Travis County Commissioners Court
October 12, 2004
Item 14
View captioned video of morning discussion.
Text of afternoon discussion.
View captioned video of afternoon discussion.
Item 14 is to consider and take appropriate action on the following requests regarding rocky creek ranch preliminary plan, a subdivision in precinct 3. 14-a is a phasing agreement between Travis County and the developer, mchargue development limited, rebecca mchargue hudson, president. And 14 b is preliminary plan, rocky creek ranch preliminary plan, 486 lots, 467.86 acres, fm 3238, hamilton pood road. No fiscal is required for preliminary plan. Sewage service to be provided by lcra. No municipal e.t.j.
>> it's pronounced mchargue.
>> not to mispronounce it during the rest of the meeting, but thank you. Yesterday we did have a short discussion with staff, and in light of that I was given a stack of information and I asked what if we needed additional copies of this for others. Do we have them? And these were delivered to me yesterday. And they are available for those who want to see them, right? And this is three documents, the court has these. And then if I could get you to -- can we say what these are? While you're saying what they are, i'll hand them to dan.
>> before we get started, can we lay out the expectations of what we intend to get accomplished this morning? Because I know there are some constraints related to time, but also what are the expectations of what we're going to do today versus something that is going to happen next week or what? Because I think a lot of people here are thinking -- well, I don't know what folks are thinking. And to kind of lay that out. This is the first time that this has appeared before the Commissioners court.
>> john?
>> this is -- this is a development application. We had tnr look at these in light of the policy that the court has adopted with regard to the subdivision of property anywhere in Travis County. I think in part because of where this development is located that we have a lot of reasons why we do. We have started a process for looking at the goals and objectives for southwest Travis County. There are a lot of different issues regarding that from water quality to transportation to open space preservation. All those issues are being dealt with as part of the southwest Travis County court dialogue. (indiscernible) the hamilton pool planning effort and another. With that said, we still receive applications for development within these areas. We treat them in light of the adopted subdivision regulations of Travis County. Once those developments have met the current requirements, we feel obligated to bring these developments to the court for approval. That's not always easy when we have all these other issues that have not quite been settled out yet, so we are bringing this forward to inform the court that it meets the current requirements of Travis County for our green book. Earnd, there are a lot of -- on the other hand, there are a lot of associated issues that are not yet resolved, and that is in part where you see the people in the courtroom as you do today. As you can see, we need to step through for the court what you have on the agenda and how that meets the current requirements. We can also tell you what we have done to kind of keep the channels open for future regulations not yet adopted by the Commissioners court and how a lot of the agencies have varied on how this development may actually evolve. So it's really up to you how much time you want to spend, but I think probably as a starting point we should give you a briefing on what this application is, what it does, what the phasing agreement does. You may have some legal questions that you need to ask the county attorney. You may want to hear from the applicant and those citizens who have showed up today.
>> the the application was filed with Travis County when?
>> may March of '04.
>> March 1, March 31?
>> I believe March 4th.
>> does the application meet Travis County standards?
>> yes, sir.
>> what role if any does the lcra play in this this?
>> we have a service commitment letter that they intend to provide water and wastewater to this development.
>> and how does that affect what we can and cannot do?
>> it's said by our attorneys that that satisfies the requirements for approving a preliminary plan.
>> that is the condition for our recommending approval is that it have a water and wastewater provider. And we require a letter from that provider, which we do have from the lcra and it's part of your backup packet.
>> is that condition enforceable by Travis County?
>> in discussing it with lcra, lcra has requested that we basically take an enforcement role, and I think there are ways to do that. I've discussed that with legal counsel for lcra. And we don't need to do anything right now because this is just a preliminary plan, but if and when final plat applications are filed, we will add plat notes to the final plat. We may look at other things like restrictive covenants or other types of legal steps you can take to make things enforceable, but at this point Travis County would be taking an enforcement role on that. The preliminary plan note that we're adding addresses that. It says that the final plat stage, that type of language will be added. The applicant has agreed to that language. So ultimately these will be enforceable by Travis County.
>> but does -- do the conditions need to be enforceable at this time?
>> not at this time because this is just a preliminary plan. It doesn't get filed of record in the county courthouse, so it -- it's really not the enforceable document. The preliminary plan really is sort of an agreement between the developer and the county as to what the final plat needs to look like. And really the purpose of a preliminary plan is for the developer to come to the county and say, here's a general idea of what I want to do before I go and expend the many thousands of dollars it takes to have a final plat prepared, Travis County, please tell me if my development looks something like this, are we in the ballpark? Is this the type of thing that ultimately you would approve once all the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed? So at this stage, this is not the stage where the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed. When we do reach that stage we will have that enforceable language on the final plat. But all we need to do right now is have a preliminary plan note whereby we basically inform the developer when you come in for a final plat we're going to have that enforceable language on it and the applicant has agreed to do that.
>> a few more questions and then i'll be done as far as giving us a context of what's going on. Three more questions. I had several e-mails containing the recommendation that Travis County should take no action today because in fact Travis County is not required to do so. And a reference was made to the fact that this is a preliminary plan, and the hint basically was that if no action is required, no harm is done if you take no action, so the question basically is, is Travis County required to act on the preliminary plan?
>> there's no legal deadline that requires you to act by a certain date, so if there is an issue with the preliminary plan that needs to be addressed, you're not facing any sort of imminent deadline. So in that sense there's no need to act today. On the other hand, the way Travis County regulations work, they're basically very similar to every other set of subdivision regulations that i've ever seen, which again the purpose of the preliminary plan is to sort of put the basic parameters for design of the development into play so that the developer nose what to make his plat look like. Basically our regulations saying that if your preliminary plan meets all our requirements, we will approve it. I'll say this. As long as it meets the standards and there's no outstanding issue, I don't think you can put off and put off and put off action simply for the sake of delay. As long as there is some issue hanging out there that is unresolved, you can tell the developer go address that issue and come back and then we'll approve you. But if there are many other requirements, I don't believe you've got the legal authority to basically put off approval indefinitely.
>> you indicated a few momenting ago that in your view Travis County standards have been met.
>> yes, sir.
>> what are the Travis County standards and how have they been met? Can you enumerate those for us? And I will have one question after this one and then defer to other members of the court. What I?m hoping to do is get members of the court, Commissioner Daugherty, I kind of thought you next and then the other members of the court, then we'll give the applicant an opportunity to respond and make comments, the staff may have any additional words and then any other residents who want to give comments today. By the way, the persons that I?m -- the questions that I?m asking were generated in part from not only thinking of them overnight, but also from e-mails that came yesterday, pros and cons. So I?m hoping that I will cover many of the concerns and comments that we know about already. But Travis County standards, what they are in a case like this, whether they have been met, and how we know that.
>> specifically this is found in 82202 and 82203 in our green book standards for development of streets and drainage in Travis County. The first part deals with interest safety and access and lot advantage. And in this case it's a subdivision that would be connecting to a publicly maintained road, hamilton pool road. This subdivision would have dual access, hamilton pool road and connally ranch road. We looked at intersection angles, we looked at easements, we look at block width, we looked at street arrangements and intersections. Then we looked at things as minute as the sizing of the streets of the subdivision down to site location map, unique subdivision names, the physical features on the property, location of any existing utilities, whether or not there were trees that were going to remain in the right-of-way, total acreage, number of lots, linear footage of new streets, proposed iew sages other than single-family lots had to be listed. Contour lines had to be depicted. The names, locations, widths, dimensions of street, drainage easements, all of that had to be shown. They had to provide a drainage plan that's standard. They had to state if it was going to be a public street. They had had to give us a letter from the utility company stating that they were going to provide service.
>> standard stuff basically.
>> standard stuff.
>> yes, sir.
>> and they meet the standard stuff requirements?
>> yes, sir.
>> now, with reference to the two plans sort of underway, studies underway. One was the regional water plan to which there's a group to which Travis County is a member. The group involves hays county, city of Austin, wimberley, lcra, Travis County. They're conducting a regional water study basically. And I guess we're actively involved with that. I guess wimberley, that kind of separates this study from the western Travis County study that we also are a part of.
>> let me help you out a little bit, judge. It really is the dripping springs -- it's the northern hays county and the southern Williamson county plan p now, in that you have a number of municipalities. You have the two river authorities or one river authority and the barton springs edward's aquifer district involved in that. And that is the one that the lcra started probably a year ago. We are, yes, a member of that. Travis County, I am the representative from Travis County on that. That is differentiated between what we have started in the last three to four months where we basically have a southwest plan that came about mainly from hamilton pool and the development out 71. So those are two distinct and different plans. The lcra is heavily involved in both of those plans. And we might mention that neither of those plans really have the authority to go in and mandate that anything take place with regards to what we're going to do from this point forward. I think what they really are is that they are two groups that have been put together to bring forth the information to two respective areas that will be used as guidelines with regards to what we do with in most instances bringing surface water to two different regions, that being northern hays -- northern hays, southern travis, and then that's an altogether different plan from the southwest plan. But those two have been ongoing. One of them has been ongoing to probably a year and a half to two years. In the dripping area and the last one in the last 90 days.
>> do we have any idea of what we may get recommendations from the northern hays, southern Williamson, travis in the middle?
>> it is our goal, judge, to either at the end of the year or by the end of the first quarter of 2005 we would have to have -- we would like to have that plan come and be so-called complete. We also in the southwest plan, having started in the last month and giving that an eight-month process. So those you can see are going to dove tail pretty much in the same time frame, in the first quarter of 2005. So that is the goal of both of those.
>> the couple of e-mails basically recommended that we waited until the good work of these committees was completed and we had specific recommendations on which to rely to make decisions on requests and applications such as this. Practically speaking it makes sense, but tell me the legal reasons why that is a good course and not a good course of action? Is that a legal question or is that more like --
>> well --
>> is it good or bad or -- (indiscernible). [ laughter ] i'll say that given the preliminary plat note that we're adding that speaks to this issue, I think, you know, basically that issue is addressed because lcra has told the applicant, you're going to do one of two things as a condition of getting water and wastewater from us. That is either follow the u.s. Fish and wildlife service guidelines or meet the requirements of whatever regional plan is developed. So if the issue is wait until that regional plan is developed or given the preliminary plat note language we're adding, lcra still is in the position to say to the applicant, there's this new regional plan that's been developed. We told you as a condition of our utility service that we might make you meet those requirements, and the lcra is in the position to do that. So given the language of the plat note, I don't see that as a reason to either delay or deny approval because it's been addressed.
>> is it fair to say that any regional plan and probably the fish guidelines in place now are a lot more protective of water and wastewater features than any Travis County standard?
>> a fair characterization.
>> judge, given that we know -- given that we know that, that's the reason we're doing this plan in southwest. We all know that. We're not doing this because we have ielgd time on our -- idle time on our hands. We understand that there are standards that Travis County does not have. Now, house bill 873 does give us the authority to do some additional things that all of us know, whether you're a developer or whether you're a landowner, know you need to have in place in order to make sure the development happens in a more reasonable fashion. Before I say any more, I mean, i'd really like -- because I know that there are a number of people that want to speak. But I do think that by the time we -- obviously unless we have a couple of Commissioners that need to say something, but I?m certainly ready to hear the applicant and the folks that are here to address the issue.
>> I had a couple of questions. At this point are there any variances that we know about or is it just too early in terms of a preliminary plan?
>> no, ma'am. The other thing I was going to say is with regard to the phasing agreement, it lays out two things. One is that secondary access, it will be awhile before I think actually the last phase is how it connects to crumley ranch road. But in phase two that would be doing secondary emergency access to crumley ranch just for emergency access only. And it also allows in the first phase of development for an advanced funding agreement for the improvements that they would be required to do along hamilton pool road with txdot.
>> this is not in any municipal e.t.j., But a lot of the e-mails I got were from folks that are looking within the city of Austin e.t.j. Does the city have any kind of standing here that even though this is not in their e.t.j., There is, we'll just call it, a downstream impact to the city, or is that a legal question for tom, in which case, put it on the list? Do you know if there's standing?
