On This Site

Commissioners Court

Previous Years' Agendas

Departments

Intergovernmental Relations Office

Administrative Ops

Health & Human Svcs

Criminal_Justice

Planning & Budget

Transportation & Natural Resources
 

On Other Sites

Travis County Commissioners Court

March 8, 2005
Item 23

View captioned video.

Number 23. Consider and take appropriate action on amendments to chapter 82, Travis County code, standards for construction of streets and drainage in subdivisions.
>> joe gieselman, [indiscernible], soon to join us is john kuhl. You are aware that we initiated a planning process and southwest Travis County called the southwest tile log. Thank you.
>> more volume, media.
>> thank you. That process has been going on for about six months. The committee has made great strides at developing a vision statement. Some interest statements and proposals. But as the planning process is progressing, so is the rest of the world. The lcra has made decisions to extend water lines, private tracts are proceeding on to develop properties and Travis County itself is developing a bond program for November of '05. All of which have bearing on this southwest area. And staff thinks it's probably timely to move forward with a set of rules, at least interim rules that got us beyond the current subdivision regulations that we have which are somewhat different than the ones that we have with the city of Austin and any other city in the extra territorial jurisdiction. So this area is literally outside any extra territorial jurisdiction. It's our jurisdiction, Travis County's for subdivision review. [indiscernible] non-point source, we thought there was a -- basically from what we could see of the vision statement and interest statements, a desire to have stronger regulations, particularly with regard to water quality. But there's still -- still a good bit of work to do on just what that means. There are some sensitive issues with regard to the intensity of development, densities, I coulds and just how much development would want to occur on any particular parcel. With that said, we believe that there are other measures that can be taken even in the short term that would begin to protect the water quality of the area while we are still develop ng on the -- on the interest statements and the proposals as well as anything that might come about as in terms of ordinances, we Travis County or and/or the lcra. There's still a lot of work to be done. The interim rules were drafted in part to kind of provide a platform. We expect that there's [indiscernible] step along the way, that these are our proposals that would be carried forward until the court adopted a final rule. These interim rules may very well be amended at that point, extended, deleted, changed. But we would have in place something as opposed to the current chapter 82, which really doesn't address water quality at all. So we have laid out the -- the draft rules to the court. We have also presented them to the growth dialogue committee last Thursday. Copies have been available to the public and there are, I believe, still copies here available if anybody still does not have a copy. I believe what you -- quite frankly this entire room is filled up with people who probably would like to comment to you about the interim rules. I’m not sure how much you want me to lay out at this point or get right to the public testimony.
>> joe, did you get a response from the road dialogue committee? There were lots of comments made during the committee. I don't care that I could say that the growth dialogue committee speaks in unison on this issue.
>> comments -- several comments that range the spectrum as I think you will hear today.
>> two questions. I understand that there was a stakeholders meeting tomorrow is the case in terms of laying out some of those more meetings occurring on this.
>> Commissioner, Commissioner Daugherty's office is holding a meeting. I believe I -- I don't know exactly who all is attending the meeting, the --
>> is there a meeting tomorrow?
>> yes. I’m sure there are a number of people in this room that will be at the meeting tomorrow. Everybody is invited to come to the meeting. It was really meant to probably straighten out, whatever, as a result of what comes out of today because I am sure has there will be a number of things that we will need to get into more detail than what we are able to do today. So, yes, tomorrow at 11, from 11:30 till 2:00 here in the Commissioners court room.
>> the second question is, because this is the question I got up in d.c. More than any others, is there anything in here related to density or impervious cover limits?
>> no.
>> that's what I told them, but I just want to have that for the public record as well. Okay. Thanks. Is anybody allowed to come to the meeting?
>> yes, anybody. Sure.
>> okay.
>> judge, I think probably the best to do at this stage is to let tom take us through you know our summary, two pages. And from there, I think that, you know, we have obviously can spring board from there to -- to comments, but you know, the room needs to hear, you know, clearly what we -- what we tried to put out there last week. If you wouldn't mind, unless you want to do it another way, offer tom to take us through that page and a half.
>> sounds fine to me hitting the highlights, express what the intention was behind individual points, tom?
>> sure.
>> maybe we will take comments after that.
>> okay.
>> members of the court, first, I guess then public comments.
>> okay?
