growth that involves all stakeholders, not just the developers. To quote Commissioner Daugherty, only a tough process where everyone compromises in good faith will bring about the type of community we would all like to have in western Travis County and I support you with that Commissioner Daugherty and I appreciate that. The sweetwater master plan is massive, to say the least. I have another diagram that shows actually the density, the number of homes and what it looks like on this piece of property. And it's not green. These are rooftops. And i'd like to pass this around so you can take a look at it because it's a little different than what you're looking at right here, but it actually shows the entire development, the roads and the number of houses. The plan calls for close to 2,000 new homes on small lots, extremely dangerous highway, environmentally sensitive land, all surrounding bee creek. I have a copy of the plan here and I知 happy to pass it around. Commissioner Daugherty, you made a commitment to seek solutions here, so please don't move forward on this project until you've given the plan a chance to progress. And you've started to hold meetings and you did have a meeting with the developers, and many people very much wanted to be included in that meeting, so we could have a chance to voice concerns, and there's another meeting scheduled that is going to involve the neighborhoods, the neighborhood associations, environmentalists, traffic specialists. We need to bring that to the table. That needs nooedz to happen. Commissioner Daugherty, you need people at your table that are willing to compromise and I think that's great. I want you to make sure that include the developer in that compromise. County regulations regarding water quality are currently nonexistent. According to anna, at no point during the permitting process is the developer required to show a plan for water quality protection. For this the county deferred over to the lcra. My understanding of the lcra's npf requirements are that they are believed to be antiquated, they are currently under review and revision. Allowing 30% of the polluted runoff from close to 2,000 homes to flow directly into bee creek is unacceptable, and that is what the current mpf plan for the sweetwater development allows. I've heard over and over that the county doesn't have the authority to implement stricter regulations regarding development in unincorporated areas. And it's always an elected official or a developer who will say the county doesn't have the authority; however, I spent hours on the phone with staff at all levels as county, in the permitting offices and the county environmental officer, the tnr, the tceq, the Texas parks and wildlife, the lcra, capital area planning council, the Texas department of transportation and staff at all these agencies have led me to learn that the county does have authority, you do have authority, but you just aren't exercising it quite yet. In fact, these staff members that I talked to are encouraging me to pursue these issue with you. They clearly see the need for stricter regulations. Senate bill 873 has granted you the authority to protect our water quality, to limit impervious cover, and to be progressive in planning in the growth of this region. So why approve this development today? Hays county and comal county have moved forward with senate bill 873 and are tightening up their regulations. Instead, I propose that we begin to work on tightening up the regulations through the county Commissioners court before approving new development and before another disastrous situation has a chance to emerge. If you'd like information on questions about lick creek, there are people here that can talk to you about that situation. The lcra has made a commitment to seek solutions before continuing on surface water lines, so I知 asking you to make the same commitment. Regarding traffic, I haven't even started -- I only started to research traffic issues recently. My first call was to the department of public safety. I wanted to get a statistics analysis report done on highway 71 on accident between bee cave and spicewood. I've been told it will take over three weeks to produce that report, and there's also a fee to get this report handled. I知 not in the position to pay fees for these kind of reports, but I was going to ask the court to ask the department of public safety to supply you with that information before you make a further decision on development on highway 71. I fear that if you approve this phasing agreement and preliminary plan that you could grandfather this subdivision in to today's nonexistent regulations and you could forfeit your authority to make smart choices for Travis County. I don't have an attorney, I don't have an engineer, I don't have a vested interest in the situation. I care about the quality of bee creek and Lake Travis. I care about the safety of those driving on highway 71. I care about the beauty of the Texas hill country. And I please ask you to give my concerns and the people who share my concerns equal merit to the concerns of the developer. Thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> let me ask, is it true, rick, that 30% of the runoff in this project is going to go into the creek? If you wouldn't mind addressing that.
>> let me make sure I have all the terminology correct. The current lcra non-point source pollution control ordinance has a formula in which you calculate your existing runoff conditions in the existing pollutant load within that runoff the water coming off these properties is not pure, it's dirty, as you can well see every time it rains. Their formula requires the developer to go in, calculate, using the amount of impervious cover from streets and rooftops and other improvements such as soccer fields. The pollutant load that would be created in the post developed condition. Naturally that's going to be greater in the predeveloped condition. And their ordinance requires that at a minimum we put in structural systems or overland flow systems or a performance-based system that removes at a minimum 70% of the increase in the pollutant loads. What we have planned to do on this project, we may not achieve 100% because it's just extraordinarily difficult to achieve an absolute 100% removal of any pollutant constituent and rainwater runoff, but our target for doing this is the 90 to 95 percentile of the removal of the increase in those pollutant loads. So it's very -- not overly complicated, but there's a very well-defined set of equations, simultaneous equations that once you solve, then you've taken care of these constituents. And these are oil and grease, phosphorus and suspended solids.
>> have you ever had a conversation with rick about that? Do you understand what he just said?
>> I do. And I have a copy of a summary of this report and I encourage you to read it. And currently the water that runs off that property is pristine and pure. There's no development there at all. And let me just read a short part here. Let me see if I can find this part. Because of the topography, not all developed area can be drained to water quality detention ponds because the topography of the tand -- they're not even going to capture at all in favor of the runoff. And so what they have -- you can read this. The proposed ponds will overtreat the water they are receiving in order to account -- that's what he's talking about getting a greater level of treatment. In order to account for the untreat the water running off the developed area. Much of the water is untreated. It's so hilly and you can see when he said he was not developing in pingz, I would really like for you to look at this, because they are developing up in the hills and where the runoff will not be captured. It's in the summary right here.
>> thank you.
>> we will need your chair.
>> sorry.
>> it's okay. Thank you.
>> good morning, Commissioners.
>> good morning.