>> standing in what sense? Do they have a say so that y'all ought to listen to? That's really a judgment for y'all.
>> we always look for guidance from the city of Austin. [ laughter ]
>> some more than others. [ laughter ] okay. I also noted on this that this really struck me as very similar to what happened on sweetwater, which is kind of right around the corner from here. This is being platted in seven phases. And what wound up being kind of i'll call a middle ground position there is that for the preliminary plan to be approved, it basically said that as each phase came in that whatever the current standards are that that's what that developer would have to live with as opposed to the inner preliminary plan, the presumption is that this locks in what the development agreements are going to be related to our good old house bill friend. So is that another possibility that's been discussed at all is that as the different phases come in we would still retain the flexibility or right to say you will come in under whatever the regs are at that point? Which would basically give us some space here that if something happens during that regional planning process that that gives us more strict regulations that we can hold them to that in the later phases because some of that could take years to build out.
>> it is somewhat different in that in sweetwater that whole parent tract wasn't being prelimited at the same time. In this case the whole tract was being prelimed. They vus have seven tracts out of that preliminary plan. Ars in that, that's how these two are different.
>> has the board given final signoff to this line and are there other legal hurdles that need to be overcome for the lcra? If you get this line in there?
>> we have people from the lcra here, and my understanding is the board hasn't approved it, but if that's incorrect, I would look to them to have eye proved it.
>> they have not.
>> they have not. In which case if the lcra is held up or whatever happens, if we are relying on a letter that says the lcra will provide water and wastewater service because this is not septic, this is traditional wastewater.
>> if they are unable to provide a utility letter to meet the preliminary plan, then they would have to start over.
>> and my last question, I saw the letter from txdot saying that they need about 30 feet of right-of-way and there's a commitment to provide that, but I could not tell from the txdot letter where that was going to mean there would be paved shoulders on this roadway in that ultimate build out, which is not only a safety issue, but also in terms of its considered accommodations to have folks not in the main roads. Do we know if the 30 feet includes paved shoulders? Because that would be a big deal issue for me. We don't know what the 30 feet is based on.
>> that would be important for me.
>> anything, Commissioner Davis?
>> no, judge. I was just listening to comments. And ready to hear from the folks then.
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> I was born here in Austin, and raised here and I care deeply with about this area. I was here long before those who now want to limit development in the area. My husband, phil and i, intend to develop half the land and live on the remainder. Which will include three lots for my children. I have been working on this project for seven years. I filed my preliminary with you, Travis County, in March of this year. I voluntarily agreed to comply with the fish guidelines before they were required or before they became politically correct. In addition to having three small children, I have been actively involved in the hays county regional planning effort, the lcra sponsored hamilton pool road effort and the southwestern Travis County effort led by joe lissard [ phonetic ] I support all of these efforts. I have been a responsible steward of my land in a way that will hopefully fit into whatever regional plan is adopted in the next few years. Thank you.
>> just to follow up on rebecca's presentation, in August of last year, in this very room, I was here then, also, you adopted an economic development policy to encourage economic development in this county. In part of that overall concept, I think property owners, land own owners, land own , should -- land owners should be able to rely upon your rules, standards, what you have done. That's what rebecca has done. She has tried to design a plat compatible with all of our rules, no variances. In addition she has volunteered to meet the fish and wildlife standards. When it comes time to receive water and wastewater, she will be required to have a certification, from lcra, that she either meets those or she meets the regional plan. This is not an effort to rush ahead of the process. She has been very supportive of the regional planning process. But even our state economic policy says generally that -- that landowners should be entitled to rely upon the rules. That's why chapter 245 exists, rebecca could stand back and file a plat that meets just your requirements, nothing else, and say, under state law, I?m now vested. She's not trying to do that. She's trying to -- to hit a target, she's trying to keep one from moving, but in order to do that, she's designed this in a very environmentally sensitive way. This is not a dense development. It's 468 lots and 468 acres. It's my understanding that you are going to be presented with a petition in a little while arguing or -- for a moratorium or a delay, part of that map showing 468 lots and 250 acres. That's not true. This is one unit per acre. So we are here today respectfully requesting approval of this preliminary and in a timely manner and to just address one more comment of Commissioner Sonleitner, this is not a large project. This is not one that's going to take 20 years of big phased development. What we are just doing one section, some projects come in with one phase being 400, 500 lots. This is one development being done by rebecca and her mother, it's one project, they have got to go to bank, find a lender who is going to loan on this project, they have to convince the lender that this is the project, this is the pro forma, we think that we can get approximately these number of lots, would you please loan us the money to put in the streets and utilities. That's what this is about. It's not a big deal. It's 468 acres out of many, many hundreds of thousands of acres of Travis County. Thank you.
>> david, let me ask you something. There are 468 acres on the total tract, right, rebecca?
>> right.
>> there are 468 homes.
>> right.
>> now, each home does not have an acre to it.
>> that is correct.
>> because it's clustered, which means that you have got, you know, maybe five homes to an acre actually I mean that's the reason somebody would say the petition would be they're putting 468 homes on half of the acreage. So that would mean that they are on half acre tracts versus -- > sheep keeping -- she's keeping, that's correct, Gerald. She's keeping half and developing all of the lots on the other half.
>> I wanted to make sure, that didn't jive with me. I understand the cluster factor, I mean, but we don't have one acre and one home on the 468 acres. Okay.
>> one acre acreage. Average.
>> the lcra basically has required that -- that the fish guidelines be complied with for the regional plan. At what point is the decision made on which one of those two, the applicant basically follows?
>> it would be at the time of final plat. And the lcra people are here. They can correct me if this statement is wrong, but -- but in may of this year, the lcra board committed to provide service to this area. With the idea being that they would sign specific contracts with landowners to construct a line like this in December of this year. That would be part of the contract that we sign. The contract hasn't been signed yet, but my guess it would -- that decision would be made at the time she submits a final plat for approval to the county.
>> if there are regional plan recommendations at the time of the final plat, how would you determine whether you followed the regional plan or the fish guidelines?
>> my understanding would be that we would follow the fish guidelines if that's what was in effect, if the other were merely recommendations and not yet adopted we would follow the fish guidelines. The fish guidelines are the fall back.
>> but if the regional plan recommendations are adopted by that point, would you follow those?
>> it would depend on what they are.
>> okay. So the applicant's position is that the preliminary plan should be approved today or as soon as possible.
>> yes, sir.
>> and the reason is that you comply with Travis County standards.
>> yes, sir. And it's not like we just showed up here today. She's been working on this a long, long time. Just to file a preliminary to comply took many, many months and a lot of money to do that. And so, you know, we are just trying to be here, hoping that you'll conduct business as usual. We wanted to comply with your rules.
>> okay. Mr. Murphy? Anything else?
>> nothing more than the on the fish and wildlife service guidelines, I have worked with numerous projects with the fish and wildlife service on consultations obtaining their approval. This project in the -- and the developer is definitely committed to meeting the fish guidelines. I mean, all of the appropriate measures with respect to buffer zones, impervious cover limitations is well under the impervious cover limitations. This project is going to have 16.1% overall impervious cover, which is below the 20% that's recommended by the fish and wildlife service. Contributing zone to the edward's aquifer. It's low impact development, doing the cluster development. We are using numerous best management practices and we are taking input as we move forward from other water quality experts in this area. And looking at ways to refine the plan if there are -- if it makes sense. As the plan is currently constructed, we -- or planned for, we are meeting the 100% load reduction, the non-degradation standard.
>> george, what percentage would you say there would be of anything happening with this project from an engineering standpoint and I know that you don't want to throw rocks at other engineers, but we all know that we have got a project in western Travis County that has had some severe problems.
>> yes, sir.
>> what percentage of likelihood on this project would there be of any kind of problem like that on its creeks, on its surrounding creeks? Like lick creek.
>> well, some of the mistakes that have been made on lick creek will not be made on this project. It will be -- it will not be -- it will not be significant clearing done in advance at the early stages. First phase of this development is for 92 lots and it's in a very restricted area, that would be the only area that there could be any construction disturbance initially. There has -- one of the big issues on the other project has been a detention facility that was built in the creek itself. If -- if the -- if the water quality control features, we are not proposing detention features in the creek, but we have looked at doing some water quality control features, the features that we are looking at would utilize the existing stock ponds that are already -- that have already been built and the dams that are stabilized, they have been there for years.
>> so very little.
>> very little.
>> in your opinion?
>> yes.
>> okay. Anything further? Thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> there are counter points, I assume. Now, without regard to whether you have signed in or not, joe, we will make four of those chairs available. Just one more if we keep one of you all there just in case there are questions. If we could have four individuals come forth, we would be happy -- give us your name, we would be happy to get your comments. If we could have three more individuals to come forth at this time. As one finishes, if we could get that person to return to the seat. If another person can come forth, we can expend dish showsly -- expeditiously hear your comments.
>> are there time limits.
>> much has been said already, it doesn't help us much to hear the same thing said, but if there is a new perspective, we certainly welcome that.
>> I?m gene lowenthal, my wife and I own the property that is just south of the subject property. If you don't mind my getting off the microphone for just a second.
>> that snaps right off on the end and --
>> portable mic. Take it with you.
>> got you an easel there, too. Real live Commissioners court meeting, real time.
>> watch the cord there.
>> just very quickly, this is a hot off the press study done by the lcra of the rocky creek watershed. This entire area drains into rocky creek. The lcra has said, if you read this, that this particular branch of rocky creek on which the development is going to be built is a pristine -- pristine creek and of course we all want to keep it that way. The left or to the west of the creek is I think about 160-acres that the applicant is going to keep as private property and including the creek itself. So I just want to point out that there is absolutely nothing in the vicinity that has the local density of this particular subdivision with its 1/5th acre to 1 1/4th acre kinds of lots. I wanted to point out this does drain to Barton Creek, that contributes to the bark ton creek, edward's aquifer area, everything on this page, so it's an environmentally sensitive area. I do have some issues, but I have a question before I get into them. -- I have not seen the addition to the -- to the subdivision plat. Does the new wording require that, that the developer comply with the -- with the -- with the regulations that might come out of the regional planning effort regardless of when that happens? I've seen a contract that said it had to happen by December or it wouldn't matter. Is that language not in the -- not in the plat. I think, I would characterize the preliminary plan note language as basically saying the development has to meet the conditions set by lcra on utility service. Exactly what those conditions are is lcra decision, it's not Travis County's condition being imposed. It's lcra's condition and therefore it's lcra that needs to say exactly what the condition is. Now, if you look at the commitment letter, it basically sort of creates an option 1 and an option 2. Option 1 is the u.s. Fish and wildlife standards. Option 2 is the regional plan. The commitment letter, the applicant submitted to us from lcra does not have any sort of deadline on the regional planning effort. If lcra wants to create a deadline, I think that's lcra's prerogative because the conditions are being created by lcra on the utility service. So again exactly what -- whether the conditions are met is going to be a decision for lcra.
>> okay, thank you.
>> that's what the preliminary plan note is intended to reflect.
>> I understand. Thank you.
>> let me draw your attention to the first page of this two-page handout. I stapled them this way so they would have the same orientation, approximately. I draw your attention to this yellow line on the right, it's called the berm, labeled berm, this is a diversion berm. I got this off of the water quality plan. I have a concern with it because what it basically does is -- is shunt water, storm water, to -- appears to shunt storm water to my driveway. I have an easement to the applicant's property, my only entrance to our property. So -- so I have a question then. Is that -- I will address my question to -- to mr. Murphy. Is that -- is that an issue here or not?
>> no. If you will look on the -- on the arrow that's on the road there to the left of the property line [indiscernible] [inaudible - no mic]
>> okay. The -- then my bigger issue then is that the water that gets shunted to the south by that berm, which the berm is just a ridge, that stops the water from flowing where it would normally flow and shunts it down underneath the road. What's going on end up on my property, it's going to end up on our property as additional storm water. My view is that this will devalue our property. I will not be able to develop that part of the property where the water -- in fact my real concern is that it will create a great deal of erosion and possibly a drainage ditch which will be undevelopable. My request that is that the berm be removed and that the storm water be treated in some other fashion other than shunting it to our property.