>> I think the first thing that I would like to start off with is -- is basically the -- the -- in drafting these, t.n.r. And I tried to build on the existing storm water management programs that are out there. Not reinvent the wheel.
>> excuse me. So -- I don't want to -- not everybody understands acronyms. T.n.r. Is transportation natural resources, that is our -- that is joe gieselman and his camp, so whatever you hear of acronyms, you have got to know what in the heck they are talking about.
>> to start off with sort of the basic program, the state-wide program is called the tpdes program, that stands for Texas pollutant discharge elimination system. That is a program of the Texas commission on environmental quality, the state-wide, so that's sort of the basic level storm water program and actually Travis County is part of that program as I’m sure you will recall. Joe gieselman has briefed you on a number of occasions about the fact that as part of that program, Travis County is -- is required to regulate development that flows into our drainage system. So that's a program where an active pars -- we're an active participant in, basically have to meet certain requirements of the federal law and the state law. The other programs that are out there are tceq has a special program for the edward's aquifer and lcra has a program for the Lake Travis watershed. Those two programs don't overlap, they basically -- each cover a part of -- of what we call the study area for this -- for this southwest Travis County growth dialogue that -- that the tceq program covers sort of the -- of the piece down in the corner down by hamilton pool road because that's edward's aquifer contributing zone. The rest of that is Lake Travis, that's subject to lcra's non-point source ordinance. And then the other program we borrowed from in crafting these regulations was Travis County's own joint subdivision regulations with the city of Austin. That were adopted pursuant to house bill 1445 and of course those are based almost 100% on what's in the Austin city code. So those are the four programs we drew from. We tried where possible not to invent new requirements, particularly in the area of what documentation applicants were going to be required to produce. And what technical measure, water quality control measures were available to them that they could use. Specifically I will refer back to the tpdes program, the basic document required of that program is what's called a storm water pollution prevention plan and that's the plan, you are supposed to have in place when doing construction on a site. The lcra program uses that plan as the basis for their review of construction activities as does tceq. That will be for the most of this, the basic document people are working on. We are not going to require them to draft a whole new plan. They may in a few narrow cases have to add to -- have to add to that plan, but they won't have to draft a whole new plan. In terms of the technical manuals, again, lcra has it's technical manual, tceq has its technical manual, there are various technical manuals that are incorporated into the Travis County city of Austin regulations, all of the water quality control measures that will be required under these interim rules are contained in those technical manuals. We are not inventing new technical measures, we are not coming up with any manuals, basing everything on those existing manuals. The -- the types of things in interim rules fall into two categories. There are substantive requirements and procedural requirements in terms of the substantive requirements, one of the three elements is that measures will be required to be put in place during the construction phase to control erosion and sediment as dirt is turned, as soil is disturbed, as streets and drainage ways and building sites are graded and so on. There's a real threat there for siltation and erosion of the site and again all of the programs, the tpdes program, the tceq edwards program and the lcra program address those and in actuality Travis County's existing subdivision requirement address that to a certain extent. Right now we are limited to what's in the right-of-way because that was basically as far as we could go. Presenate bill 873. But with 873, our jurisdiction is basically concurrent with tpdes, tceq edwards and lcra. What we are requiring there is basically that you get your retired approval from lcra or tceq, before Travis County will approve your application, whether it's preliminary plan or final plat. But the county will not require anything to be added to the storm water pollution provision plan except in three cases where Travis County may, we will not necessarily require something, but we reserve the right to if we feel there's an issue. Those are if there's going to be more than five serbs of soils disturb -- five at or abouts of soil disturbed at one time, slope of more than 10% or once construction starts there are pollution problems and it's evident that the measures in place are inadequate and others need to be added. The genesis of those three different requirement is basically those were fact situations that were present at the west cypress hills lick creek incident that I’m sure you're all familiar with.
>> what you are saying, those three, five acres, slopes of 10%, the pollution problems from the construction, have we had the ability, had we had this in place before that time, most likely, west cypress hills, would not have occurred?