>> my name is dickey street. I appreciate you giving me this opportunity to speak. I reside at 5003 canyon ranch trail in the pedernales valley about five miles west northwest of sweetwater ranch. And first let me say to you that I am not against orderly, planned growth. I am not against that. In fact, I spent the last 31 years as a full-time realtor in the Austin-Travis County area mostly. And a review of my records show that over 50% of my transactions were new homes. I love new homes. I had a partner many years ago, who unfortunately got cancer, who was president of Austin builders association. That's what we called it then. I've done over 200 or been involved in over 200 new home transactions in the subdivision on shady hollow off of brodie lane alone. I know about new construction, I know about septic systems, etcetera, and I know you're not going that, mr. Gunn. I've heard many citizens say over the years, Commissioner Daugherty -- i've known this gentleman for a long time. Now that I知 here, let's close the door. That's not my agenda. In fact, i've been here since 1964 when I got out of the united states army. And to put that into time perspectives for some of you younger people, I helped move one of the very first families into nash phillips and clyde co-puss subdivision on cherry week on the side of manchaca road a long time ago. There's thousands of homes in that subdivision now. I moved to my current residence in may of 1986, so i've been there just over 18 years. I've seen a tremendous increase in traffic on highway 71 since moving out there. And yes, a bunch of it, believe it or not, and I知 sure you would, comes from as far away as llano and marble falls, burnet. And i've seen far too many fatal accidents, as trey alluded to -- mentioned earlier. Particularly west of bee cave, the city of bee cave, and specifically west northwest of the hamilton pool road intersection. You know where that is. Now, please bear with me for just a moment. And i've got extensive notes and i've been revising them and I知 not going to take long. When going home from the southeast going northwest, from Austin, from Lakeway, from Cedar Park, Round Rock, wherever I might have been, I have to turn left on to pedernales canyon trail, which again is about five miles past their development. And unfortunately, it took several deaths, friends and/or relatives or residents of our neighborhood, at this intersection in order to get txdot to provide a protected left turn lane. If you've driven this stretch of highway 71 the past year or so out in that area, you know that 71 decreases from two lanes north northwest to only one. And it is really -- that's not your job, but it's a problem. There is an off and on left turn lane from that, but suddenly going from two lanes west, especially during high peak traffic in the afternoon, it's tough. And as mr. Gunn said earlier, boy, ladies and gentlemen, when you're coming down highway 71 off of that hill in the area where the subdivision is located as well as when you're coming down this long curvy hill just before you get to our subdivision, pedernales ranch, lake creek ranch, the speed limit is 65. Again, that's not -- I don't know what control you might have over that or what include you might have over that, but it sure could be decreased as far as I知 concerned. And yes, as I get older it becomes more difficult to take care of that. But the traffic, as he indicated, mr. Gunn indicated, is probably not going 65. And it really gets scary when you have an 18-wheeler behind you who may have let off the gas, and they should because if they don't, they're in real big trouble, but when you look back in your rearview mirror and here they come, even if it's -- it could be a huge suv or whatever it is, we have a very short left turn lane that I think was a mistake by txdot. It's sort of like when we used to have to try to get on 35 up here in the downtown area and you had to get out there quick. Well, you have to get off of here quick. To be real honest with you, I break the law. Because I cheat and I get in to the crossed yellow section part of that turn lane often times because of what's coming up behind me to get over there and to be able to slow down from where I知 doing 55 or 65 to get into my left-hand turn lane. It's quite dangerous making this turn. And txdot needs to be aware -- needs to do what's necessary to alter this situation by going back to two lanes in the north northwest direction, west direction, plus a listened hand turn lane -- left-hand turn lane. So my personal free plooe is as you approve any and all preliminary plats related to sweetwater ranch as well as future subdivisions with regard to frontage, and i've heard what mr. Gunn said about their working with txdot in providing a left turn lane and the installation of a stoplight. And mr. Gunn, I sincerely appreciate that. I mean, I知 saying that from my heart because I知 there and I don't think I知 leaving, hopefully not soon, but as you look at his plat, and if you can get some input from -- if your Travis County engineers can get some input from txdot that will hopefully allow a continuous left turn lane, it would be great. I知 not only speaking about this development, but future developments. I hope that you'll require any subdivisions that are on or near highway 71 to deed sufficient land so that we can try to get rid of some of these severe curves. I mean, it's tough. Those curves are hard at 65, much less those that are trying to do it at 75. So that we can hopefully one day in the near future, not too distant future, have a continuous left turn lane from say hamilton pool road on out past the pedernales river, at least, and probably beyond, as well as two lanes going west. As Commissioner Daugherty recently said, we really need a large scale planning effort related to growth in western Travis County. I知 ready and willing, Commissioner, to be a part of that planning effort. And as requested by you in that particular article, I have in fact spoken with bob Moore in your office and have submitted him my name, rank, serial number, e-mail address and even a short bio, as I told him, as far as you know what -- well, you know, but others might not, but I got out of prison four years ago. That's a joke. [ laughter ] I thank you very much for spearheading that effort. Lcra is presently in the process of revising, if you don't know this, their npf ordinances. I spoke with Karen bondy of lcra just last week. She heads up the division that overzs that effort. -- oversees that effort. And tom haigmeyer, whose name you heard earlier is under her command. These ordinances that are currently in place were written over 10 years ago, and I don't think i'd be putting tom on the hot spot by telling you that he thinks they need a whole lot more teeth than they currently have. So although the occurrence ordinances of the lcra could have been -- the ordinances of the lcra could have been met, that may not be enough. Believe it or not, you're looking at a fellow who has daily rain records, and I do mean daily, at my property, which just happens to be on the east branch of lick creek, since 1988. Daily. I've provided that information or a summary of it to lcra, and i'll be happy to provide them more. I'd like to ask the developer's engineer -- i'd just like to ask you, and i'd like the Commissioners court to make sure of one thing specifically with respect to the retention ponds. And that is that the spillway on those retention ponds are not too close, whatever that definition means, to your property's boundaries. The debacle, as one newspaper writer quoted recently, on our east branch of lick creek, one of the problems is, would you believe, that the dam of that small retention pond is less than 55 feet from the property's boundary. Unfortunately, when we first began to have interactions with that development, they didn't even want to admit that there was a creek there. I have pictures of it at my house, which coincidentally is only 600 roads below that dam. Those hills out there produce a lot of water. Whoever the hydrologist was for that west cypress hills subdivision, in my opinion made a huge mistake.