>> you don't want the water coming as cross your property, basically.
>> right. We have enough storm water. This is very thin soil out in our part of the world. That much extra water going on our property would have an impact. Storm water has to be treated. Huh?
>> where is your property now? I?m sorry. Where it lows lowenthal, everything below that is our property. I?m sorry.
>> okay. All right.
>> that's number one. I got a real issue with the storm water treatment there. Number 2, you'll see a dot right on our property line which is the wastewater treatment plant. I got that off of the utility plan. That wastewater treatment plant, I don't know what it's going to look like, I don't know if it's going to have odor problems, an effluent pond related to that, but I really object to having it right on our property line. I think it will devalue our property. And I think in the worst case when it fails, I?m not saying if it fails, but when it fails because they always do, if you notice the topography there, all of the wastewater, whether it's raw sewage or treated effluent will end up on our property. So I respectfully request that the Commissioners court require that the wastewater treatment plant be put somewhere, where if there's a risk, that risk is born by the applicant and not by us. Not shifted to us. Even if the lcra is operating the wastewater treatment plant, I have all of the respect in the world for the lcra, tail yours occur, pipe -- failures occur, pipes break, studies have been shown that this is more likely to happen than not. My wife and I don't want to have raw sewage across our land. I don't think we could develop our land because of that risk factor. Lowering the value of our land, there's a health and safety issue here. Third, over on the left, again on our common property line, the applicant has -- has retained ownership of the creek except for that one little area, in the lower left-hand corner, which I have labeled park. That is the one and only place where residents of this subdivision will be able to play in the creek. And if you think about 468 residents, their children and their pets, the noise, the litter, the dog droppings, that's going to lower the value of our property. The -- you cannot build in this area because it's -- it's in the buffer zone. So I?m not worried about buildings being there, but I am worried about the nuisance factor. I reallifully -- respectfully where request that it be put somewhere else. Probably be best if the residents were not allowed to get near the creek as at all as a way of protecting the creek. If you are going to have a park on the creek, I would ask strongly that it not be put on -- on my property line. I want to -- I sent you an e-mail with a presentation or I?m sorry a report done by dr. Lauren ross who is a respected water quality engineer, water quality expert. She studied -- these plans and her conclusions are unequivocally that this development will impact the creek. And specifically, it will impact that part of the creek that flows through our property. The reason is three fold. One is the first reason is that there will be -- effluent -- you know, 468 houses creates a lot of effluent. Even if it's treated, it's filled with nutrients. Those nutrients will end up in our creek. That's number one. Number two, the -- the storm water controls will be such that -- that the base flow into our creek will decline. So between storms we will have less water in our creek, and during storms we will have more water in our creek. Our creek will degrade. The -- the increased [indiscernible] flow will degrade the banks of our creek, deepen the channels. Our creek is the most valuable natural feature on our land. We want to protect that. We have every reason to believe that this kind of development with its impervious cover and the particular ways that the storm water is being treated will result in what frankly will puddles with algae floating on top. Stagnant puddles instead of the creek that we have today. I?m going to ask that the density, the impervious cover issues on the developable side of the creek be developed in such a way that those risks are minimized. Let me finally draw your attention to the second page, mr. Murphy made reference to engineered controls, wps. There are four of them. The detention ponds, storm water controlled, not all four of them are going to be in existing stock tanks. There is going to have to be engineering done, there will be disruption. Most importantly, they are in the channels. That's one thing that they do have in common with lick creek. Not in the main channels, but in the tributaries, if and when they fail they will dump pollutants, sediment and nutrients into the creek. The -- there are -- they are smaller than the lick week detention ponds -- lick creek detention ponds, but there are four of them. They are notoriously and famously unreliable. Dr. Ross says that in maryland, for example, there -- they are now illegal. They have these kinds of detention ponds, wet ponds. So I think that the opportunity to cause damage to the creek and downstream to our neighbor's creek and finally to Barton Creek and the barton springs watershed is high.
>> okay. Judge I -- I would like to take -- before you lose -- before we lose or forget these questions, could you just address right now with mr. Murphy these two or three question that's mr. Lowenthal have asked. I suppose you know dr. Ross, do you agree with her findings?
>> no. There is a state law, I mean, most developments, all developments are supposed to not increase neither the volume, you know, or the velocity of runoff on the downstream landowners and the way this subdivision is laid out, we will not do that. With respect to the wet pond, the wet ponds that are proposed on this proposed project are storm water treatment, I have -- I have gotten u.s. Fish and wildlife service to -- to -- through the consultation process, to approve wet ponds in these minor drainageways, the wet ponds that we are proposing to my knowledge are at locations where there are existing stock tanks, several of them, a couple of them of significant size. They have been there for 20 plus years. There have been numerous successful projects in the Austin area, I think the large stock tank at upper end of wells branch as an example that has been converted to two wet ponds, wet ponds are a good structural control for water quality and it's one of the best practices that you can use that actually results in nutrient removals. There will not be any additional nutrients going to the downstream property owner through lick creek approximate these measures are put -- through that creek if these measures are maintained and put in correctly. I?m not aware, he talks about -- he says it's not a matter of if, it's when there's going to be a problem with the sewage treatment plant, which by the way he's mischaracterized its location. He has it exactly on the property line. There is state law that requires certain minimum buffers.
>> I took it off the drawing.
>> and setbacks from the adjacent property line. Those issues, there will be site development plans, developed for the sewage, wastewater treatment plant and associated facilities and every measure will be made to make sure that in case there is some kind of catastrophic event that there won't be any damage to the downstream landowners. What was the other issue.
>> downhill landowners in this case, we are downhill from there. So if there's a leak --
>> how far will the treatment plant be from mr. Allowenthals property.
>> the minimum according to state law is 150 feet. But we have -- that's a detail, a site plan issue. We have located, there's a large area there, if you will look at his map, that has been set aside for the wastewater utility. And the wastewater utility would include a -- a wastewater treatment plant, and an effluent storage pond at that location. The site plan put together as part of the wastewater treatment plan application at the state, that's at the permitting level, we haven't gotten the detailed designs done yet.
>> is it 150 feet, george?
>> it's got to be at least 150 feet.
>> what could you live with, mr. Lowenthal, 300 feet.
>> it looks from the topography there would have to be, quick look, would have to be at least 400 or 300 feet, I would have to do a study, to make sure if there is any leak it does not leak on to our property but stays on the hudson property. That's the distance that would make the most sense.
>> is that possible, george?
>> yes. You could do that. What about the park? What --
>> the driveway if.
>> the park.
>> what would -- I mean, is there another place? I mean --
>> these are the kind of things that I would hope to be going through with the southwest plan y'all. That's what we are trying -- now, if we can get to a spot here where we don't have to take every engineering issue at the Commissioners court, I mean,, you know, it's probably not designed to do, I think that if reasonable minds are can you do this, if the engineer says yes you can do that, that doesn't mess with the integrity of the project, if that's what we are all -- but I think that's what southwestern Travis County is trying to do. Then I would ask. I mean, is that something, george, that -- is a park a spot that's okay, well, if it's too close to you, I mean, let's talk and where could it be moved?
>> there it is lots of room. Over -- I don't have the numbers right in front of me. There's over [indiscernible] acres of greenbelt being set aside and deed restricted for no development other than minor driveway crossings and some -- perhaps some utility lines being put in them. There's another 40 acres, I?m thinking, of -- of water quality buffer zone that's going to be used for, you know, storm water treatment. Out of that I would suspect that the park could be located in some other area. Not having looked at it but --
>> okay. Thank you.
>> do you believe that there --
>> mr. Lowenthal, I think we are going to move on. Your three been duly noted. I saw the applicant and her representative writing them down, too.
>> good morning, my name is christie mews, I appeared before you back in June regarding the sweetwater lazy nine development. You have heard many arguments for why Travis County has to tighten rules regarding developments before massive developments are allowed out in the hill country. I won't repeat that. Back in June you came to the conclusion that it is now time for Travis County to address this issue. And correct me if I?m wrong, but at the end of that meeting I attended, you specifically instructed the environmental staff to begin drafting an ordinance to impose more than token water quality safeguards on new developments. That was back in June and this is October. And very little progress has been made so far on drafting such an ordinance. There is, however, a target date for completion and the target date of the completion of this planning process is April. I ask that you honor the efforts of all of your constituents who are working hard on this process and let this process continue before you approve another subdivision of this caliber. Now, you have another highly controversial subdivision before you. Please consider a moratorium on subdivision applications until the planning process is complete. You are funding this process. A moratorium will save the developers time and money because after all, they are part of the planning process. Shouldn't they comply with the -- with the plan that they are helping to complete? I know it was mentioned in the paper today that rebecca wasn't sure when and if there ever would be a completion, but there is a target date and it is April. Commissioners court you just recently said you have got to keep all of these -- engineering issues on the Commissioners court, the way to do that would be a moratorium on projects like this until we have all of this ironed out. Comal county has a successful moratorium when they were going through a similar situation. It started in August of the year 2000 and they lifted it in April of 2001. What they did was a moratorium on all subdivision plans where the density was -- was higher density -- higher than one house per acre. More dense than that. So smaller projects could continue to go forward. Less dense. Up until now, until you strengthen your ordinances, you have been relying on the lcra to protect the environmental resources in unincorporated areas of Travis County. This is dangerous. Need I remind you about west cypress hills and lick creek. There wasn't as much concern in the past about these types of developments because it was difficult for them to get water. But now the lcra is paving the way for these types of developments. They are cutting deal was developers -- deals with developers, promising them surface water, that gets the ball rolling on this type of subdivision. So it's up to you to protect our resources. It seems very simple for me. In order for the rocky creek subdivision to even file their preliminary plan back in March, they needed to show where they were going to get their water. They are showing that they are going to get their water from a letter of intent from the lcra. The letter of intent from the lcra has conditions on it that need to be met and one condition is board approval. They don't have board approval. Therefore, they do not have a commitment on a water source for that subdivision. From where I?m sitting, it doesn't seem like they have even met the requirements to file. I don't think this item should have even made it to the agenda. The question is if you are under any legal [indiscernible] to pass this today. A comment was made today this was business as usual. It appears to me by the look, the size of the group, the issues as concern this is not be as usual. For some reason you are making special considerations for this developer by taking the conditions and then moving them to the final plat. But you have got to remember that approving this preliminary plan today will grandfather the project in. And once we loose this slice of the hill country we will never get it back. Tom described the -- let me try to rephrase what -- quote what he said. When you look at the preliminary plan, you want to say is this what you would ultimately approve? You want to send a message to the developer that this is what we are ultimately going to approve. If there are changes, coming down on -- on subdivision rules, is this ultimately what you would approve? Please deny this preliminary plan and investigate a moratorium. Thank you for your time.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> yes, sir?
