Travis County Commissioners Court
March 1, 2005
Item 11
View
captioned video.
Item number 11 is to consider and take appropriate action on amendments to chapter 82, Travis County code, standards for construction of streets and drainage in subdivisions. We indicated this morning basically our decision to lay this matter out, discuss it, have questions, comments, etcetera. But to delay action until after today and preferably until Tuesday of next week.
>> > yeah. And i've got a lot of phone calls and e-mails, and it won't happen next week I don't think either. I've got everybody making runs at this thing, so I think it's probably going to take two weeks to sit down with folks and hear everybody out. If you don't, there will be people saying they're not getting to weigh in on this bill, so I would say, judge, that -- I'm going to be gone Thursday and Friday, so I'm not going to have time to meet with folks, so I think it will be two weeks, in my opinion.
>> > why don't you tell us what we have here and why? What, why, and let's cover the other w's too, if you have a mind to.
>> > okay. I've just handed to you a summary that we just finished doing this morning. And there's additional copies on the table over here for anybody else that wants it. As well as a copy of the draft proposed amendments to the county code on this. And this item, I guess, going back by way of background, grew out of the discussions at one point about the possibility of a moratorium on development given the several different groups that are talking about growth issues in the unincorporated part of the county. And after discussing the moratorium, it was our understanding that while you might not be necessarily comfortable with adopting a moratorium, the possibility of interim rules was something the staff ought to look into, and we briefed you in executive session on that a couple of times about what was legally possible. And what we have today is really the staff's recommendation for interim rules that would put some measures in place to deal with development that's occurring while we have these ongoing die logs with the various different groups about what the permanent or long-term rules ought to be. And the suggestion on these would be that you adopt them on a temporary basis -- let me back up again a little bit. Normally there's a 30-day posting requirement before you adopt the regular regulations that affect development. But there are certain exceptions to that requirement. So the way we envisioned this working was adopt these under those exceptions to go into effect immediately, then go through the 30-day posting requirement and come back and adopt them perhaps with any refinements that you want to make during the 30 days. So it would be sort of a two-step process. As far as what's in the rules, there are substantive rules and procedural rules. On the substantive side, what's in the rules is that Travis County will require developers to take a certain water quality measures, storm water quality measures during the construction phase, and the basic requirement would be that before he receives approval of his Travis County application, the developer has to be issued whatever storm water permit he's subject to. And this is going to depend on location. There's three basic permits. Tceq has a statewide permitting program for construction storm water quality, and then they have a special permit that applies only in the edward's aquifer zone, and then lcra requires a permit in the lake Austin watershed. So the basic requirement would be get whichever of those permits is required for the development, and that will satisfy Travis County except in three cases, and in those three cases, Travis County may, but not necessarily will, require measures in addition to lcra or tceq. And those three conditions would be if there's going to be over five acres of soil disturbed at any one time during the construction process, if the site has slopes over 10% or if after construction arises -- after construction starts pollution problems arise. Do you want to go through these all and then have questions or take questions as I discuss each one of them?
>> > from the court?
>> > yeah.
>> > if it's an important question we'll interrupt, otherwise we'll try to wait. How's that?
>> > okay. One question. So you think that tceq or lcra have rules that already cover most of this? And then there are three exceptions that you mentioned.
>> > right.
>> > now, what would happen in those three exceptions?
>> > well, Travis County would basically be able to look at what tceq and lcra were requiring. And if we deemed it insufficient, we could require additional storm water quality measures be put in place by the developer. And again, that's just during the construction phase.
>> > okay.