>> if we could go ahead and keep on this particular item.
>> well, my point is, Commissioner, let's keep an eye on this dam so we can stop or prevent a mistake between the dam and the property's edge. Thank you very much.
>> we have two seats that have opened up. We'll ask folks if you intend to talk to please take one of them. Yes, ma'am.
>> my name is pepper morris. I live and own property on lick creek. And I came here today not specifically to speak, but to be in support of christie muse and her request that you give the request for this a little more time. We know that there's a problem out there in lick creek. This has been an amazing learning process, not only for myself, but for all of the residents that live out in the highway 71 highway. And we certainly don't want to revisit lick creek with this new development. I am not anti-development. I know it's coming. It doesn't help the problems that we see existing today. And I知 willing to be a part of what ij is a really good thing to have the developers and the residents out there so that we can bring these things to the table. As vicky streety mentioned, the lcra is aware that their ordinances are outdated. And I don't know what the time frame is for them to have those things changed, but they are working on them. And I think it's a really good thing. In this process of learning, what I have learned is that those people, those agencies who have oversight authority have been in my opinion very lax in exercising their right to be out there watching and looking at the develop as it's proceeding. You've got three people, four people at the most to take care of 2,000 square miles. That's asking a lot of the lcra. And I don't know what they need to do to change that, but it just seems like even maybe in precinct 3 we need more people to take care of this amazing amount of territory. That's really all I have to say except I am here to support christie muse and her request. Thank you.
>> thank you. Yes, sir?
>> my name is john hatchet. I知 a resident out on hamilton pool road with about 550 acres adjacent on the south side of the proposed development. We asked about how -- you asked about has mr. Gunn gotten ahold of neighbors. I've tried for about a year to get with the owners of the property, the 14 heirs, very hard to get in touch with. That's been a very unfruitful process. Recently in the last three months as i've heard rumors of this development, i've tried to contact mr. Gunn unsuccessfully. Yesterday I got a preliminary plat that's associated with the water quality or the water contract with lcra that had the name of the engineering firm working, and I contacted them yesterday to get some more information, but I actually talked to somebody there, but they promised to get back with me, to hook me up with mr. Gunn. It didn't go anywhere. But today i'll hook up with him. So the question about public notice and the participation of adjacent landowners is definitely something that needs some work. I probably share, I don't know, maybe a half a mile of fence line with this property. The other problem that I found is I was hearing about the m.u.d. It doesn't seem like -- one of the problems seems to be that the name of the project has changed several times in the last three or four months. I went down to the deed office to see the records about the lazy 9 m.u.d. They have nothing there. So I guess what i'd like to say is i've been trying to find these people, but without a whole lot of luck. Hopefully we'll have more conversations going forward. My next concerns are the water quality. Is the open space going to be open space or is it going to be soccer fields or other land use that's going to affect the runoff? Soccer fields with fertilization and baseball fields, those things have a concern for me for the Barton Creek watershed. I have a question about the part of the property that does drain into the Barton Creek watershed, is it going to fall under the lcra's agreement to manage water quality within the Barton Creek watershed, and has that been delineated on this particular piece of property. I know that some of this property drains into the Barton Creek watershed and some of it drains into the bee creek watershed. So that's a question I have.
>> rick, can you answer that particular -- or bill? If we can answer some of these questions right now, john, would you rather are have them?
>> yes.
>> first I would like to apologize you, if you ever called my office and I didn't return your call, I apologize. I don't recall receiving a telephone call from you.
>> i've left a couple of messages. It's been a couple of months.
>> I swear to you I return all telephone calls of anyone that calls me. I did not know that. I apologize to you.
>> we'll get together.
>> fine.
>> so there's questions of this that there's portions that drain into the little Barton Creek watershed.
>> yes. If you connect this peak to this peak and back out to the road, then the balance of this would go to little Barton Creek. It was about 373 acres, I believe, exactly in little barton.
>> okay. And when you worked with lcra or -- my understanding is lcra has some agreements from some past litigation for the 290 water line that basically has them in an agreement to --
>> (indiscernible).
>> I understand the s.o.s. Ordinance, but some water quality objectives.
>> that's correct.
>> is this area underneath that provision with lcra?
>> well, I suppose it is. If you're asking if we would like to impose that on ourselves, we will, yes.
>> okay. I知 not sure exactly what the details on those are.
>> there's no construction of any kind in this area.
>> okay. But that would include no pesticides, no fertilizers?
>> no, we did not --
>> and undeveloped meaning undeveloped.
>> if we're going to do soccer fields, we're obviously going to disturb vegetation to develop those, but that's all we intend to do.
>> so it might be developed, but in recreational areas?
>> yes, that's correct.
>> okay. So I guess I would differentiate that between undeveloped and developed for recreational use.
>> you're talking in terms of wilderness, our intention is not to leave it wilderness. Our intention is to utilize it for the public. That's our intention.
>> and it would be public access?
>> no utility district has any policing powers or exercising policing powers. The reason we're dedicating to the district is to debt get it on the tax rolls?
>> it would be for public use?
>> the m.u.d. Is for public use as far as we're concerned as developers. It's not retained in the developer's name if that's what you're asking.
>> okay. Would there be public access to that area from 71 or would they have to go through --
>> yes, there will. You will have no, if you will, police power of any kind from utilizing it.