>> good morning, my name is jim phillips. I am one of 40 plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed against the west cypress hills development. The fact that there are 40 plaintiffs I think speaks for itself. Before this happened to us, I don't think you could get 40 people in our neighborhood to agree if the sun should come up the next day. To make this thing a little more real to you, I want to do a little show and tell here. I have with me some water samples from lick creek. Commissioner Daugherty is probably familiar with lick creek more than the others are, but the creek has two branches. One branch the east branch is the branch where the development is located. And the other branch the west branch passes through undeveloped terrain similar to the previous condition of the east branch. Following the rainfall last Saturday, I took these samples from both branches of the creek. The -- the chocolate milk sample here is two hours after a rainfall, coming from east branch of the creek. This sample is similar, has a similar solids loading, directly discharged from the pollution control detention pond on east branch of lick creek. This sample is from the west branch of lick creek taken about 10 minutes later. You can see the difference I hope. This is the -- the representative of -- of the creek in it's natural state following a heavy rainfall. This sample here. These two samples were taken two days later. This sample is from the east branch of lick creek. You will note that -- that it has improved somewhat but still violating the conditions laid down by the lcra when they lifted the stop work order. This sample is from the west branch of lick creek two days after the rainfall. This is the state in which we are used to seeing our creek. Now, the point I want to make is that these samples were taken after we were assured by Travis County, by tceq and by the lcra that the problem had been solved. The problem has not been solved. We don't believe that the problem can be solved given the current way out and -- current layout and density of that development. Now the proposed plat that you are looking at here, is very similar to what has happened to us. The density, I believe, there's 488 lots, in west cypress hills on approximately 500 acres, some more or less, that sounds very familiar. The terrain and the slope and the soil conditions are all very similar. So we been clustered and it hasn't worked. Now, as -- as hudson's engineer pointed out, they don't believe they are going to make the same mistakes. But let's face it, we are all human. Mistakes will be made. Now, it's been amply demonstrated, I hope it brought it home to you here, that there are no systems in place, no resources in place, no people in place, no regulations in place that will prevent the same thing from happening to rocky creek that is -- that has happened to lick creek. Now we have heard that the purpose of approving a preliminary plat is to let the developer know that they are in the ballpark. Commissioners, I hope strongly hope that you do not think that this plat is in the ballpark. I don't think that this is what anyone wants to happen to western Travis County and rocky creek, thank you.
>> so mr. Phillips yowrk recommendation -- mr. Phillips, your recommendation, what do you think needs to happen?
>> I?m also serving as one of the stakeholders on the regional planning committee. And I believe that this -- any approval of a dense development of this nature should wait until the guide liens and recommendations provided by the regional plan are in place.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> yes, sir?
>> I?m charles craft. And whatever happens to mr. Lowenthal, happens to me, I?m across the creek from him. And I have about -- I don't know, maybe 300 yards of that creek. And about a half mile road frontage. But we're kind of backed up to each other there. But let me get -- give you a little history here. I came out there in '66. And my wife and I we found a little magical place out there. And I?m not against developments and all of that. I just want them done right. And i've been raising horses there since '66. We do a lot of other things than that, but we always have raised horses since before we got married 42 years ago. I?m a horseman. And they drink out of the creek. Number one. I?m a commercial horseman. We raise 'em and sell 'em. But they have always drunk out of the creek. By the way, these bottles are very representative what he just brought up here, that's the way it is. Because I probably have been out there longer than any of these other people have been. And i've also seen how that creek comes up, overflows its banks, I don't know where the 100 year floodplain is, but it's probably way on up there. If I would sell my place, I would probably have to dedicate oh, 6, eight, 10-acres for something else down on the creek because it comes up in there. It doesn't stay long, but it floods over that bottom part. The -- this water, when it gets to that state where -- where it's the cleanest. We actually drink that. My boy -- most of his life, has drunk the water in the creek. And we swim in it. My family and I swim in it. But he's still alive, he's over there at the state bar, he's still alive. [laughter] but it's -- it's very clean water when it's at a resting state there. And he said [indiscernible] the worth of his property is the creek. That's one big reason we bought the place. My wife and I wanted a creek on our place. Those days nobody wanted that property, you could buy it for nothing. That's kind of the way it was. We wanted it. And there's trees along that creek that have been -- I would think now, I could be wrong, but I would guess two or 300 years old, at least. Pecan trees. There's old rock walls, retaining walls, way over 100 years old. There's -- it's just pristine down there. It's a wonderful place, one of these days it probably ought to be some kind of a park or something I guess, it's a beautiful place and I -- to the south of me it goes on down, you know, hits Barton Creek. To the northwest, I think it runs on over into hamilton pool that way. I?m not real -- I am pretty sure it does. It doesn't hit hamilton pool. Runs back the other way, I don't know where it goes on. It's a great divide over there right past me. One way that -- the northwest it goes that way, and on -- on -- right before mr. Lowenthals, it starts going his way and over to my place. Anything that affects him, affects me. It's a very beautiful area and I?m just interested in the water quality staying the same that it is. That's my main thing. You know I guess that I could have sold my place. But we like living there. We just live there. You know? And -- and I don't know what else to say, really. It's -- it's a beautiful place. And it's all natural. I too have a business there raising horses. They do use the creek. That area they have a way of -- of putting your boundary not down the middle of the creek but on one side or the other. Used to be according to who -- so everybody could get to the water. And most of mine is on -- most of the fence is on the other side of the creek from me, so I have the creek almost the whole length, a little way of the creek is -- is on my side of the last 100 feet or so. That's where you are into mr. Lowenthal's property there. That's -- that's about all that I know. As we told you, it is pristine, it's a beautiful place and it would be nice -- it's hard to hold back progress a lot of times, but we would like to have it done right if it's done. I don't -- I don't know -- I don't know this woman that has the place. I just, you know, i've heard a bulldozer over there kind of got me excited. The lowenthal said something is going to happen so I found my way in here today.
>> good morning, I?m rick sternberg, I live on hamilton pool road about nine miles west of the proposed subdivision. I believe that there are many good reasons to deny preliminary plat approval. I will just touch on a few. As has been covered very well, water quality. But I?m afraid that you are going to have to listen to me again going through some of this. I would like to give you a visual aid, though, that nobody else has provided so far. This is a photo that I took of rocky creek. As you can see, even at a distance you can probably see how clear and pristine as this gentleman just said. It is gorgeous. It is crystal clear. It is inviting. It's perfection in a creek. Now imagine it with an adjacent sewage treatment plant, 468 houses on small lots, right up on the hillside above here is the hillside above. Imagine all of these houses contributing in some way to non-point source pollution. Consider that the lcra, although they are proposing regulations, actually I have just heard recently that they have no power to enforce their non-point source regulations here. Maybe someone will correct me on this. But that is because i've been told rocky creek, which flows into Barton Creek and eventually into the edward's aquifer is not in lcra domain. It is not in Lake Travis watershed, therefore they have no domain over the non-point source part of that. The tceq as the enforcer is 3 years behind on their inspections. When I hear this sort of thing I worry and I would think that you might also -- now this, is lick creek. Before construction began. Before the construction began. Hill country splendor. Makes you want to dive right in. Anybody want to dive into this. This is what it looks like now after major event down in green hole that I just showed you. This is not the same creek as this. It run-insment same ditch but it has been radically altered. I beg you reject this potential environmental violate mayor before it becomes another lick creek. The potential is there. No matter what protests you might here. The potential is there. You have heard other people speak to that issue. A horrible accident occurred at 71 and hamilton pool road. These homes are likely to house 1,000 drivers driving their thousand vehicles on a narrow, winding, country road. This density is -- is completely out of line and totally inappropriate. I believe, given the rural nature of this area. This is still rural area. What you are moving toward here is taking the rural area and making it into a suburban area. With suburban size lots. If you would like to see what a thousand vehicles would look like at rush hour, on hamilton pool road, then come out on -- on Sunday, November 7th, at about 12:00 noon, we are going to put a thousand cars, trucks, motorcycles out there on the road all at the same time, on that very much of highway between 71 and 12. Going from 12 to 71. Along hamilton pool road. This will be a simulation of the real conditions that you can bring about with the passage of this subdivision alone. We're talking about the potential of a thousand cars from this subdivision trying to make it into town to go to work in the morning. Or maybe not a thousand, maybe it's only 500, but it's a lot of cars. That's a small road. I?m on it all the time. I walk it. I drive it. The tremendous efforts going into the developing water quality and visioning plans for the hill country and even rebecca as she said is on two of those committees herself. Considering this -- this planning. So I say what is the rush? Give those plans a chance to develop. The hpr group hopes to have a report done -- hamilton pool road group hopes to have a plan done by December. I?m told that the regional plan is projecting a February completion. These are not that far away. This development doesn't have its mud yet. Lcra's board will not even vote on the installation of the water line and that is the line that the developer is counting on in presenting as part of this plan that you need to approve. They won't even vote until December. And they might not do it at all. I was at the September 15th lcra meeting and even though joe beal has dreams of spec la actively piping the hill country, the board comments that I heard were far from total agreement with that. /?txuand and I just do not believe that they are necessarily going to support this, at least not as the staff has presented it. Given all of these your uncertainties, overwhelming feelings from the local community, why not just wait, give the hard working citizen planners the respect that they deserve. By at least waiting to hear what they conclude before you go ahead about this. -- go ahead with this. Thanks.
>> thank you, mr. Stern berg.
>> what would you have the owner do with their property, just leave it --
>> I wouldn't try to propose that they not develop it. I just think that the number of units that they are proposing, considering the terrain, considering the situation, considering the overall environment of the area, is too much. And I think that they should really reconsider the way that they are planning, their wastewater treatment and their -- just their siting. There are a number of things that if they reduce the number of overall houses that they could do to adjust this to make it more environmentally sound. They claim to be a conservation development. But I don't see it. I see it just being another dense subdivision. Granted rebecca is taking a couple hundred acres aside for herself on the other side of the creek so that it -- if there is drainage, that's not going to be any kind of a buffer on that non-point source drainage that comes down the hill from the -- from these 468 homes. I think there are lots of other ways that it could be done that could be much more sound and, you know, I think that if you approve it now, this is what it's going to be, you don't have any say, any choice, you are going to be grandfathering them with this plan. And then -- they didn't even -- mr. Armbrust, wouldn't even admit or agree to following plans from the regional planning group if they -- he said that they would follow fish and wildlife, I don't remember the exact quote, but said that they would follow the fish guidelines as a base and that conditional, if -- depending on what they were, they might choose to follow the regional plan guidelines. So -- so I just don't see any great commitment to the environment on the part of these people. I think that you ought to hold back, don't do it now. Let it wait. You got time. There's no reason why you have to do it now.
>> at 12:00 noon, two members of the court have a commitment elsewhere. That leaves us without a quorum. We reconvene this afternoon at 1:30. So I see three sitting there. We have got 6 minutes.
>> judge. Can I make one point? Before the next speaker because i've heard this said twice, I would like to clarify it. I've heard it said twice that if you approve this preliminary they are grandfathered. That's for the quite the way the law works. -- not quite the way the law works, what grandfathers them is simply filing the application. Once they file the application you could put off, if you -- theoretically if you put off approval for a year, they would still be grandfathered what grandfathers them is simply filing the application for the preliminary plan. In terms of grandfathering approval is not the key action, it's the filing of the application.
>> that was done back in March. So that was seven months ago.
>> yes, ma'am?
>> good afternoon. And i'll try to make it quick, I would like one clarification, that is that my understanding is that there is no legal reason why you as a group need to act on this today, correct?
>> there's no deadline to act, assuming there are unresolved issues.
>> right. Okay. I would like to -- my name is Karen hadden, I?m a stakeholder member of the water quality group that lcra is sponsoring. I?m also a participant in hamilton pool road scenic corridor group that lcra is sponsoring, rebecca hudson is on those groups. We came to the table, this is many, many citizens in the community, and we are taking input from many others who are not sitting in these committees, and we came to the table in good faith to try to work out some agreements that would work for the community to facilitate development in a way that works for everyone, including the neighbors. I cannot tell you how deeply upset I was when I heard that rebecca hudson was rushing in here, unknown to any of us who were at the table with her. We heard on Thursday that she was planning to come forward here to get this approval. And this just feels like a breach of faith. We are in this process together trying to do something right for land that we all hold dear. And all of a sudden we are finding that somehow the gloves are off. I don't understand this. I don't understand the thinking. We are working on getting measures in place to protect so many aspect of the rural quality out there. We need to get in place smaller pieces, like what size trees can be taken down, can you go in and bulldoze huge live oaks? That's inappropriate. So we need to work out some of these details. I -- I?m very grateful to you, ms. Sonleitner forks the comments about -- for the comments about sidewalks. I think also that trails need to be discussed. There is some effort to look at regional trails through the hill country that could serve as transportation. We could have many, many more cars on the road as a result of this. We need to look at other ways that people can actually get around, trails for recreation as well as actually useful for transportation. These things are not in place. And I think it's -- it's completely a breach of the good faith efforts of the community to move forward. I ask you to -- to get answers to many questions regarding what will keep them from developing the rest of the site later. How does this compare to density of other subdivisions, do they plan commercial development, what restrictions do they plan for reg vacation, would -- vegetation, would they be coming in with saint Augustine, totally out of character for the hill country. How much lands will be scraped at a time. All of these questions need to be looked at. How will they avoid using pesticide and fertilizers, basically our two groops plan to be done in December and February respectively, those are the deadlines, I do not understand what is the rush at this point in time that rocky creek ranch would even come here at this point with their proposal. Thank you.