>> that would have put the county in the position of being able to do stuff to prevent that problem. As I said, current our current authority we were limited to the right-of-way really. We didn't have any jurisdiction outside of the right-of-way. My understanding was they were grading lot sites, right-of-ways, drainage ways at once. This would have given us the ability to say we think you need more measures than is in your storm water prevention approval plan approved as part of the tpdes program.
>> I know a lot of people might read these proposed regulations and say this is only southwest. Would you please talk about the applicability in other parts of Travis County, although everybody wants to think that there are specific problems in southwest Travis County, there are also many of those same kinds of environmental features, wetlands, bluffs, et cetera in other parts of the county and will it apply in other parts of the county.
>> the construction measures that I just talked about apply county-wide and when I say county-wide, let me add a couple of qualifiers. All of these apply only outside of the e.t.j. Of the city. Applies only where the county has sole jurisdiction. Obviously with house bill 1445, any regulations inside the e.t.j., we basically have to negotiate and work with the city beforehand and of course that triggers all sorts of requirements, so -- by and large most cities in the teams, they already have water quality refresh my memory. So our feeling was we should limit this to outside the e.t.j.'s. But the construction measures will apply county-wide outside the e.t.j. Now you may not have a lot of 10% slopes over in Travis County, you will have some. And if you do have 10% slopes, wherever that occurs, this will kick in. The other two measures under the substantive provisions, which are stream and environmental feature buffers, and permanent water quality measures, we limited to areas over karst elk first, which will basically be the -- karst elk first, trinity and edwards, [indiscernible], basically intended as a measure so we weren't taking on too much too soon, those are obviously the priority areas where water quality and erosion and a lot of these are flood control measures, where flood control was a bit more of a priority, we felt it needed to be addressed right away. So as a practical matter, the buffers and the permanent water quality requirements are only going to apply in the western part of the county because that's the only place where you have the karst elk first and you have a water -- aquifers and you have a water play.
>> but certainly in terms of the service letter from a utility provider, that absolutely have a -- will have applicationability in parts of eastern Travis County where there are just as serious of issues in terms of people saying I have a commitment, it's not really a commitment until that utility says here's the extension.
>> right, all of the procedural -- procedural requirements apply without limitation so to speak, in all parts of the unincorporated area outside of the e.t.j. East or west.
>> thank you.
>> let me go back to the substantive requirements. The buffers, basically requirements in Travis County's joint code with the city of Austin or the Lake Travis watershed. Basically it requires areas around critical environmental feature, which will include aquifer recharge zones, spring, sink hole, welt lands, caves, bluffs, setback of 150 feet and for aquifer recharge points it's at least 150 feet, but no more than 300 feet, depending on the drainage area of the aquifer recharge point. And the stream side buffers are based on the drainage area of the stream, the smallest stream for which a buffer is required is -- would be a stream that drains at least 64 acres for streams not draining an area that large, there's basically no buffer. But again that's the requirement for the Lake Travis watershed that's in the city-county joint code and then for the permanent measures we're essentially incorporating -- I’m sorry, lake -- the lower colorado river authority's current requirements for the Lake Travis watershed which is basically that you remove 70% of the additional storm water pollution created by development, that requirement does ratchet up for development on slopes, it ratchets up to 90% for slopes, I believe in excess of 20 degrees. Then on the procedural requirements, there's a requirement that the plat application or preliminary plan application be filed in an electronic form. The reason behind that is it makes it much easier to calculate the drainage areas to determine the stream buffers. There's a requirement that if you are subject to a corps of engineers 404 permit or a u.s. Fish and wildlife service endangered species permit, that you either obtain that permit before the county approves your application or you give us an adequate certification that you have done your due dill against and you are not subject to those permit knowledge requirements and then the last procedural requirement is that you -- the contract with the utility for water and wastewater -- wastewater service that we basically currently require before you get final plat approval has been moved up to the process -- up to the front of the process as a requirement to file your preliminary plan application. And -- and another point I failed to mention was that all of these requirements only -- they will apply to all commercial projects or single family residential projects if the single family residential project is over 20 acres. That again is -- is in part a measure designed to -- to make sure that the workload, these will create is manageable, for the transportation and natural resources department, as well as simply to reflect that developments that small have a lesser impact. So there is a size threshold across the board for all of these.