>> so there would be separate entry point for just that part?
>> yes, there will.
>> okay. And then --
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> it will not stay in the developer's name at all, period.
>> okay. I guess I知 trying to figure out if you all sold it, could somebody else build on it? Or is it going to be -- is it going to be dedicated open space?
>> we do not intend to sell it. Period.
>> is there some way of -- of --
>> conservation easement.
>> yeah, conservation easement or the city buying it as park land or --
>> we will certainly be willing to discuss that between now and the time we file a final plat. We will surely get into any and all of that. I think the county mentioned earlier -- that they would -- might like to have some parkland. We have been contacted by the school district out here, the school district was talking in terms of -- of utilizing that portion that's in hersch creek watershed to put a building and possibly acquire a high school site. So we are talking to them in terms of that. That in bee creek, I mean bee -- little barton, they were saying they weren't going to build on that, either. But the school wanted to buy some 115 acres and we've talked to them about. That. About that. There are many things that we are in discussion about that, that's one of the things that we will be willing to discuss, sure. Our intentions are photo build in it and see to it that no one else does, that answers your question.
>> yeah, that kind of answers the question. It's kind of like what mechanism are you willing to put into place to make that a permanent --
>> we are too preliminary to answer your question right now. We certainly will answer it before we get to a final, I知 sure the Commissioners will require us to.
>> okay.
>> and then I guess while you are up here -- my cattle get over there quite a bit. The fences out there are 40 years old, I知 often running across that property to try to retrieve some lost cattle. There is habitat in there, so I was disturbed about a little bit about the using bcp bank I guess in essence to basically buy or getting credits for some of the habitat area. And actually not have habitat preserved on the property. Because there is quite a bit of -- of the canyonlands in there are -- are currently --
>> okay. Great.
>> do have -- do have golden cheeked wash warblers, they are habitat.
>> would you like to talk to our experts --
>> I知 just going to say I have gone over there to get my cattle, there is habitat.
>> we are use are friendly to cattle.
>> will you continue to be?
>> the thing about the bcp, there are many ways that folks are given the flexibility to deal with the requirements under the endangered species act, but everyone deals with it, but there are multiple ways that you can do it related to either buying participation certificates, setting aside onsite mitigation, in -- it all gets us to the same place because the dollars would go back into purchasing more habitat, which the county is actively doing on a daily basis these days.
>> just seems that where you got actual habitat, the highest priority should be to preserve that habitat. Where -- it's not just habitat. There's actually -- there's warblers there.
>> they will have the appropriate discussions with u.s. Fish and wildlife about how to proceed forward. So it will be done in accordance to federal law.
>> okay.
>> it would be nice to just -- have habitat there.
>> we have thoroughly mapped all potential habitat areas.
>> okay.
>> and we have those maps available. And if I believe, if I知 correct, there was some -- some little piece back in here on that -- on your mapping that was potential habitat, isn't that correct? Right -- just right in here, wasn't that where you -- where you placed that on your map?
>> move your finger to the left. Back over this direction? More, more? More?
>> there.
>> okay. I知 -- these gentlemen have mapped every single square inch of potential habitat.
>> okay.
>> we will be happy to provide those maps to you.
>> that would be great. The other thing was in -- the platting that I saw yesterday, I understand is mainly to -- to suffice or to support the water contract. Isn't necessarily an on the ground development plan, per se. So what I would like to figure out is have you made provisions for interconnects with adjacent properties? I have 550 acres that's basically just on the south side.
>> your preservation ranch -- you're preservation ranch, right? Right here?
>> a little bit to the left. Right in there. And I知 also under contract for -- for an additional 350 acres on just to the west of myself.
>> right down in here?
>> more to the right. Yeah. So -- so I didn't see any provision on the plat that I got yesterday for interconnects with adjacent properties. For emergency services or anything like that. And --
>> i'll go through that if -- if the Commissioners would like me to take the time.
>> seems like that's a discussion you all need to have offline, it's -- [multiple voices]
>> is that something that the county requires, interconnects for emergency services?
>> no.
>> okay. It just isn't. But I encourage you all to have discussions about that offline.
>> okay. Last things are -- is -- has the m.u.d. Been finalized? I know that the legislature --
>> yes, it has.
>> so it's already been enacted and it's already taken on debt?
>> no, it has no taken on any debt. We have not held our confirmation election.
>> that's what I was asking, yeah.
>> we have not closed on the property. Once we have closed on the property, we will have the confirmation election and that should occur in the next, the -- if the Commissioner is willing, in the next couple of months.
>> okay. There's still a chance to basically reduce the size of the m.u.d. Where appropriate?
>> the -- the m.u.d., The directors will make that decision.
>> okay.
>> if they want to reduce the size.
>> okay. Okay.
>> and then provision for schools, which sounds like you already had some preliminary talks.
>> yes. I知 talking with the school district now, yes.
>> okay. Okay. Those are the -- those are the -- kind of the -- you know, I got surprised about this. I didn't really come with a whole lot of things except to find out more information. I have been hearing about it, couldn't get any information. So --
>> thanks. [multiple voices]
>> have a meeting that I guess -- there's a lot of questions, I know that. I知 here to -- I知 hearing a bunch of new things that I didn't even realize. Would there be probably a -- an after meeting before this comes back to the Commissioner court if we don't do anything with it today with the kind of questions that this young man has asked? There's a lot of questions that have been laid on the table, but it appears that there may need to be some further meetings held with you and also the persons that are coming up here. Because it's -- it's not -- not that it's deviating, but it is getting into some areas that -- that of course private one on one maybe --
>> Commissioner Davis, we are -- [multiple voices] we are willing to meet with anybody. The gentleman truly did surprise me that he's called my office and that I did not get the message or return his call because we have -- we have met with each and every one of the property owners on our boundaries. And had lengthy discussions. In fact I just told you the results of one lengthy discussion early with the kozmetsky family.