>> > the second substantive requirement would be buffer zones for streams and sensitive environmental features. And this would apply only in aquifer recharge area and watersheds of water supply and flood control reservoirs. The buffer zones are both a water quality and a floodplain management measure, so the feeling was since this is an interim rural, it ought to apply only in the areas where water quality and flood protection were most critical, and in Travis County that's basically the trinity and the edward's zones and the watershed of Lake Travis since, as you know, the floodplain on Lake Travis has been discovered to be six feet higher than it actually is. So we're facing a serious flood control issue out there. These buffer zones are based on what's in chapter 30 of the Travis County code, and that is the joint subdivision code you adopted with the city of Austin. For environmental features such as springs, bluffs, caves, wetlands, etcetera, the buffer zone is 150 feet. For aquifer recharge point. It's at least 150 feet and up to 300 feet, depending on where the drainage area for the feature is, so it's basically -- it can never be less than 150 or more than 300. It's wherever the drainage area falls within those two. See, for streams, the buffer size for the stream depends on basically the drainage area of the stream. And really this -- these regulations only apply to streams that drain at least 64 acres. For the minor classification which is between 64 and 320 acres, the buffer would be 50 to 100 feet for intermediate streams that drain 320 to 440 acres, the buffer is 100 to 200 feet. And for major streams, those which drain over 640 acres, the buffer is between 200 and 400 feet. Where it's going to fall between that upper and lower limit basically depends on where the floodplain is. So it will always be the lower number, it will never be greater than the higher number, but between those two it's wherever the floodplain boundary is.
>> > and where does this come from?
>> > that's based on our joint subdivision code with the city of Austin.
>> > okay.
>> > and there's also a 75-foot buffer zone on Lake Travis for single-family development, 100 feet for all others.
>> > so this has already applied for developments in the city of Austin e.t.j., where Austin and Travis County jointly regulate?
>> > yes. And those are the requirements specifically for the lake Austin-lake travis watershed. Those are specifically designed for the area we're applying them to here. It's just that -- let me back up a little bit. These would apply only outside the municipal e.t.j.'s, across the board. All of these requirements will only apply to outside municipal e.t.j.'s, and moreover, they will only apply to single-family residential developments over 20 acres and all commercial developments. In the last substantive measure is post construction water quality measures. These would apply only in recharge areas and watershed and water supply, flood control reservoirs. These are basically requirements for things like storm water retention ponds, permanent structures that deal with runoff after the development has built out. And what we're doing here is incorporating a requirement that those controls remove 70% of pollute ants. That requirement increases up to 90% if the development is occurring on a slope or on a lake shore, and that is laced on current lcra requirements. Requirements for the Lake Travis watershed.
>> > do you know how long the lcra requirements have been in place?
>> > I believe they adopted their first ordinance in 1991. I don't know how many times it's been amended since then, but I know the ordinance was first adopted around '91. Not amended? Okay.
>> > adopted in 1991?
>> > [inaudible - no mic].
>> > are you gentleman with the lcra? I just wondered.
>> > then on the procedural side, there are three procedural requirements, and those would apply either to a final plat application or if the developer files a preliminary plan in advance of the final plat to the preliminary plan application. And these are the developer must obtain any required corps of engineers permits or u.s. Fish and wildlife service endangered species permit before the application is approved. The developer must have a signed agreement with a utility for water or wastewater service before an application can be filed with the county. The requirement for wastewater applies only if they're not using on-site sewage, by the way. And then finally, those applications must include a copy of the plan or the plat in an electronic format. The reason for that is that's necessary to calculate the drainage areas for these stream buffers. So those are the requirements. And if you've got questions, i'll be happy to try to answer them.
>> > questions from the court?
>> > on the application -- (indiscernible).
>> > yes, sir.
>> > or do the telephone numbers need to be corrected on the application itself. So we've made those. And my other question, I guess, is there are some of these things that appear to be substantial, but not procedural amendments to the rule. Some of them are kind of designated to certain points of the county, but then again, there are others that affect all of the county. And, of course, I just wanted to make sure that -- I don't know how we can do that, but obviously some kind of way that we can show that the ones that are specifically driven to a particular region in the county as opposed to county wide. And I don't really -- I see what's going on here and I understand it, but if someone were to pick it up, how would they be able to determine that?