>> well, would you explain, because I know that there were some questions or -- with regards to the water hookup for -- where people thought is this going to -- to inhibit people from going out and developing for -- where they are going to use well and septic. Can we get that out on the table, get that explained?
>> I think that was -- obviously our focus has been on the big projects for which the utility contracts have been undernegotiation while they are coming through the Travis County approval process and that's simply how we drafted that requirement to the extend that there was any effect on -- on being able to develop with ground water wells, that was inadvertent, there was no intent to discriminate against ground water and in favor of water provided by -- by a utility provider and we are actively looking at ways to clarify that, to prevent any sort of discrimination between surface water and ground water sources.
>> we are not as concerned about that because of the rules and regulations, at stake, that tough have an acre, I mean if you are going to go out and use well water, septic, I mean, is that sort of the reasoning behind that?
>> well, for septic, yeah, there's a one acre minimum requirement if you are over the edwards or the trinity. I’m not sure what the requirements are for ground water, but we are not needing to change those in any way. I think if somebody comes with an application and they can certify that they meet those, that basically serves the same purpose we had in mind in requiring the utility contract be fined.
>> okay. That's really all i've got in terms of presentation. I would be theep try to answer your questions.
>> questions from the court?
>> let me make a couple of comments here because I feel like that with this thing having been put on last week and the language it was put on, that -- I will accept responsibility for -- for you know the -- the consider and take appropriate action. Let me say that this whole thing got started because of a development that went south in western Travis County that no one, regardless of which side of the creek you want to stand on on this deal, is in favor of that happening to anybody's property. Unfortunately, when we use west cypress hills in all of this discussion, it is sort of the barometer. Because it's really the reason that we talked about interim. It's the reason that it got this court's attention with regards to what is there in place presently that would ensure us of not having this happen to us again. Now, obviously, whenever things like this take place, I mean, at times new jerk and being a little over zealous about okay let's put something in place to make sure that that doesn't take place again, I’m -- I’m confident that I mean everybody in this room thinks that something has to be done so that we don't have that kind of thing happen again. Now, I’m also confident that there will be a meeting of the mind somewhere with regards to can you really develop in western Travis County or can you develop in a manner where people are accepting of that kind of development? So I think as long as everybody is -- is grounded with that being the premise by what we are trying to do, I have said to my knowledge and time again, I’m not for a moratorium, although if there is something out there lacking in our regulations that has the potential of a west cypress hills, wherever it is, I am very supportive of saying, let's do whatever we can do to not that v that take place. Now there's a fine line there, I’m sure, because some people are going to say, well, I mean if you -- if you bring about these kind of rules and regulations, it has the high potential of taking and effectively decimating the value of -- of my property. I’m aware of that. But I’m also aware that if we don't come up with reasonable measures to develop western Travis County, we are just going to have range war. You might as well not come to the court, you ought to say figure it out, I’m a citizen just like you all, we don't want that. I’m also not supportive if somebody has something going, if somebody has -- I think the biggest problem that we've had in this community forever, unfortunately when we say this community, we usually talk about the rules and regulations of the city of Austin, I think that there are at least a number of people that think that the rules and the regulations with the city of Austin have been somewhat onerous because they haven't always been static. Just about the time that you thought that you could do something, you found out when you got your plans in that all of a sudden the bar moved. And I will tell you that I am patently against that, which is the reason why I was against the moratorium and which is the reason I continued to -- to be not supportive of taking people that -- that are in the pipeline and saying you have got to do these things or close your project. Now, what I’m willing to say to those people is we hope that there are going to be some reasonable things to bring to the table and if mr. Gun, not to pick you out of the crowd but, I mean, you have a large development in western Travis County. I have always thought that I would be able to come to you and say, bill, this is not something that was necessarily in the rules and regulations before you started, but you know what we're trying to do. I mean I don't think that you want to swim upstream anymore than I want anybody to have the brain damage this could cause