>> I know that I have receiver follow-up questions after we hear from the public. And -- but I didn't want to make -- I wanted to make sure the door of opportunity to continue this conversation will be available to the -- to the persons that are coming up before the Commissioners court today.
>> I知 -- I知 available. I'll do anything in my power.
>> thank you.
>> I think that's where I was headed when he first got started here. Sometimes even though you have -- you may have met the exact letter of our requirements because this is a -- this is a phase-in agreement of preliminary plan, there is more flexibility to basically say it would sure be great if you could get with the impacted folks, we have certainly surfaced a number of I知 going to ask for an additional two weeks to give everybody the opportunities to have those meetings and -- at that point come back and -- and move on.
>> Commissioner, if I could ask you a favor, we -- we have spent untold amounts of money to get to this point. If you would be willing to give us a week delay, we can have a week delay. Due to contractual obligations, it would be -- it would be an additional hardship on us to go two weeks. We will put any kind of plat restrictions on ourselves that you wish to add if you would consider approving our plat since we have met all the requirements of your ordinances. If you would like to put restrictions on our plat that -- that no development plans will be approved until we have met with every single homeowners association, we will agree to that. Until we have met with homeowners associations we cannot submit to you any final plat. We will agree to that. There is no effort on our part to not meet with -- with folks. We don't know who they are, necessarily. But we sure are trying.
>> do you have a set closing date that you are trying to meet, sir?
>> yes, ma'am. We have to close by the end of this month.
>> okay.
>> so we have got one more meeting for sure.
>> yes, ma'am.
>> okay. That may be where we are headed is to basically say -- I mean I know for me to say over the next week, get with everybody that we can --
>> we can do that, yes, ma'am.
>> okay. Well, I don't want to cut off anybody else having their discussion. Are you finished with your remarks?
>> I believe so.
>> thank you very much.
>> thank you very much.
>> mr. Crock is next, we have two more seats and if there are more folks to speak, please grab those seats. Otherwise we have got our last two speakers.
>> okay.
>> mr. Clark.
>> good morning, I知 colin clark, the save our springs alliance, we went a letter by fax and e-mail. You all paper copies as well. We requested a delay of 30 days to give the public time to understand what's being proposed here. And I appreciate the offer to meet with folks who have come here today, I would certainly like to be a part of that discussion. Most of this property, as you now know, is -- is in the Lake Travis watershed, a portion being little barton and -- and we are concerned that the proposed soccer fields would -- would as Commissioner Daugherty brought up, require fertilizer, so we would ask that that land be dedicated, if it's intended to be dedicated to public use, that it will be wilderness rather than something that is developed and requires pollutants to function. We are asking to approve the preliminary plan, as county attorneys pointed out, you are under no obligation to approve a preliminary plan. That's also true of the phasing agreement, we have specific concerns about the phasing agreement that appeared to attempt to lock in the county specifically on -- specifically i'll read from it: in the phased development of the property, the county will approve the subsequent final plats of the property. And as mrs. Muse brought up earlier, that raises some red flags about grandfathering issues, if you will recall during the debates that took place here over the lowe's property, the former mayor, gus garcia, warned you that when a preliminary plan is approved that -- that that can be waved around as triggering some sort of grandfathering protection. Since you are not required to approve the preliminary plan or the phasing agreement, we would ask that you not do that today. And on the traffic, just for some perspective on that, I won't harp on it too much, but the rule of thumb is for a residential home, that home will generate nine vehicle trips per day. So if -- if this gets built out at 1800 homes, that's over 16,000 car trips per day and folks are going to be working in Austin and shopping in bee cave or on 620, they are going to have -- that's going to be 8,000 left turns. To get into the subdivision. So please consider the -- the scope of that amount of traffic. Then also to throw out takes mr. Gunn mention, one acre lots, that being possibly problematic from a water quality standpoint. I would offer that there are some developers taking large old ranches, such as this one, 2,000 acres, and instead of doing one acre lots, doing on the order of 50 lots, 65 lots, total, there's one in johnson city, 2,000-acre ranch called walnut springs that is limited to 65 lots, so you can protect water quality and those developers are certainly doing that to make a profit. So I do through there's some -- I do think there's opportunity to have growth, have private development take place in these sensitive watersheds in a way that doesn't damage water quality or create the traffic problems that this would certainly create. Thank you.
>> thanks, mr. Clark.
>> thank you.
>> yes, sir?
>> my name is alex wood. I live on the harris ranch or my wife's family's ranch. We share close to a mile of fence line with the proposed development. Right next to mr. Hatchet. I guess -- I just wanted to comment and underscore what you were bringing up about process a little bit. I知 kicking myself that somehow this get along to this point before all of a sudden I discovered it was happening. I hear mr. [sounds of gunfire] -- I hear mr. Gunn made ever effort to reach landowners, maybe ours is complicated because there are three sisters who own our ranch, but to the best of my knowledge, there was no attempt to contact us.
>> how far are you from the proposed development.
>> we are right on it. We share -- we are a mile, we are 400 acres right next to mr. Hatchet. We have about -- I could point out exactly where it is. I would guess about a mile of fence line with the developer.
>> I just wanted to know the proximity.
>> I don't think so. No, next to hatchet, I知 -- well, yes, on the -- is that --
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> preservation ranch and hatchets.
>> there you go.
>> okay.