>> > well, it is in the rule that specifies which ones are limited to certain part of the county. As you go back, it's just the buffer zones and the post-construction water quality measures. Again, the main reason for that is since the proposal was to adopt these without going through the 30-day notice requirement, we needed to qualify for the exceptions to that. And the exceptions to that are basically if you were under a state or federal mandate, and for water quality we are, as joe gieselman's informed you several times over the past few years under the phase 2 tpdds storm water program, which is adopted -- it's basically a part of the federal clean water act. E.p.a. Has delegated responsibility for that to tceq. So it's both an e.p.a. And a tceq mandate. Travis County is required to regulate the storm water that flows into our drainage system. That's a federal mandate. And we felt like what would justify the exception there was where water quality was most critical, and that would be the aquifer recharge zones. There's also an exception to the posting requirement for a real substantial threat to public safety, and we felt like the floodplain situation we're facing on Lake Travis qualified us for those exceptions. But that's the main reason. The buffer zones and the post-construction water quality measures, which are really probably the most significant of these two rules, are contained to the Lake Travis/lake Austin watershed and the aquifer recharge areas.
>> > thank you.
>> > I know in this procedure was number 2. And that historically is that it pretty much have made some sort of communication, had some sort of communication with the water provider in that jurisdiction and shared that communication with Travis County. And we've pretty much accepted that, right. Right?
>> > right.
>> > basically it would be much more document completion status that we're looking to.
>> > right. What's in your regulations now is the preliminary plan stage, basically a letter from the utility provider that they have adequate capacity to serve the development suffices for approval. And then before the final plat is approved, your regulations require that all the final arrangements be made for construction of the facilities, physical security being posted by the developer if he's going to build them, and the utility actually has to be able to say when is service going to be provided to these lots. In a nutshell what this amendment does is take that requirement and puts it on the front end of the process and makes it a requirement for filing the application.
>> > and why is that important for us?
>> > well, I think in discussing it with joe, the feeling is that at present we're getting a lot of applications filed that have big pieces missing, i'll say. And this also is the rationale for requiring the corps of engineers permit and the u.s. Fish and wildlife permit before the application is approved. I think the tnr staff is looking at a lot of applications that don't have the utilities, the corps permit, the u.s. Fish and wildlife service in place. And basically there will be plans that will very likely change once all that's done. And then they'll have to come back and review the plan again. And it seems more orderly from the county perspective to have those big pieces in place so that the tnr staff knows that the plan they're reviewing is a real plan, is not sort of a spec cue la active plan that's probably going to be changed three or four times and they'll have to review it three or four times.
>> > so if you plan to use a bona fide septic system in Travis County, we have to inspect and approve. Would we expect final approval by us for the septic system or what?
>> > I know that that's reviewed at the preliminary plan stage, lot sizes. What else is done at preliminary?
>> > and the second question is whether that will change.
>> > it won't change. Specifically they want to be sure that it's feasible what they're proposing, and then they go into more detail when the final plats come in, but they do start the review and we charge the fees at the septic -- I mean at the prelimb stage.
>> > so we would know whether there's a fundamental problem. If we see that, -- (indiscernible).
>> > the rationale is it wouldn't make any sense to go on with that application if it was inherently flawed. And the sooner we can let the constituent know that the better customer service we're providing the constituents. So if they were to go along with their prelim and if it turned out that it wasn't going to work with the septic system and that's all that was available, we need to let them know that up front as soon as possible with the prelim. So that's why we start the septic review just enough to know that it's feasible, and we charge them fees at the prelim stage.
>> > and if you have an urban eyes the wastewater system, we expect to see an agreement. And we define agreement as --
>> > an agreement with the municipality corporation or district that provides adequate arrangements for construction of utilities to serve the subdivision as development progresses either by the municipality corporation or district itself or by the owner secured by fiscal security and that indicates when service will be available to all lots, which is again -- that's the wording in the current regulations about what's required for final plat approval. We've just moved that up to the front of the process.
>> > okay.
>> > any more questions from the court? Anybody here on this item? Please come forward. If you give us your name, we'll be happy to get your comments.