>> my name is maryanne holland, I live on hamilton pool road probably about eight miles past the area that we are talking about. I will be very affected by this subdivision. I'll drive through the traffic every day. Getting back and forth to town. Taking my kids to school. That type of thing. My family has owned land in this area for -- for about 55 years. So I have been coming out here my entire life playing in these creeks, not in rocky creek in particular, but in other area creeks. I would like to propose that I think that this subdivision will be different than lick creek partially because rebecca has made a choice. She could have just sold off the whole amount of land to the highest bidder and built a big old house in rob roy and lived her nice suburban life. But instead she's chosen to locate her family out in this area. I think as someone who is actually living on the premises, on the property of land that's been in her family for generations, she's going to raise her children there, that she will have more interest in watch dogging the work that's done on that creek than the average person that would come in and do that. And I think as a -- as a land owner it's her fight if she has complied with every aspect of the law, I think that you should approve her plans today. Since in general it thought that the entire community is against this, I just wanted to come today to say someone who is actually living out in the community, that I would really like to see us as a community work together to -- to solve a lot of issues and the problems that are ahead of us with regard to growth. But that I am in favor of you approving her plan today. Thank you.
>> thanks.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> I can stay for about one more, judge.
>> me, too.
>> are you going to step out? Or --
>> go ahead and get your comments in. I would.
>> you are going to make your comments or do I have a minute.
>> make yours.
>> my name is carlotta mcclain, I?m here in support of rebecca hudson and rocky creek ranch. I want to clarify a couple of points made throughout the day. One is in relation to the rural character of the neighborhood in general, there are several thousand platted lots in the vicinity of this property, particularly in deer creek which adjoins --
>> pick that mic up.
>> sorry.
>> deer creek which adjoins rebecca's property, there are -- they are as small as quarter acre lots. West cave estates is on average about an acre and a half. Saddle tree is an acre and a half. There are other subdivisions that are not shown here. Going east from this tract this is the first developable piece of property until you get -- well, coming from Austin. Coming out hamilton pool road because you have the shield ranch, there was a tract that was going to be proposed for development. And it has been bought by somebody who actually is -- has put their money where their mouth is, they are going to do a very, very low density development. This is not necessarily just rural area. And -- hudson has been diligent about asking for feedback from mr. Lowenthal and other neighbors, she has been working on this plan for a number of years. She's participated in regional planning and a couple of people have brought up the time frames for regional planning. It's actually been in process for about four years. December of '02, lcra said we need, we have been 18 months to come one a regional plan. They have extended that time frame. They knew that they were going to be forced with having to make decisions about extending water lines because of demand. If she developed with alternate plans to -- to match what has been done on the properties in that neighborhood, it would allow development on the highest points of the property and along all of the creek areas. That would further impact the views of the corridors. And those are my points for the day.
>> since you used my name, ms. Hudson has never, ever asked for my opinion or been interested in our opinions.
>> thank you very much, ms. Mcclean. Now, two members of the court must leave. That leaves us without a quorum. Which we need legally to conduct business. We move to recess until 1:30. I am happy to receive whatever input we did not get to this morning to this afternoon at some point maybe before we make a decision we need to chat with legal counsel in executive session. So -- so all of you are welcome to come back at 1:30 this afternoon, especially those of you who did not have an opportunity to give comments. And over lunch what we will do is adjust our afternoon schedule to be ready to accommodate those of you who wanted to give comments? Okay?
>> move recess to 1:30.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
Shortly before noon we were taking comments from residents regarding item no. 14, let's call it back up. And 14 is to consider and take appropriate action on the following request regarding rocky creek ranch. Preliminary plan, a subdivision in precinct three: a. A phasing agreement between Travis County and the developer, mchargue development ltd, rebecca mchargue hudson, president; and b. A preliminary plan: rocky creek ranch preliminary plan (486 lots - 467.86 acres - fm 3238 (hamilton pool road) - no fiscal is required for a preliminary plan - sewage service to be provided by lcra - no municipal etj). The county attorney advises me to read it again when we recess and come back. Although I do like my voice, I don't like the way I read. My singing is better for those of you [laughter] karoyke residents. Tower or five residents about to give us comments before lunch. If we can have the same four or five or four or five different ones. We took good notes this morning. And on top of that have good memories. So any additional reports that you think that we should hear and keep in mind, today, then please let us know what they are. And -- should we start to the right and work to our left?
>> okay.
>> full name.
>> works for me. My name is alexander wood. I live on hamilton pool road. Directly across from the proposed development. And I guess one of the things that struck me or helps me get my arms around something like this is to kind of put it into perspective. I heard a lot of numbers thrown around as far as number of units, so forth. The thing that strikes me is that -- in my mind, this really ace huge project -- this really is a huge project. I went through an exercise some weeks ago where I wanted to find out how many houses are actually on the ground in our area. And so I totaled up -- from hamilton pool road from 71 all the way down to the river, all of the adjacent developments, deer creek, west cave, saddle tree, bell springs, what I came up with was something less than 700 homes in that area entire. We are talking 20, 30 square miles, thousands and thousands of acres. That's how many homes we have there now. We are talking about adding 468, we are talking about nearly doubling what we have there now. That is a huge impact and it's a scary impact. And so I think that's, you know, part of where we are coming from is that it's not just what's happening in this microcomes -- microcosom, it's going to overburden roads that are already overburdened. I haven't heard anything about road improvements, yes a left-hand turn lane, but I think more needs to be done if you are talking about doubling the number of people that live out there. That's the first comments that I had. The second comment that I have is maybe you all can make me feel better about this, but, you know, I feel as though even if you put all of these caveats and everything on the preliminary plat, you are still approving a vision. You are approving that this is -- this is a vision for what we think is acceptable. And I just think that if there's concerns about whether or not this is the appropriate development with the environmental concerns that we have, with the infrastructure concerns that we have and everything, I think we need to wait. You all have shown your sensitivity to it by putting together the -- the southwest Travis County advisory board. There are two other forum that's are actively working. I know from -- for myself, I will be very comfortable if -- if what comes out of those -- if this development is in keeping with what comes out of those forums. But I think we need to wait until we see what comes out of them before we decide, you know, this is going to be all right or we can change our mind down the line. So that's what I have to say.
>> thank you, mr. Wood.
>> my name is john hatchet. I?m an area resident on hamilton hool road. Not directly across from -- from this development, but -- before -- but pretty close by. I?m -- -- I?m not sure exactly what -- how my opinions are on this. Personally I?m not real happy with the intensity of the development. But that's -- that's a development of a piece of property. My concerns do run around traffic impacts, a few things like that. Then as somebody that's probably going to be here looking for plat approval, probably within the next year, I am -- I?m a little bit confused by the preliminary platting process in what -- and what that entails. It seems to me that -- that by coming to -- to get a preliminary plat approval, I would be asking for you to say this plan is acceptable the way it is. And that I should have -- that I should have everything worked out and I shouldn't really be saying I should take this into consideration, I have to get a bunch of engineering work still done. That what I have agreed to at that point in time is what you have approved when I come back for a final. From what i've been hearing today, sounds like the plan still needs more work and it so -- so do you -- when you approve a preliminary plan, are you basically saying you bring this back to me in six months, it's a done deal. Or -- or are there just going to be conditions on it and you are not really approving anything? So that was -- that was one of my -- one of my questions. The other -- the other was to ask if mr. Murphy had actually ground trooted the platting -- truthed the platting yet. Has he physically gone on this piece of property, looked at where the stream beds are, tributaries, ground truthed that platting with what's there on the ground or is that done off of topography maps or what, I don't know? Mr. Murphy wants to reply to that yet.
>> what does the preliminary plan approval mean in 30, 40 words or less.
>> well, it's a -- basically the layout of the subdivision, where the lots are going to be, how big they are going to be, how wide the streets are going to be, what areas are going to be set aside for -- for drainage easements, where the floodplains are, things of that nature. It puts in place a lot of the basic elements. But it's left to the final plat stage to work out a lot of of the details. Development like this is an incremental process, so to speak. Not the case where a landowner does work down to the -- to the nth level of details, goes and gets their financing in place. Comes to the Commissioners court and presents a 100% complete package because the Commissioners court is likely to say, well, you missed a few things, you have to go start over from scratch. It's -- it's the land owner gets basic pieces in place, they come and sort of do a reality check with the Commissioner Daugherty to say are we headed the right direction. The Commissioner Daugherty said yeah, at this point this looks fine, we know that you have got a lot of detail to work out, but so far, so good.
>> okay. Mr. Murphy?
>> yes, I personally have been on the property. I've had two of my engineers have been out there several times. Two survey crews out there. And the -- the day I was out there, there was no water in any of these streams. Just -- just which was what, about two weeks ago. Does that absence your question?
>> I know that going through the process myself that seems to be a gap that some engineering firms don't get on to the ground until later on in the process. My question was, have you done it yet, if you had, does this platting represent what you really found on the ground.
>> I believe so. But just like mr. Nuchols was talking about, this is a preliminary and as you move forward in the process, the final plat, there may be some minor changes or if you run into something that needs changing, there is opportunities to change it. The next step beyond the final plat is the actual construction. Sometimes there are changes made there. That -- that you run into a conflict, something that needs to be changed. That -- in this particular -- this particular property is actually a -- earlier was described as being very steep. It's -- for this area it's relatively gentle slopes and I don't see the kind of construction problems that -- that have been -- have been -- people have had on other projects.
>> similar to lick creek's terrain.
>> lick creek is a little steeper.
>> okay.
>> yes.
>> okay. My -- a couple of other things that I -- that I -- that I kind of came aware of today is looking through some of the materials that were handed out, the u.s. Fish and wildlife letter, seems to actually recommend an evaluation bid to be conducted. I don't know if that's already been done. Or if that's something that -- that the county looks for to have done, to have been done prior to doing an approval for a preliminary plat. I know there's mitigation, ways to handle that with -- with bccp, but -- but it kind of seems like their letter is recommending that that evaluation be done. I don't know if that's been done yet.
>> can you answer that question, ana?
>> I missed the question. I know that they worked with rose [indiscernible]
>> he says fish sent a letter requesting an evaluation of what?
>> of the --
>> feasibility of this land for this development?
>> I don't know if it's feasibility. Here's the -- here's the regardless of effect determination, your clients and/or the federal action agency should maintain complete record of the evaluation, including the steps leading to the determination of effect. The qualified personnel conducting the evaluation habitat conditions, site photographs and any other related articles. That's --
>> what letter is that in? What's the date of that letter?
>> March 23rd. 2004.
>> and it's to the -- to the applicant?
>> it's to mr. Armbrust.
>> okay.
>> tom, I haven't gone through many of these things with fish. Isn't there kind of a delicate balance here while we have our subdivision regulations, being right with the federal government and getting right with fish is really a separate process, although these things are happening simultaneously and we are aware of -- of what things might be happening over at fish and even though we do have preserve folks within our own organization, these things are really separate and have to be respected at independent processes that are going on. Oftentimes simultaneously. Correct.
>> uh-huh, yes.
>> now --
>> it doesn't mean that that won't happen, but in terms of for the subdivision regulation, that's going to be something separate that will happen with u.s. Fish and wildlife, and with the preserve folk, but it is not part of our subdivision process, per se, that they are going to be checking to see the adequacy of that plan.