>> okay. Losing my train on that. It's just that I haven't been apathetic about what's going on around me. I have been trying to pay attention to what's going on around me. And I think we are headed down the right road now with -- with a chance to meet and talk about what's happening, but -- but I investigation that I would like to go on record as seeing if there can't be some sort of policy about how we do a better job of bringing these proposed cheangs that will have a dramatic -- changes that will have a dramatic effect -- we have a 400-acre ranch, we run livestock. It's going to have a devastating effect, not devastating, that's the wrong choice of words. It's going to have a dramatic effect on how my ranch operates, on what we do, on our future. And it would have saved everybody a lot of heart burn if we could have started talking a little earlier in the process about this. Than now. I知 very pleased to hear, I actually sat with -- in mr. Doherty's office about another matter, I知 pleased to hear that we are working towards this concept of a regional plan. It's got to happen because -- because, you know, in my own case, basically, in the course of two weeks, I went from being -- from being a half mile to my nearest neighborhood to have something like 4,000 homes proposed all within a half mile of me. You know, people are allowed to do what they want with their property. But it has an effect and I知 worried about my kids and stuff like that. So -- that's all that I have to say.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thanks, mr. Woods. Yes, sir, we do need to make the last call on this in terms of anybody else please come forward. Otherwise this will be our last speaker.
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> I think it's fine for right now, thank you. I have a sense we are not going to act today.
>> my mame is larry akin, I live on bee creek road. I wanted you all to know that I was contacted some time ago by mr. Gunn and mr. Horn regarding this project, they even asked me who else I knew up and down bee creek road that might be impacted by this. So I think just to go on the record, they have made some effort to contacting and interact with people. To let them know what's coming. I have been originally from san antonio, I have been a resident of west Travis County and Lake Travis area since 1979. I have seen many changes out in this area. And the changes are very probably inevitable. In conversations with the developers, I have gotten a comfort level that these people are trying to do responsible development. They are talking about adding traffic signals where we already desperately need them. They are talking about doing water quality that is far super more -- far superior to what ended up down the road from us. They are talking about large greenbelt and park areas. I just wants to go on record as saying I have a comfort level if the growth is going to happen, I believe it is, it's better in the stewardship of people who are developing responsibly than it could otherwise be. That's all that I have.
>> thank you.
>> thanks.
>> I have -- I have a couple of questions.
>> of staff or mr. Gunn? Of mr. Gunn.
>> no, this is of stuff, then probably mr. Gunn and some phase of the questioning process. And I investigation mr. Gunn -- and I guess, mr. Gunn, let me ask staff this question, first, then I will approach mr. Gunn. Tom, legally, I think that we have brought this up, the process, persons not being notified, alleged to not have been notified. Mr. Gunn suggests that he has met all of the requirements as far as notification is concerned. However, there appears to be an uncomfort level with those remarks hearing what the testimony we have witnessed here today. By law, of course, by example, the city of Austin has a requirement that they notify residents within a certain range of -- of feet from zoning changes or other type of notifications that may entail zoning changes, land use efforts. By law. They are required to notify those residents. Under a m.u.d. Scenario, when a new district is created, by state legislature, is there any requirement other than the process that mr. Gunn described that -- that -- to notify residents within their certain range and proximity to that particular m.u.d. That's being proposed? That's by law.
>> if it's a case of the legislature creating the m.u.d., If there's -- if there's a notice requirement, that's a notice requirement that the legislature has imposed on itself, I do know that in the case of -- of creation of certain special districts by the legislature, the legislature has imposed on itself a requirement that it notify certain local elected officials. But to my knowledge the legislature has not imposed on itself a requirement that the legislature notify neabing land own -- neighboring land owners when the legislature creates a m.u.d.
>> all right. So I guess -- that's another look, might have been looked at, because I知 really concerned about -- about a m.u.d. Being created and then according to what I知 hearing here today, the residents not having any knowledge of how they will be impacted by the establish -- establishing that m.u.d., That may be something that we need to look, as far as maybe the legislature can address. Because I think notification can be very critical in how you are notified and mr. Begun gunn says he's done everything under the book as far as the process of notification, but still it apparently that he's fallen short, according to what I知 hearing here today. I think it may be something that we may need to look at as far as making an effort to make sure that that -- that that's looked at in a little further detail. Number two, is that -- I guess i'll have to ask charles joseph this question here. Carol is any a portion of this particular phasing agreement, how much of a portion of this has anything as far as being in the boundaries of the e.t.j. Of the city of Austin, any of it?
>> none of it.
>> none of this in the e.t.j., Is that correct?
>> that's correct.
>> so I wanted to make sure that publicly is acknowledged because of the fact that is resting on the shoulders of what we are trying to deal with here today. Of course Travis County is the governing body to look at what we are doing here today, no one else, it doesn't have to go before the city or anything else. It stops right here.
>> had it been it would have come to the single office, it's not that.
>> right.
>> mr. Gunn, if you can for me, sir, earlier you had -- I think it's been coming across regional. Regional approach to a lot of things, I think that you have heard some of the testimony coming from some of the residents about the regional approach to how we -- how we resolve and look at the issues and this is not only concerning development, but we are talking about regional approach to how we deal with transportation situations, solid waste, just all across the spectrum as far as participation regional concept. Hearing the response from what I asked the county attorney, assistant county attorney on -- on the process itself, you said basically you only have a week to deal with because of closing, and I only remember it, recall one neighborhood association that -- that mentioned its name to us and others, you hear a lot of folks. How could you centralize or regionallize this effort to ensure that those questions and things that they have brought up before the Commissioners court today is resolved in a -- in a setting where you can bring this back before the Commissioners court next week?
>> Commissioner, we certainly have their names. So we certainly can contact each and every one of them, christie hughes and I are already familiar with each other. And several folks here that -- that have been speaking, I have also spoken with them. So I wasn't totally unsuccessful. But if it comes to folks in five miles, I don't think any of the Commissioners here have required other developers to contact people in a five-mile radius. I think your population counts would get a little out of hand if you tried that. But we will indeed, we did I知 -- I知 pleased the gentleman here is with the homeowners association that's down bee creek road to be frank with you -- I think that subdivision is probably two and a half or three miles away probably. At least three miles down bee creek road. But we still -- that's been our problem. Commissioner. We are sitting right here. On a map, you know, you could get far enough perspective away, it looks fairly close, but feel nearly 3 miles away. We start, you know, we are -- we are not exactly vowbded by surrounded by neighbors. It's a little difficult to know how big of a radius --
>> exactly, that was my point. When I brought it up, was there any defined radius that could be looked at as far as notification is concerned, if it was, then what is it. I alluded to that when you brought up the city of Austin requirement in the zoning change for an example, a zoning request for a change, it was a certain radius. The residents in that particular area, so many feet, have to be notified. And I did not know if -- that's why I asked the attorney was there any legal requirement.