unless we get a handle on this thing. That I would be able to come to the development -- to the developer that has got something in the pipeline. I know that people thought okay well if we don't come up with something we are going to have all of these people get all of these plans in. Let me tell you that this time last year, there were 19 projects that had been brought to Travis County. This year at the same number of days, we have 25. There has not been an onslaught of hundreds of people trying to come and jam things in our system. You know this is not a system that you can put things on a cocktail napkin and bring them down here and expect us to sign-off on it. So I want everybody to understand that -- that the rules and regulations that we do and from what I understand of what tom has just articulated to us, most of these things are already in rules and regulations -- mostly, not to say we are not going to find something that's going to be a real attention getter to some folks. I fully expect there to be, you know, some controversy with regards to what we are going to try to get passed. But I just, you know, I want the room to understand how we have gotten to this point and, you know, obviously I’m anxious to hear all of the comments from the folks. Judge?
>> what action do we anticipate taking today? I do not expect to be able to take action at least until tomorrow's meeting. I think tomorrow's meeting is where the rubber is going to meet the road, I mean, I think we are going to hear comments today from both sides, but I would suspect that, you know, we've at least got another week of this before we take any kind of action on it. That's personally how I feel.
>> okay. Joe, any idea when the growth dialogue committee may come fort with recommendations.
>> what's your best educated guess?
>> I would say probably three to four weeks away. From having a proposal that they would submit to the Commissioners court.
>> the first of paper? I mean because I know at the end of April is sort of what has been the time line that most of us had thought that something was going to come about, that's not to say an initial something is for the going to come at the first of April, but I know that the time line that we have had with lcra, I think that what they've had in their mind is by the end of April. We are within, you know, a very short time period, than what you just discussed, joe.
>> would you expect us to have to do additional work on those recommendations.
>> oh, absolutely, yes. Without a doubt.
>> probably add another month or two.
>> oh, no. I think probably more than that. I think once we get the proposal, we will probably do some framing up of -- of a response to the committee, show what alternate measures may be needed to implement the division. Bounces off the committee and come back and go to court with ids, we are probably talking, I would say probably two to three months, before we are able to get back to the court with a draft of the ordinance. Now it's not all regulation. It's also finance issue. A cap -- capital improvements, other issues associated with bringing about the changes that are envisioned.
>> okay.
>> any representative here in lcra? John can we designate -- let's designate a spokesperson then.
>> I’m sure they are watching on tv if you have any questions for them.
>> the lcra just jurisdiction extends how far? We're talking about areas outside of municipal e.t.j.'s, the area north of Travis County north of the lake, south of the lake, all the way down to about hamilton pool road and just north of hamilton pool road is where the edward's aquifer contributing zone starts. That's the dividing line between lcra's jurisdiction and tceq's special edward's aquifer program. So it picks up -- you can see this map, just this corner down here of our study area.
>> well, I have other questions, but it probably would be best put to them which I can do later. Maybe we ought to hear from residents at this time. We will need at least four of those chairs, maybe good to have one of you all stay there, joe. Unfortunately the executive manager in this county has -- has great authority and great responsibility just in case we have question that's we need to put to you. If you would like to give comments to the court at this time, please come forward. We've got four chairs. We simply would like to get your full name and then we would be happy to get your comments, what we hope to do is get comments today and digest those. There's a stakeholder's meeting tomorrow.
>> as opposed to 11:00, I think my office said 11:30, it's 12:30 until 2:00, not 11:30.
>> in this courtroom.
>> in this courtroom. Okay.
>> judge Biscoe, Commissioners court, my name is ted stuart. I’m a home owner in the southwest Travis County. Also a voting member of the southwest Travis County growth dialogue group. Excuse me from reading -- from reading from this, but that's the best way for me to keep my thoughts together, get across what I really want to do. But I’m here to raise some concerns about the proposed so-called interim rules, interim without an expiration date attached to them on the land use and water quality protection being presented to the court for adoption. Primarily because of the lack of landowner or engineer input prior to their submittal. I want to thank Commissioner Daugherty for asking for this delay, asking for the delay in voting on this issue last week so the rules can be studied by the affected stakeholders. As a landowner in southwest Travis County I may be affected by these proposed regulations. I was not contacted