>> > I'm jean (indiscernible). I'm with the scenic corridor coalition, part of the hill country alliance. I'm on the water quality planning project, I'm on the nps -- lcra pns ordinance revision stakeholder committee. I will be representing hpicc working group. I want to say how pleased I am on behalf of our group that you folks are looking at this interim water quality protection issue. I think it's extremely important that we do take ownership on it. And we encourage the work of the staff in implementing these interim measures. So I strongly urge the county Commissioners to pass -- make law of this as soon as possible. Time is of the essence. Thank you very much for looking into it.
>> > thank you.
>> > we have five chairs available.
>> > hello. I'm the executive director of the hill country alliance and we represent, we estimate, about 6,000 voices in the hill country. And I too -- I just want to applaud your efforts on this. I think that the proposed amendments are excellent for a first step in protecting water quality in the unincorporated area of the county. We're very encouraged by this initiative, and we hope that the court does not delay this, but acts on this today and considers this really just a first step towards a lot of work that we can do in the coming months on protecting the water quality in the unincorporated areas of the county. So I hope you act on this today. Thank you.
>> > thank you.
>> > hi. I'm part of the road scenic corridor coalition and the hill country alliance. And as one of the 6,000 residents, I want to encourage you to do whatever possible to make these new ordinances law and put them into action because we have had so much development, and I think we are getting the cart before the horse. And not looking at what is going to happen. And we really need to protect what is there because we don't have a second chance. Once it's gone, it's going to be gone. So I really do appreciate, and I think this is a wonderful, wonderful at least first step certainly in protecting water quality. Thank you.
>> > thank you.
>> > let me ask you something. Can I ask you a question?
>> > sure. Give me your definition of what it means when somebody says water quality. I'd almost like to have nine pieces of paper out here, and for simultaneous a response. And I'm not trying to set you up now, but you know what I'm hearing with this thing. This is all over the board. And it's such a battle cry in this community. I mean, the first time I heard water quality and we started talking about bringing water out hamilton pool road, out 290, I asked the question, I said, are we afraid that the water that is going to come down through the pipe to serve people is not drinkable? Is that what water quality means? I will tell you that -- let me tell you, there are some people that will put that down as a definition, but what we have learned is that it is a great battle cray cry for the environmental community. And I don't think -- I don't know of many people that are not supportive of the environment, but if it truly is a water quality issue, I mean, I want to at least hear what you think water quality is.
>> > I think water quality is -- it's gotten a sound bite more on water quality and to apply to everything. So it can mean the water coming out of the wells and surface groundwater to be of good quality, but I think the larger picture is that our streams and our creeks and our aquifers eventually where those streams and creeks run into, and where we will all feed from that water, is maintained and is clean as we can keep it. And by building on the sides of steep slopes and in dense, dense areas -- densely in areas where there's -- there's little soil. It is not appropriate to build there. That's the concerns I think many of us have, that so much certainly of the Lake Travis watershed and barton springs zone and the edward's aquifer is just not appropriate to build on. It's exactly what it's doing, it's threatening our water quality. And the quality meaning all that water underground and above ground, and it goes into the streams and creeks.
>> > do you think that people that have -- that live in western Travis County now -- where do you live? Are you on septic?
>> > yes.
>> > do you think that everybody in western Travis County has an acceptable septic system?
>> > I couldn't answer that.
>> > what do you think?
>> > I mean, I have. I've had perfectly acceptable one for 11 years plus. And I certainly would think so. It's hard to answer something like that.
>> > I mean, I -- I think you would as well. But I can drive down through areas and I can see places where people live, and i've got my deep suspicions that I bet you that a septic system there is not one that any of us would consider to be something that we would want when it rains flowing to the surface and taking whatever septic system is there into, like you said, our drinking water because eventually, unlike the edward's that is -- even though it is a substantial -- I can't say substantial. Even though it is a place where a number of people in our community do get their drinking water, it is minuscule compared to where most of us in this area get our drinking water. That's not to say that what we're doing out here doesn't flow into travis, and travis does -- is a drinking water source because it eventually ends up at lake Austin, and that's where most people in our area gets their water. And so for that reason, you know, these are the things that are the reasons we need to do water quality. But I wish that I could feel comfortable in that everybody that used that phrase, because it's almost like somebody e-mailed, use water quality every time that you get a chance to use it because what it does is it frightens everybody and people think oh, my god, the water that's fibsing to come out of -- fixing to come out of wherever it is, my well or whatever, is not going to be acceptable.