>> in regards to traffic, Commissioner, these folks have a very valid point. All of us, how long we waited to see mopac finally get an access up there at the north end. We were all impacted by mopac, we have been impacted by mopac for years and years and years. These folks are facing the same thing on '71. Of course 71 is slowly starting to build the traffic count. As I explained to trey, when he called the other day, one of the problems that we have is they go state highway --
>> well, the traffic count is enough, the legislature will allocate the funds to go upgrade the road. That's how we all have to deal with roads all over the city. That's how you all deal with roads when the traffic count gets high enough, you all can -- want to allocate the funds with it, that's when you improve the roads [multiple voices]
>> can be put up to put people on notice. We do have some of those things that we have to put up a sign related to, is it name changes?
>> exactly.
>> but I wasn't putting you on the spot, just basically wanted to make sure that everyone understood the process, everyone has an understanding of where we go from here.
>> yes, sir.
>> basically I知 trying to set up in my mind the next thing that I have to look at as far as what they have to say, y'all working things out coming back to us. [multiple voices]
>> we will make a renewed effort so that all of the folks that come, that we have done -- if you would like it, we will put up a billboard, say we would like to talk to everybody.
>> if we give you another week, is it possible that you either individually or collectively could try to meet with many people as possible. I think quite frankly if they have an opportunity to hear a lot of this, a lot of their questions, at least get answered, it doesn't mean that their concerns go away. But I think there's a lot in what you all have built into this that I think would give people some comfort as to what's going on as compared to a lot of other developments that are going on out there that have not done what you are proposing. So I think information would be very powerful here.
>> yeah. Sure.
>> is it possible that you could meet over the next week.
>> one comment that I would like to make, about the 65 acres, the ranches, for their purpose I知 sure that served their purpose. Our purpose is to offer reasonably priced houses. We are not trying to be elitist. I知 not trying to serve only those people that can afford a 65-acre west Travis County ranch. About her trying to -- we are trying to offer this to young family that can afford houses, in some cases right at the 200,000 or just below the $200,000 range to get into the middle class, if you will. There's nothing elitist about us. We didn't do a golf course. It's elitist, that's not what we are trying to do. For our purposes this is what we need to do. If a guy wants a 65-acre ranch subdivision, go on owvment there's plenty of -- go on out, there's plenty of it.
>> yes, sir? Go ahead.
>> well, I知 -- you can have a seat, I don't have to ask you any questions. I just want to make a couple of comments before we move on. First of all, I genuinely am appreciative of everybody coming down. As the precinct 3 Commissioner and unless I知 beaten in November by a wrote-in vote I will be your Commissioner for the next four years. And I desperately want to bring parties together as much as we possibly can on this. I mean, I wasn't looking to fill up space in the three western newspapers where I wrote the article. I am a little surprised that -- that precinct 3, as all of the precincts have a little over 200,000 people in them, and I think as of yesterday afternoon, I had six people call and say they wanted to be involved in this thing and beyond, you know, you all that are involved in this thing. The predictionment that we have -- predicament that we have, I could vote on this, to go fawrld, only because they complied, I was in the same spot with Sunset Valley. If I as a Commissioner need to sit down with t.n.r. And come up with a more stringent set of rules, I知 willing to do that. But I am obligated to, if somebody -- if some somebody submits plans and they comply with the rules, that's all that I知 being asked to do. I知 willing to go way beyond that, I will work feverishly with everybody in western Travis County to come up with a way that people can get at least something of what they want. I mean, the common denominator with so many people, for example, today was traffic. Well, you know what? We are about to impose perhaps a tolling plan in this community because we don't have the resources to do the things that we need to do with mobility and transportation. 71 is -- I mean, no more a function of anything other than do you have the dollars to go out there and either secure right-of-way or build left-hand turn lanes or build lights or whatever. Yet we are being told that we are not going to be able to upgrade anything in this community unless we toll ourselves to get additional dollars from the highway commission. So I知 going to be looking for this group to be much more involved than just, okay, it's right here in my community. Obviously, I mean that's how people get the most involved. I mean it started I think with hamilton pool, then western -- cypress creek. And then now we've got, you know, the sweetwater tract. And the thing about it is y'all there probably are another half dozen that's coming right down the pipe that we are going to have to deal with. I知 looking forward to this because I think that we can bring things together. What I知 trying to get away from, quite frankly, it doesn't make any difference whether you are in western or eastern Travis County whatever, a lot of times if you are trying to develop something, you try to get below the screen. Now, that is for the sake because there is a lot of brain damage that goes into this. Whenever you tell people what you are wanting to do, it's typical of what's happened in this community where people try to find a way to keep you from doing what you probably have the right to do at least in the state of Texas. That is if you have a piece of property, you comply with certain regs, whether they are lcra rules, I think that the lies lcra is -- let me tell you I知 glad that they are part of this, they do have the resources, the science, I think they are honest brokers, they are going to be the best thing that could happen to western Travis County because they are going to really be able to be participants. So what I want to do with you all is to let you know that they have complied, now, whether we can get the thing passed next week, I don't know. But that doesn't mean that I知 just saying that I知 laying down and saying okay tell me about a facing agreement. Does a facing agreement lock me into something, if it's locks me into something, I知 willing to go to the developer saying I知 not going to get locked into anything. I知 going to have people come to the table and we are going to do this process, at least in western Travis County, to the point -- unless people get so, you know, yep set and just want to walk away from the trouble. We all love this community, i've been here 36 years, I mean, I知 going to be here for the rest of my life. I want western Travis County especially because of the pristine nature -- everybody, whether you live in western Travis County or you don't, people