>> right. My take on that letter specifically is -- is once upon a time a developer could go to u.s. Fish and wildlife service and show them their plan and u.s. Fish and wildlife service would send a letter back saying, yeah, we think this is okay. They have apparently discontinued that practice because of staff shortages and various other reasons. So what the letter was basically saying was we've looked at it, but we no longer write those letters that tell you whether it's okay. But what we can do is remind you to document everything that you are doing, make sure that you have the right studies, that you keep that in place, if any issue ever comes up, you know, you'll be able to show what steps you took to make sure that you are complying with the endangered species act.
>> it was also one of those things where the applicant couldn't be going around our subdivision regulations to get approval by fish and vice versa, you can't go around fish through our subdivision regulations. These things are independent things happening simultaneously and has to be kind of respected as such.
>> okay. I got the impression since you all have deferred some of the water quality issues to lcra for inclusion with plat notes and things like that, that that was --
>> better way to say that, though, is that we are trying to piggyback their authority. So if they have conditions in place that we think are good, we are without authority to impose at this point, then we are trying to piggyback their authority, basically. That's why I asked my question about the enforcement, trying to pick it up in the field note to the preliminary plan, so we try to incorporate it into what we approve.
>> okay. Then I guess that I could go back to the -- to the questions, has an evaluation been done.
>> > that would be a question to be asked of u.s. Fish and wildlife.
>> next one is, looking for the texdot letter, 30 feet of right-of-way will be needed to be set aside on hamilton pool road, but also a left turn lane on both hamilton pool road and I believe on crumbly ranch road. Question in the neighborhood is where does that 30-foot come from? It doesn't look like it -- I don't know if it's taken out of rebecca's tract or if it's expected to be taken out of one of the neighbor's tracts.
>> this is what's needed for rebecca's property. I was asking the question as well. Does the ultimate profile of what's going on happen include paved shoulder or any other kind of accommodations or not? That's not really include understand the letter. But this is what she would have to put and what would be taken out of her property to meet texdot's needs.
>> okay. Is that reflect understand the plat, that that -- reflected in the plat that that 30-foot is coming out?
>> okay, then on crumbly ranch road is that taken out of --
>> [indiscernible] is that for left turn lane? I imagine you have to widen the road to put in the left turn lane. You have to take --
>> okay. [indiscernible] those were my questions.
>> thank you very much. Mr. Hatchet.
>> > yes.
>> my name is lisa [indiscernible] I do live on crumbly ranch road. I am ms. Hudson's neighbor. I live right downstream from her on rocky creek. And from her proposed rocky creek ranch. I am on the 100 year floodplain, so this does affect me. Right now my part of the creek has water falls, snakes, foilage, frogs. A few days ago I saw a coyote. If you haven't driven down our road, as everyone has told you, it's very, very lovely. A lot of families have lived there for up to 100 years. Verbal agreements still happen there. When I bought my little property, it turned out that years and years before the owner had traded an acre of land with his neighbor. An acre for an acre, one wanted more creeks footage and one wanted more road footage. They didn't need to go -- through that formalities of coming here. In fact when rebecca's grandfather spencer scott was selling off part of his property to the lowenthals, he also made a verbal promise that no development would ever happen. Again, nothing put in writing, but there was respect for each other, there was respect for the land. Now apparently we do need formal planning and restrictions. Who would have thought that spencer scott's own granddaughter who have been the one to betray his words.
>> my grandfather never owned the lands. I must interject, my grandfather's honor and defense, I am horrified that you would sit here and put words in his mouth.
>> I?m sorry for interrupting.
>> I am, too. I?m her husband, I have to say that before he died, he told me on several occasions this was her property and her mother's property and that at the right time they should develop it as he had done with several pieces of property throughout Austin and the state of Texas. I think you're wrong there.
>> we did promise my wife -- he did promise my wife it would not be developed. He made that promise. [multiple voices]
>> this is history, I don't know that it helps us make our decision today.
>> it doesn't.
>> ms. Hudson's plan for rocky creek ranch, 468 new houses, approximately 1872 neighbors, a thousand new cars, it's not what the people on crumbly ranch road know. I would challenge you to try to find one neighbor on our road who wants this nightmare of a plan other than ms. Hudson's neighbor or mother or her husband or her best friends. I don't know who the business people are, but they definitely don't live on our road. Some may want the water line in our area. But that will benefit them, whereas the -- the development she's proposing will benefit no one. Ms. Hudson has had dead ears to her neighbors. She doesn't want to wait for responsible planning. Kind of like a teenager she wants her little king dumb kingdom right now. Granted she might grow out of it when she sees the mess that's created. I would urge you to look at phase 7, very, very vague on the plan. We don't know what's going to happen to that part. You are the law people. I just don't believe that ethically ms. Hudson does have the right to do what she wants to with her land if it affects everyone around her, if it affects the environment, as it is going to do substantially. If ms. Hudson was having a loud party, we would be able to call the cops and they would intervene. But in this case, a million times more serious than a party, we have to call upon you. I hope you will take this issue very, very seriously. It's very easy to say this is going happen some day, but the fact is that some day is right now. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> lisa, did you give me your last name.
>> railsback.
>> thank you.
>> yes?
>> Commissioners, I?m marian wright, I live on hamilton pool road west of the proposed development. I've been there 20 years. And -- and i, too, have a portion of a creek that feeds, I believe, rocky creek running through my property. It is dry part of the year but I have learned what a gully washer is. Earlier the developer spoke about using stock tanks as part of the attempt to mitigate runoff into rocky creek, they identified I believe four stock tanks that they were going to use. Stock tanks are just stock tanks. Wet ponds are significantly different. And the fish guidelines preclude construction in subcreek channels. Those -- those stock tanks are in subcreek channels. There's going to have to be considerable earth moving to make the improvements to turn stock tanks into wet ponds. And that would significantly impact the tributaries that feed rocky creek. That's all that I have to say.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> my name is damion prayer, I live on hamilton pool road as well. I would like to emphasize the overwhelming opposition to this project in the community. This is not outside of the community, but it's within -- within the boundaries of hamilton pool road. Earlier today, someone from t.n.r. Said that it meets Travis County standards. And that -- and that these -- it was just standard stuff. Well the difference is that -- hamilton pool road and western Travis County is not standard stuff. This is a unique part of Texas. I think that we're overlooking that. That people are trying to develop it in a way that is standard operating procedure for neighborhoods and for other places, but this is a unique area. This is something that people from all over Texas, all over the world, in fact, come to visit and I think that by taking this first step we could be on a downward spiral that would start the domino effect, we need to pay real close attention to what we're dealing with here. A bigger issue than it appears to be. Economic development was brought up earlier today, too. I think if we look at the big picture, read some of the new studies and books have that -- that have been written about economic development in rural areas, that we could actually make a lot more money by preserving and conserving land as opposed to developing. It's almost an old school thought and it needs to be looked at again to see that there is indeed money to be made by doing it right. I don't think this is the right way to do it. The reasons not to approve this are overwhelming. I hope that you will consider it seriously, I hope that you will do the right thing and make it good for all of Travis County, all of Texas. I think that we can increase our livelihood, I think that we can increase the coffers of Travis County and Texas by making the right decisions here. So please don't approve it as it stands. Thank you.
>> thanks.
>> thank you.
>> hello. My name is mara urick, I also live on hamilton pool road, about five miles down the road. I am -- I?m a little concerned about, you know,, I have one group of engineers getting up and saying that -- that no additional effluent will go down this stream. , you know, I just don't see how a man can stand up and say that, you know, words just don't make it so. You know we have another engineer that has gone out there and said that this is -- this plat is, you know, a disaster waiting to happen. Somewhere along the line there's a truth, somewhere in between there, you know. I know that one engineer is working on the project, they have to deal with the developer's wishes to develop the most she can get out of the land. That's his job. You know. I have another developer who is working for people who are questioning the validity of the engineering decisions that are being made. I think your job is to see where the truth lies and -- in between those two issues that are raised. As -- as a citizen I?m very confused by the huge gap between the two statements of these two engineering firms. I have the tendency to believe more the environmentally cautious engineer. The other thing, I don't know what legal mechanisms are in place or if there is linkage, but in the whole thing of clustering, we have the large amount of -- the half of the land that is going to be kept in -- in separate and undeveloped for -- or just developed for three lots for -- for her family and her. But -- but is there a vehicle that can hold them to this? Or is this unused land, phase 7, can it be -- developed at a time later? You know? Or will it be in plat or a conservation easement or can there be linkage between the conservation easement and this plat? That is my other question.
>> can -- did you understand the question? Is there an answer?
>> yes. I've seen the draft agreement between lcra and the landowner, it does specifically call for -- for enforcement mechanisms in the nature of conservation easements or deed restrictions for the portion of the property that is supposed to be left undeveloped. So those devices will be put in place at the appropriate time. And again i've discussed the issue with lcra and we are also adding to those enforcement mechanisms, the notes on the final plat that will make sure that is all -- you know, if it's supposed to be held in conservation, in purpose do purpose perputiy, the legal steps will be taken to make sure that happens and that's enforceable years on down the road.
>> thank you. I do also want to state I just want to underline and underline and underline the fragility of the land that we are working with. I have two cows on 17 acres and I?m always having to make, you know, a retention thing to hold back the runoff because of the effect that two cows have on -- on a fair amount of land, I?m appalled that we can think that we can put on this amount of people and not have -- and be able to -- to control the effects. You know, I just don't see how it can happen. I really feel that we need to question the density of this project. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you, ms. Urick.
>> tom --
>> [multiple voices]
>> can I ask a real quick question. Is there anything in our subdivision regulations, people have brought this up numerous times related to density?
>> [indiscernible]
>> only with respect to onsite sewage facilities. That's the only density regulation that we currently have on the books.
>> I?m [indiscernible] I live on hamilton pool road in the village of bee cave [indiscernible] I came here initially with a host of other concerns, which are still there, I really did want to address a few things that i've heard this morning and now. Just immediately to get back to mara's point about the impact of -- are there controls if place for that -- for the western part of -- western side of rocky creek, that we understand it to be open space? If in fact suppose lcra does not, the board does not approve the water, then what happens? Those conditions that are all part of the letter of intent are no longer, I would assume. Part of what you are -- what you are asking to be approved today. 68 houses on 280 acres, whatever, using that other land to mitigate it. That will no longer be if lcra does not approve the water, correct? I guess if -- if lcra doesn't approve the water, this preliminary plan doesn't mean anything.
>> then what happens?
>> we don't approve the signed plat.
>> right. If lcra doesn't approve the water and the landowner comes to us and files a final plat application, we will say on your preliminary plat you said you couldn't come to us absent some sort of certification from the lcra that you are meeting either the u.s. Fish and wildlife requirements or the regional plan. That final plat would not be processed.
>> I think there are an awful lot of these kinds of concerns, these conditional things that I have heard all morning. That make me very concerned about the changes. Everyone says well there can be changes along the way. How drastically can this change? The idea of having a thousand more cars to and fro, two to three car trips a day, it's staggering considering the population that we have out there now. We are -- it would be more than double, nearly doubling it. That is a huge concern to me, that was one of my initial concerns is the fact that texdot has no plans to widen, they have done some -- some guardrail and culvert improvements, but short of -- until 2025 is what they said, they have no plans to widen that road. And it is a danger, it is a hazard to my life and anybody, my child's life who drives on it, everyone's. There's an infrastructure that's not there. That needs to be there before something like this can go in. When it gets in, I think we all are the people that are going to be paying for it. Those are just a few of my concerns about this. I hope that you will really take it to heart that this is an awful lot missing, that needs to be put in place.
>> let me ask you regarding the backup, if you didn't get the water from lcra, would you still build this project, would you do it with septic.
>> either do it with another water company as a supplier and use this plan or I would go ahead and put the 468 with septic and take up the entire tract and just put 468 wells in the ground and go that way.