>> > all of the buffer zones and everything that you're considering here today is going to make a real difference in just what you're talking about, those ideas. If it's going to be a septic or if it's going to be a community --
>> > a regional.
>> > exactly.
>> > eventually what these kind of rules and ordinances would do is reduce the density in areas that cannot -- that cannot sustain that kind of density. And consequently whether it is septic or not, you will have lots of it going into the ground.
>> > I would be cautious as to say you can't do it.
>> > I'm not saying we can't.
>> > but tr there are areas where you can't do that and density where you can't do that. I see these things that pushes one thing back over here. I think we would all agree that there are things that just aren't sensible.
>> > I don't really know.
>> > the slopes that just go boom. That's exactly where it goes. And the reason that I'm getting these phone calls now because I don't think most people got this until Friday afternoon. And quite frankly, I know some people are saying I wish they would do this today. Do you know what? I would ask for the same two weeks if y'all felt like, you know, I want to talk about this. I would give you the same consideration that I'm going to give the other side. And I know between now and the next couple of weeks i'll also have the aibt to talk with you -- ability to talk with you. But I will tell you that from my side I'm not prepared to do this today. These are the kind of things that I'm prepared to weigh in on pretty heavily. And I think that people --
>> > well, the other side of the coin there is what is the down side of approving something like this? Fairly standard buffer zones, they're certainly not extremes.
>> > I'm sure if you had the other side here, they would probably be able to -- and that's just a process, y'all.
>> > Commissioner, I think we might be missing one important point. In Travis County we have subdivision rules in the city of Austin. We have rules over the he edward's aquifer. So I think we're just taking a tiny step towards leveling the playing field. And I don't think it makes sense to continue to operate the unincorporated areas as a special free zone for development. I mean, a developer, why would they not have to comply with the same kind of rules we have in the city and over the edward's aquifer. There's no reason why those kind of things shouldn't also apply in the Lake Travis area. And we're not asking -- these kinds of things are very minimal. They're kind of things that any responsible developer would gladly comply with.
>> > I think we'll see that. I think that we'll see that the things that you can agree that are -- hey, these are sensible things that we ought to ask you. You're a sensible developer, you tell me that you are. We're not giving you a moving target here. We're telling you that these are the kind of things that we are going to work towards putting into our -- our process by how you get something kicked out from the county. I think you're right. Christie, I will take exception -- let me tell you something. I don't agree with everything that the city of Austin makes you do. I think that its own russ, I think that it's the taking of your property in a lot of instances. Are there things that we do that we absolutely ought to do because their essential things? You bet. But I will tell you that plr plenty of place nses this that they would not touch some of the things that we do. I want to get away from that because do you know what I don't want to have? You and I don't have the time nor do we have the money to start trying to implement in western Travis County what the city of Austin has. I mean, in my opinion we don't. I will tell you that my office doesn't have the time to fight that. If that is where some people want to head, if we're heading in a spot where I can reasonably look in to a developer's eyes and say I think that this is sensible. I think that this is reasonable. This does apply to water quality in the way that -- because most of us have probably 75% of the same kind of words in water quality definition. And I just want us to -- I want us to continue to go there. We know how desperately everybody in western Travis County wants rules and regulations. The easiest thing for all of us would be let's come up with sensible things and let's tell developers, do you know what, if you're going to develop out here, there is more to it than what used to be that you can do in western Travis County because you used to not have to worry about it. Who cared if you went out and did a septic. You didn't have enough of them and it didn't make any difference. But when you're starting to have four, five, eight, 15,000 homes in an area, then you bet you've got some issues that unless you're going to be able to put some measures in that ensures all of us in this community that want to stay here, if you're not willing to do that, then you're basically telling us that you don't really care about the area in the region. There will be a time when