think that. But there are wonderful parts in all of this county. That people want the same thing. And I知 willing to -- to bring you all to the table, willing to work as much as you are wanting to do, but I don't want you to think that because I will vote for something that all of a sudden I知 on somebody's side. I mean that's not the case. I mean, if somebody can't comply with rules and regs, then it's real easy for me to say, you know what, you didn't comply with that, so I can't vote for it. I will tell you that my major goal in this thing will be to tell everybody that owns any sizable or any size of land that they think that they are going to develop, that the first thing that I want this group to do is say you know what we are going to have a written rule that you are going to absolutely touch, call, everybody that touches any part of your property and then go from there to every neighborhood, quite frankly, I mean western Travis County, it's not really a lot of come he'siveness with -- cohesiveness with regard to neighborhood associations, not like in Austin where you really do have the Austin neighborhood council. Rest assured that I think that we will get to where we are going -- what we are trying to do here, i'll look forward to it. Thanks for your time to come down, I know spending two and a half or three hours out of your day is a tough thing to do. Let's work as diligently as we can in this next week and christie, I am pulling together that group. The reason that I didn't pull the individuals with the -- with the developers he is because quite frankly -- is because quite frankly, I wanted to have a little come to jesus meeting with the developers, I wanted to let the developers know, you know what, this is what I知 going to expect of you. And I think that the developers and bill and everybody that I called was good enough to come to this meeting and I think they walked out of there knowing that hey I知 not just looking for you all to get everything that you want because there's a bunch of folks that's going to want things out of this community and especially western Travis County that I知 going to want them to have a spot at the table. I mean, s.o.s. Included. I mean if you are really honestly wanting to come and really make a difference in western Travis County, then I want you at the table. Now I probably am not going to be very excited about you coming to the table if the only reason that you are there is to stop everything that's coming down the pipe because I can't do that. All of us need to recognize that we can't do that. I will look forward to seeing, you know, everybody back next week and again thanks for coming. So should I -- is there a motion that needs to be made to postpone it for a week, Commissioner?
>> we can. I just want to make sure that Commissioner Gomez, did you have any further comments.
>> I知 fine. Just one thing. I think the notification if you could make that part of the process because I think in this community we also let everybody in on everything, that's something that we do.
>> you bet. Good comment. I will certainly do that.
>> uh-huh.
>> just one -- let me throw out just -- I think over the last 10 years when we have had folks come in and say I have not had an opportunity to meet I think almost without exception that we have given folks the courtesy of a week. I will tell you with very few exceptions have they dragged on for more than the time that we said that we would allow folks to go ahead and get together. I am sensitive to mr. Gunn telling us he has some closing requirements because normally I would have said take two weeks. But if you have got closing requirements, I知 going to respect that and say please meet either individually or collectively with as many people as possible over the next week. Because it sounds like there's really good dialogue, we have certainly made good contacts. I would hope that anybody that has not given their name to mr. Gunn that they would step outside after we finish this item, make sure that the appropriate phone numbers and e-mails, changes. I am looking to mr. Clark and others, on your e-mail list to make sure that whatever gets decided that you all have the appropriate phone trees and e-mail frees to -- trees to get that information out and some good work can occur over the next week. The one thing that I do want to put in there about why it is that we do phasing agreements because phasing agreements were birthed out of a situation -- what used to be precinct 2, is now precinct 3. It's a good thing. Because what we had is the time where the Commissioners court has the ability to lay out how roads will be properly platted and done is when it is all one gigantic plat. What folks were doing, a little piece here, there, by the time they Februaryed all of their little pieces none of their development was touching the road that needed to be upgraded. So phasing agreement allows us to properly and appropriately have the developer phase in and apply the fiscal for roads that need to be built out. It's done as a phasing agreement when certain development happens, it triggers certain other requirements to happen. It is absolutely to protect the public that when development occurs it does not fall back on the general county taxpayers to step in and fix what should have happened during the platting process. So in this case the phasing agreement is absolutely appropriate because it lays out all of the terms and conditions of how this development orderly will occur. Did you have a quick question?
>> thank you, Commissioner. Just real quick.
>> get on the microphone, otherwise they will yell at us.
>> yeah.
>> I appreciate the opportunity. Just real quick. Early on in mr. Gunn's presentation, I believe he indicated that there was going to be a portion of the land larger than zilker park deeded to the m.u.d.
>> yes.
>> [indiscernible]
>> yeah.
>> my concern would be -- he has told us, I believe him, that he would be careful to control fertilizers, et cetera, that go on that portion of land. Does the county or anyone have any controls over that type of activity once it's deeded to a m.u.d. Or do we -- that's a large amount of land. Think about that as you -- as you take us down the road.
>> okay.
>> I expect the answer is they are still going to have to deal where the lcra related to the non-point source pollution.
>> not in the district boundaries.
>> not within the district boundaries, great. Okay. Commissioner, I will recognize you for a motion.
>> then I would make a motion that we bring this back next week.
>> second.
>> with the intent that we will act on this --
>> absolutely.
>> great. Anybody that -- that needs to get their numbers to mr. Gunn, if you all will meet outside and make sure that the appropriate numbers are exchanged. Any further discussion? Gave naif? That passes by unanimous vote -- all those in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> I would like to thank you and your staff for doing such a great job on this. Thank t.n.r.
>> Commissioners, we are going to try to knock off as many of these little things.
>> I知 for that.
>> before we hit 12 noon.
>> I知 for that.
>> so that we are left with just executive session and the corporations for this afternoon.
>> thank you all.
>> thaupg, mr. Gunn.
Last Modified: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 8:44 AM