>> something, tom, that she could do under the state laws?
>> it's too hard to say without seeing the actual plan for that. I mean certainly she could file the applications to do that. Whether it actually met all of the variance requirements you know would be pure speculation at this point.
>> just for clarification on the roadway, this is a texdot road, three of us sit on campo and we are constantly going through revisions and updates of the long-term plan. The 20/30 plan, we are fixing to shatter on shortly. -- 2030 plan we are fixing to start on shortly. There's a whole new host of safety improvement projects, this is not on that. But that doesn't mean that it does not become a part of some future tip simply because it's connecting to other state roadways. So -- it just says it isn't there today, but you are correct. It doesn't mean that texdot does not take this up at some appropriate time, they would have to come up with the appropriate dollars and right-of-way.
>> I was just taking from an article that I read and a statement from texdot that they said until 2025, the first -- the first reasonable date that they had to consider widening the road.
>> that is right. Without any prodding.
>> without any prodding, that's true.
>> that is right.
>> okay. I just have one last point that I actually almost forgot. We referred to before clustering. Earlier I believe mr. Murphy might have referred to it. Granted an engineer for every point of view, I?m sure. Loren ross' engineering stud has come into play, been referenced. I would just like to read this, this is a michaelly reports who also happened to co-author the fish guidelines. And he has studied this particular subdivision, the -- the plans for it. He -- he states the proposed clustering, in quotes, of development of the rocky creek ranch is merely a dense development with open space set aside across the creek. The hydrological disconnected of the open space to the development does not allow for the open space to provide any water quality treatment to the proposed development. The open space will retain its baseline water quality functions, but will not help to ameliorate the effects of the development. This is an engineer as well, he co-authored the fish guidelines. Again I would urge you to think really seriously and hard about -- about plawfg this. Plawfg -- about approving this.
>> do you have your sense of what is acceptable to you in terms of some development of this property? I mean, where is your -- your level of comfort.
>> I think lauren ross's report kind of hit home to me. She -- she said somewhere in the nature of -- I know everyone is going to gasp, between 3 and 18-acres per house to maintain the level of the aquifers. I have a copy of it if you need to -- if you would like to review it.
>> I would love to have a copy of it.
>> I have one right here. You are most welcome to it.
>> even though surrounding subdivisions are not three to 18 acres.
>> let's put this way, deer creek is about 50 years old. My neighbor, was in his 40s used to go there as a kid. I don't think comparing that as something as a current subdivision is really appropriate. And my understanding of deer creek, no excuse me of west cave and saddle tree is that they are two and three acres, I have been through there. They look very similar to homestead that sort of thing. I can't even imagine quarter acre and -- lots. Like that on this road. I just -- there's just no way.
>> I appreciate it. Thank you.
>> I?m colin clark with save our springs alliance, we would request that you not approve the preliminary plan or phase in agreements. I would try to stick to reasons that Travis County could take that action. You've heard a lot about the problems that the neighbors have. I do understand some of them are not under the purview of your subdivision regulation, but I do think there are things that the county could do to help address some of these problems.
>> the first thing this develop as planned is going to pollute rocky creek, Barton Creek, barton springs. Putting 468 lots on 258 acres is going to result in increased storm water, pollutant loads, oil and grease, wet ponds they are proposing do not adequately capture oil and grease because oil rises to the top of a wet pond. When that water is released, that oil and grease is leaving the pond and going into the tributaries. I believe doctor ross's report analyzed one pond, found that total suspended solids would go up from 1700 pounds per year to 7,900 pounds per year. That's from one pound. One pond. The Commissioners court, you guys can't right now based on the ordinances in place, deny the plat because it's going to include Barton Creek. I think there is recognition that the county does need to beef up its water quality ordinances, its storm water and its flooding regulations. And as has been mentioned before, there are three planning processes going on, I?m a part of two of them. And appreciate that Commissioner Daugherty has initiated the southwest growth dialogue process and that Travis County is involved in the -- in the barton springs regional water quality planning project. And we would request that the county initiate a moratorium until those plans are done so that you don't have these dilemmas coming before the Commissioners court. And as ms. Muse pointed out, comal county did that, have a challenge, it was upheld. You do have a precedent. Wouldn't be treading new water entirely. If you were to do that, a number of communities in central Texas have imposed moratorium on development, buda, kyle, dripping springs recently did one as well. The point of that is to try to get a grip on growth in environmentally sensitive areas, in part. Another point, mr. Nuckols mentioned that the grandfathering rights are vested when an application is filed. Based on the letters for water and wastewater that lcra provided, it would appear to me that these olympics are not administrate -- these applications are not administratively complete. The wastewater letter from lcra states that the commitment is subject to the following terms and conditions, final approval by the lcra board of directors and on the water letter same thing, approval by the lcra board of directors. And I think that's -- that decision is -- is anticipated to be made in December. So if -- if this project -- if the application is not administratively complete because they don't have final approval from the utility provider, then I would argue that you could impose a moratorium on new development applications and that could be applicable to this development. And you could see what happens after December. The regional plan is supposed to be done in February and then hopefully recommendations will be coming to the county that you could possibly enact, and then southwest dialogue process is supposed to wrap up in April. So we have a lot of things going on and I think it -- in order for those plans to -- to make any sense, enacting a moratorium would be the -- the most prudent thing to do so that those plans can move forward, the county can see what they can do, and we can protect water quality, prevent flooding and some of the other concerns that were addressed for you earlier. Mr. -- mr. Murphy mentioned that this was a low impact development, I think that it's -- it's exactly the opposite. This is a high impact development. Some of the other developments in that area about one house per 10 acres, destiny hills, madrone ranch, maybe one house per nine or eight acres, those are some of the things that are going forward that are not causing the ire of the neighbors, so I think there is -- there is a medium where ms. Hudson could develop her property and protect water quality. But if this goes forward as planned, the result is going to be pollution of Barton Creek and barton springs. Thank you for your time.
>> thank you.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> ... One is setbacks for streams and environmental features, and that is basically based on the size of the watershed per stream. There's no development within a certain distance of the stream and I believe for the largest watersheds it's 300 to 400 feet and there are also -- there's 150-foot setback for environmental features like aquifer recharge features and wetlands and so on. So the first piece is setback, which are basically zero development zones. You have to leave those areas in their natural state. So that basically preserves the creek beds and the adjacent reparion areas of the creeks and the aquifer recharge zones. The second piece is the impervious cover limits. 15% for the aquifer recharge zone and 20% for the contributing zone and I believe mr. Murphy mentioned before that this development was 16%, somewhere in that vicinity, so they're basically -- I?m not sure whether this is contributing -- it's contributing, so they're almost to the recharge zone limit although this is just contributing zone. They're basically 16% where they could be at 20, and then the third big piece is storm water treatment, which is basically you have to treat the storm water so that when it -- when it leaves your is it leaves your property or enters the creep, pre-development limits. You have to clean it up so that by the time it reaches the creek it's as clean as it was before the development occurred. And so those are the three big pieces. Irguess the fourth I should also mention because people have brought it up a lot. There are certain maintenance requirements. You have to make sure that all of your storm water treatment facilities are maintained in perpetuity so that they go on, you know, into the future functioning and keep the storm water clean not only when they're first built but after they've been there for awhile.
>> so those who recommend delay until after the regional studies are done believe that the -- I guess the standards adopted as a result of that work will be better more restrictive than the fish and wildlife standards today?
>> yeah, there's a lot of folks that feel the fish and wildlife standards are not adequate to protect water quality in the barton springs watershed and that the regional planning process will hopefully result in a plan that would protect water quality. And part of that would be making recommendations to the county which actually in all serious water letter, it refers to the fish and wildlife meshes or a plan adopted by trapz.
>> I?m hoping the regional process works, but envision central Texas tells me that you have to allow sufficient time. And if you sit on the Commissioner's court, you have to wonder how much time are we talking about? And if you say let's move expeditiously, I mean, to be honest, where you have the regional partners, I mean I think you're looking at months. And I think if you, to be honest, if we're 6, 9, 12 months down the road have solid recommendations, i'd be a little surprised.
>> the plan is supposed to be complete in February. That's four or five months await our staff could probably come up with recommendations based on county powers much more quickly than that and you could have recommendations back to you before February.
>> I wouldn't count on it. I mean being realistic here. I?m not trying to be pessimistic, but it's like, it just doesn't work that quickly, colin, we have requirements in terms of postings, hearings, et cetera, the work of the staff, et cetera, I would love it if something like that could happen but I think we have to be really realistic, to say something could be here in a matter of months is not being realistic, considering we are getting ready to hit the holiday period, we're even getting public, as part of the public input, you have to be respectful that folks are not around a lot in November, December, and you have to be respectful of the fact.
>> that doesn't mean you shouldn't try.
>> that's a good point.
>> the last recommendation...
>> good point.
>> ... The county were to put up for the voters bond money to purchase plan for watershed protection in western Travis County, perhaps the county would be in a situation where they could offer land owners like ms. Hudson to protect that land forever.
>> but you think if we were to put the moratorium in place, adopt a new set of standards, we would be able to apply those standards to this project no with standing that the application was filed with us in March?
>> if -- if it's not administratively complete, I mean I would argue -- I?m not a lawyer -- that until lcra says we're going to put the water line out there that it isn't administratively complete because their board has to make that determination.
>> but our staff says administratively complete as meeting the county standards in place today, which were many place of March of '04 also, and that's why when I -- I said several times we really have tried to creatively piggy back the greater leverage that lcra and fish and wildlife have by including their standards in one of our field notes, and basically trying to get authority -- additional authority that way, see what I?m saying? So my guess is that, I mean, it's created, but I think that -- you know, we generate creativity but we also generate a whole lot more potential legal liability at the same time.
>> I think approving the preliminary plan could create -- I mean could you imagine a situation where they come to you and says, well, we have a letter for water service even though the board hasn't approved it. They can go to lcra and say, hey, they've approved my development, you better give me this water.
>> but I think we've done that as to water for the last 30 years. If you're in the preliminary plan, we ask you, okay, where do you get your water? You say I?m getting my water from bluebonnet water supply, can you get a letter from there? There's a letter -- bluebonnet says sure, so up to this point we have pretty much accepted that for preliminary plan approval. But before we approve it formally, we expect something a lot more specific, am I right op that, joe? So I mean -- if -- if there's a paradigm shift that we have in place, in fairness we ought to put it in place in advance so people will know what the standards are, and I just -- you could see us agonizing over these issues, basically. You -- if anybody else who has not given comments today wishes to give comments, please come forward then we'll pick you up again.