somebody is going to have to come to the microphone and say, no, I don't think that that's right. Somebody may come to the microphone and say that makes my deal a lot more expensive or that gives me a lot more heartache because i've got to necessarily jump through more hoops. I'm not necessarily concerned about that because ultimately what we really all are about is are we doing it the right way. And I think that wellhead there -- that wellhead there, but -- we will head there, but I caution on the side -- let's not get frustrat trait odd this point because you see we put it in writing and quite frankly that's the reason i've got the phone call and that's the reason you are down here because you see we are going to do what we said we're going to do and recognize that there are some things that we knee to do countywise that quite honestly I'm sure there will be some things on here that I'm going to look at whatever the developer is and say, you know, I don't think that's a deal killer. And if it's a deal killer for you, then maybe you shouldn't be developing the way you're developing. I mean, there will come a time when that will be said, but I can -- I don't want you to leave because I know you spent the time to come down here, but don't think this is for naught. We are -- now we're really moving. As a matter of fact, what I don't want to do on this thing is get ahead of our plan because all of y'all also are part of the southwest dialogue plan. And so I need for that to kind of come together so that things are working for us as well. So I just wanted you to know that.
>> > I'm on that group as well. Every group you can think of. And I think where that fwrowp is going -- group is going is consistent to where we are today. I think water quality is more than just your drinking water. There's a saying that goes around, that your right to swing your arm ends at the end of my nose. And speaking as one who has a beautiful creek going through his property, I don't want it filled with sediment. I don't want it filled with algae. So I have a right. It isn't just the right of the person upstream from me.
>> > absolutely.
>> > so water quality has to do with the streams, not just what comes out the tap when you open it. I think you put your finger on it, Gerald. It isn't about one subdivision. It isn't about one development. We all talked about the rate of growth. We're talking about the dos ct on Lake Travis and on the barton springs watershed. I'm worried, frankly, about a 70% removal of pollutants because if you're removing 70%, you're leaving 30%. And you have 30 subdivisions, that's a lot of pollution. I think that what tom and company have proposed here is on -- we have both sides wrestling at the regional water quality planning. We don't argue whether there should be buffers, we argue how big they should be. We don't argue whether there should be impervious cover limits, it's whether the impervious cover ought to be 15 or 20 or 25 percent. So I think you have to be careful about being extremists on both side. Those folks who say I don't want any regulation at all. You have to net out those folks and you have to net out the folks who are extremists on the other end. I think in the middle are reasonable developers and neighborhood people who can compromise on this.
>> > do you anticipate that the group will be able to present a consensus document or it will be a majority document?
>> > that's an interesting question. It's a good question. I believe that the at the end of the day, which is two weeks from now, the end of the month probably, we will have consensus on perhaps 95% of the measures and a vote, which will be a 75% vote on the remaining. That will be -- there will be some show stoppers for some folks, and it will be on some key issues like is it 100% removal of pollutants. That might be one in which you have minority opinion come out on. I think on the broad plan itself there will be consensus, yes. And they've done a terrific job at grinding through this process.
>> > thank you for coming.
>> > anybody else?
>> > we will have this back on court's agenda next week. Are you going to try this -- we can have it back on -- i'll be here next week. No problem with that. But I feel like I'm going to have all of the necessary comments that I need.
>> > of the four or five documents that we have received from mr. Knuckles, which one should we do.
>> > well, I sent an e-mail out Friday -- I'm sorry, sent an e-mail out Monday, yesterday, that has everything except the summary. So if anybody calls your office, y'all can have somebody forward that e-mail and i'll be happy to send the summary on to in electronic form.
>> > that's in the legislative format?
>> > the amendments are in legislative format. Urks we'll have on on we'll have it back on next week. Try to post it at a time certain so we can give notice. Joe, staff, any other comments?
>> > any particular directions to us over the next week? Make ourselves available.
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, March 2, 2005 10:31 AM