>> my name is tom smith, many of you know me better as smitty. I?m lucky enough to be a land owner out on hamilton pool road. One of my first experiences in Austin was driving out hamilton pool road to hamilton pool for a swim. And as years went on I bought property out there because I treasured it so much and I think many of us in this room share that belief, it's a unique part of our universe and something worth preserving. What is before you today is truly unfortunate. You're being asked to give a permit before you're able to develop the policy to protect what we all treasure out there. And we would ask you to slow down and protect the pristine waters out there, protect the views and see if there are some compromises that can be developed where we're all happy in terms of developing something that has more value for all of us instead of just proving the permit that is before you. As you all know, we have -- we're blessed out there not only with long views and relatively dark skies, pristine water, and some of the best habitat for golden cheek warblers and other endangered species in the nation and you have an tune with this permit to either set precedents that will assure we maintain those values we all treasure or to set press depps that others will then use again and again and again say you approved it for rocky creek, why not for us. We have made, as a state, and a community, a number of tragic mistakes in the 25 years i've been in Austin, Texas, and this is one I think we can avoid. I was recently out in new mexico up in the cliff dwellings, talking to an old woman who was a guide up there about why the anazasis left. The answer was simple. There was too many of them, they didn't protect their water supply. They poisoned the land they relied upon. We were in a situation where time after time whether it be the myans. We're at that point again, the people who understand the way this aquifer works says we have to have densities of less than one in three acres or maybe one in 18 acres north to protect us, what this density is going to be like, one home per quarter acre is similar to what you see on the up lands as you drive out that way on bee cave road to the north. Houses so close to each other you can look in the kitchen windows and talk to your neighbor while they're washing their dishes. While we're very glad that rebecca is attempting to cluster homes to reduce the damages done by building this number of homes out there, and to provide some swells around the creeks and the tributaries to prevent the erosion from occurring that might otherwise occur, there are a number of key components to that plan that are not fully developed yet. What kind of vegetation is going to be in these swails? Is it going to be typical suburban grass or is it going to be the clump grass, the trees and the brush that actually slow down the water and give it a time to clarify before it gets into the creeks? We don't know what kinds of restrictions are going to be put on the use of pesticides and herbicides, and fertilizers. And those of us who swim in Barton Creek on a daily basis know the damage that excess fertilizers have caused to that treasure and to the creeks up and down Travis County because of the algae blooms and we've seen the devastation caused to our fish and other aquatic species due to excess pesticide use. We don't yet have standards for the roads going out there. And as we've seen, the building of rose can impact the sediment that goes into those creeks. The surface we choose to put on those roads can poison the sediments. As we've seen, the type of sealant used on asphalt, for example, can make an enormous difference in the load of ph's, toxins, in our water supply, we saw last year when barton springs was closed for three months as we investigated that problem. Nor have we got a good idea of how we're going to protect the wildlife out there. Nor do we have set asides or mitigation plans in place. And we're at a really remarkable place in our community to do what the city council and you all did a generation ago when you decided it was worth it to buy and preserve a significant portion of the barton springs bottom lands and turn them into hike and bike trails that were able to link the community and give it a recreational asset that is enjoyed by thousands of people every weekend and every day. With this treasured property out there, we could create a trail system, a bike system, a recreation system beyond compare that would -- that would endure for generations and be enjoyed by folks all over the united states. Now, rebecca has said that she wants to set aside about half of the property, and as you've heard from other, not necessarily the property that would be used to buffer the water, but we're glad she's wanting to set aside half of the property. One of the questions I have is how do we know that is going to remain in perpetuity and preserved and not redeveloped. Will that property be open to the public or is that private property that is being not developed? I think those are some things that need to be answered as well. One of the questions we have here is what's the hurry? Rebecca is in full faith participating in at least 3 different processes at this point. To develop plans to protect our aquifer and the hill country. The southwest Travis County process, the hamilton pool road process, the regional water quality planning process. Judge, you've asked a good question. How long do we have to wait? I don't know. I know that many of us are spending every Wednesday night and typically a night or two before that preparing for these meetings trying to get something in place before there's a land slide of developments. And I think we're here to ask you to slow down and allow that process to occur. If this permit goes through, it is our fear that there will be dozens of other applicants coming in in the next several months before the standards are put in place to get grandfather status just as we saw during that intermediate time between the passage of sos and the final court decisions that have led to the extensive development up and down the barton springs watershed, that's what we're facing. That is what is before us. Colin clark and others in this room have asked you all to slow down, have asked you all to put a moratorium on further permits until such time as this process is complete. And we in the hamilton pool road group have committed to the lcra group that we will have a plan and we will meet that commitment. We in the regional water planning group said we want to get something done by February and if I have to stay up all night, I?m going to make esure we get a lot of that done, at least enough to where you can have something in hand by February, and Commissioner Davis, I?m -- Commissioner Daugherty, I?m glad you pulled together a group of people to get the southwest Travis County process in place. We're spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of government money to come up with the plans that are going to protect us. Let's not waist that process, let's not waste that time, I?m asking you to put a moratorium in place, to slow down, and for a change let's do the policy before we give the permit. Thank y'all for your time.
>> the group that is on the December completion schedule, which one?
>> it's the hamilton pool road committee that lcra has pulled together to do a vision for what we would like to see the lcra incorporate into their contracts with water recipients. Now that -- and that brings me to a critical point which unfortunately is right here in my notes but I forgot to mention.
>> I thought I wouldn't ask the wrong question.
>> judge, you've known me for a long time. You give me a lead, i'll take an hour. There are three or four parts of the contract that are part of the lcra component. How you deal with storm water, wastewater, and I think the wildlife part of it, as I recall, all four of those are potentially under -- being looked at by lcra at this point and we are in a position where I think those are contracts that need to be toughened up. They may have been good ten years ago when they were first developed, but they're only catching about 75% of the storm water, for example, and I think there's some opportunities here for us to suggest things that are more protective, work bert, assure that they're enforced an assure that we have got the opportunity to make sure whatever we end up deciding as a community is critical as a level of protection,s that support of the community and the teeth necessary to make sure it does get implemented and enforced.
>> thank you.
>> thank y'all very much for your time.
>> good afternoon, judge, Commissioners, my name is becky combs, and I?m here today as a concerned citizen, when I look at the lcra letter about wastewater and it talks about conservation easements, but I don't see anything in here indicating that the developer has negotiated a conservation easement. I would like to know if she already has -- if she has one that has been agreed to.
>> no, becky, I think I mentioned to you the other night that I don't have a conservation easement yet, because until I have knowledge of what my plan is actually going to look like, I don't want to waste anybody's time going and talking about a conservation until I know what is it I?m offering. As I said the other night, no, I don't, but the next step as soon as I know what my plan looks like.
>> I think that conservation easements, they take more time than people think to negotiate them, and I would request that I guess she at least have a letter of intent from a land trust organization or a holder of the conservation easement, you know, before you approve this preliminary plat. I just ask you to slow down and ask for that as part of your documentation.
>> how long do you think that would take?
>> well, I would like to ask her if he's already entered into negotiations with any -- any land trusts and what has been their response?
>> I haven't entered into formal negotiations with anyone but I have several friends in community that are involved with those types of holding and I have on going discussions with them that i've had for several years now, so the relationships are there, it's just a matter of picking them up.
>> I guess I would say that, you know, it's going to take a lot longer than I think is represented to get the conservation easement that is going to agree with this plan as she has it drawn.
>> so if it took a couple of years you would just say, rebecca, you need to wait two years for this project?
>> well, but, no, it's a condition here on the lcra letter, and she's got to meet that condition. I think why do we rush forward right now when she could go ahead an start on that right now and at least bring a letter of intent forward. I think it's just a-- we're rushing forward on this where there's really not a need to.
>> you understand there are many forms of a conservation easement and it's the kind of thing that an individual can have a conservation easement and they take the responsible for what happens in terms of keeping up to date with that. A homeowner association. We've even had a few homeowner associations that did it for awhile and realized they dependent want to do it for awhile and -- didn't want to do it for awhile and actually came into an agreement with Travis County to take over the conservation easement so there are many ways to get there and it doesn't necessarily mean that you have to contract out with a separate conservecy group.
>> I understand that.
>> it could take a short amount of time to get a conservation easement or longer depending on the route you decide to go.
>> I would like to see a letter of intent that she's started this.
>> show me. Show me, you're saying.
>> show me. Right.
>> thank you, ms. Combs. Put a wrapper on the public comment period.
>> i'll be brief. I wanted to comment on a question that Commissioner Sonleitner asked a few minutes ago and that was to turn knuckles according to your authority to regulate density, I want to make sure that everyone in the room is clear that under the current ordinances you can have you cannot regulate density but I think what is being discovered under senate bill 873, you do have the authority to regulate lot sizes to a certain degree, and there's a -- an ordinance right now that was written for medina county that is being looked at, close to being adopted, that does regulate lot sizes, so I think it -- you do have the authority, it's just not in your current ordinances but the legislature has given you authority.
>> yeah, I knew what the answer was. I wanted to put in it the record.
>> lastly I wanted to say about the idea on the moratorium, in the southwest regional plan, joe has been hired to facilitate that process and he's laid out a time line, we are to have all of our recommendations finished by December and given to staff, so if you were to consider a moratorium and could give that until April, that would give the staff four months to implement it. And it looks like, you know, he's been contracted by you to carry through this process, so you can hold him accountable to do that. Going to be his full-time job for the next 8 months and he's given April his deadline to complete that.
>> I?m sorry, judge, do you have information about in comal county was that a countywide moratorium or was it specific to a certain area? Do you have that information?
>> it was a countywide moratorium is my understanding. But it only affected high dense developments, developments that were denser than one lot per acre.
>> thanks for your information.
>> uh-huh.
>> thank you very much. So am I hearing everybody recommend to Travis County take a real good look at 873? Ma'am, you have not spoken before, have you?
>> no.
>> you look like you were the kind who is very, very brief, right? [laughter]. Okay. Let me make sure that -- ma'am, what I was about to ask, though s. Do I hear the recommendation that Travis County take a good look at 873 and proceed without the results of the regional study that we know are under way?
>> yes.
>> one person says yes.
>> yes.
>> mr. Clark still here?
>> yes.
>> raise your hand. That is a two-year effort by Travis County.
>> certainly couldn't be any...
>> my name is nina glassgo. I've seen a lot of change, I live off of Bee Caves road. I've seen a lot of change. We lived on Bee Caves road when it was narrow and it's inevitable that things change. You cannot hold back against change. I would say that people, there's a lot of hostility here against rebecca, that is why I?m stepping up to the plate. My husband has property right next to her and personally I think that her vision for this kind of subdivision is actually aesthetically more appealing than many others could be, and I know that, you know, people don't like more people to come, but it is inevitable. I mean there's a galleria out there, I don't like it, but it is inevitable, okay? So what I would say is she's doing the best that she can to comply with what is legal now and also in the future, what will have impact on the future. And so that's all I have to say. Bye.
>> thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> now, we do need to ask tom a few questions in executive session. They will be legal in nature. Now, is there -- is everybody on the court ready to act today after executive session?
>> I am.
>> I am.
>> maybe.
>> I would say there's a fifty-fifty chance that we will come back and ask for another week and also a fifty-fifty chance we'll come back and take a vote.
>> judge, before you --
>> my guess is we will be in executive session once we go in there in five minutes probably 30 minute, because we also will have a couple of other items that will take some time and I?m assuming we will take ten minutes on this in executive session. So you're welcome to be very, very patient and wait for us. If we postpone this item a week, we would basically put it first on the agenda and try to take it up close to 9:15, 9:20 next week.
>> if we brought it back would we close the public hearing? Well, I have good notes and a good memory, as I told everybody. A lot depends on the clarity of mr. Knuckles' legal advice in executive session. Commissioner?
>> yeah, I just wanted to ask the applicant just a question, one question. And that is the -- the --
>> rebecca, why don't you come to the microphone?
>> -- the impetus as far as some of the density and things of that nature, but I?m also looking at affordability of some of the homes in this particular subdivision that's being proposed here. If there's anything that would not hurt or harm the disclosure, what these homes would probably cost, except something that is too touchy to answer, you don't have to, but I am just looking at affordability, as we're looking for affordability, all across this community, not only on the east side, but on the west side, southside, all sides, we're looking for homes that people can afford to live n.
>> yes, sir.
>> can you tell -- if it's going to hurt you to disclose this information to me, I don't want you to do that.
>> i'll be happy to address that, actually.
>> thank you.
>> I think what this subtuition will allow for the area which was mentioned a moment ago is about to have a galleria mallocated out near it, we're not sure what tenants will be there, but this area has a lot of homes that are high-value homes, that are probably unobtainable by a large majority of the population. The homes that will be in rocky creek will probably start, their price range will probably be somewhere around 300 to $350,000, which may not be obtainable for many people, but I think will allow people that would not have another opportunity to live in this area currently an opportunity to do so. It will broaden the range of homes that are in the area and allow families that are just starting out to come to the area that might not otherwise be able to afford to do so. So I?m hoping to create sort of a base with housing that would be there that might not otherwise be there if this weren't offered.
>> all right.
>> that was only -- that was the only question I had at this time. Thank you.
>> thank you very much. Appreciate it.
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.
Last Modified: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 3:38 PM