in any way, nor were my neighbors about the proposed rules. We learned like many others that the court was considering emergency action by implementing these interim rules on land use, water quality protections, through a brief in the newspaper on Monday. The lcra and Travis County currently are spending considerable funds and thousands of man-hours to draft new rules which will only affect a handful of property owners in the county. And I -- I accept your explanation earlier. But I think a lot of the rules will affect less than 25 people at the end of the day. I would like to know why this is considered such an emergency that the court couldn't ask the community for its input. The effective -- affected property owners have not had a chance to evaluate its impact on their land. I along with many others would like the opportunity to give our input into these proposed regulations, but I want to do so in acknowledge educated manner. Today with virtually no public notice, engineering experts have not had the time to examine the impacts of these new rules and give us some firm information to help analyze their impact on our properties. And last I was invited to participate in the southwest Travis County's growth dialogue group. I feel that the efforts of our hard working committee over the past six months have been brushed aside through some hasty actions proposed by the court. The collective group of citizens were charged with seeking public input on the future development of southwest Travis County and we are close to providing our recommendations to the county for this. Thooez proposed regulations I think are putting the cart before the horse. Two comments that were made earlier, the West Lake Hills scenario is something none of us want. I for one have had a lot of beautiful creek running through my property, lots of critical environmental features, et cetera, et cetera, we don't want those destroyed. I don't think anything in these interim rules would prevent what happened in West Lake Hills.
>> west cypress hills.
>> sorry, west cypress hills. I also believe that rules having been in the road building and utility construction business and having built many subdivisions in my life as a contractor, I believe the rules are in place today to punish or whatever the right word is, to make sure those things don't happen and -- in some form. I mean it's like I drive out hamilton pool road to my ranch, there's a 40 mile per hour speed limit. You probably get more tickets on that road than anyplace in the county. Because those rules are being broken, because speed limits are being broken, doesn't mean we shut that road down and don't let anybody else go out there. I believe that -- clarification of that. There are rules in place to police that type of activity. And I want to -- I appreciate tom nuckols going on record today to clarify the water well issue. Because -- he did that very well at our last meeting. That was one of the major concerns I think that large landowners had out there. Because as -- as stewards of the land, which we think we are the best steward of the land, I think our conservation practices out in west Travis County are why you guys have a focus on this right now, because it's the most beautiful part of Texas. We want it to stay that way. If you eliminate the use of water wells for the large conservation type of development, very low density development and require us to go to lcra for instance or some municipal supplier, we only had a very few homes planned out there, the economics just don't work without some help from the county or somebody else along those lines. They need water taps in order to pay off capital investments. So our ability to prove up our own water sources out there and -- and do that within the state regs exist today and the county regs that exist today are something that we are happy to go on record. Today I’m here primarily to give the Commissioners court and the community our testimony, the public, the affected property owners, agents more time to review the regulations and then make appropriate recommendations back to the court. Thanks again for your time.
>> do you agree with joe that the growth dialogue may need another 30 to 45 days before it has recommendations?
>> I agree with joe on two things. One I believe we will have all of that wrapped up by the end of April is what I think. But as -- as joe stated it may take two or three months to -- to analyze all of these issues and that is a little bit of what we are looking at right now is landowners needing some time to see how you enact these interim rules on us, we need a little bit of time to study those. We don't need two or three months. I would say within the next 30 days -- I would like to see this process wait until the -- the growth dialogue is complete. And then at that time let's see what comes out of that. Maybe we could pick and choose certain parts of take dialogue that you need to enact on now and other parts require more study.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> ...and unfortunately what happened with lick creek is it flat went in there and probably would have done the same to probably cypress creek that you are on. So I mean do you -- so you don't agree that the five-acre disturbed part would have had some huge affect on west cypress hill?
>> it would have had some huge effect and I haven't had time to study the break point, but I do know I built a one-mile section of road, howard lane, for Travis County, and the city of Austin in an interlocal agreement with them, and I do know if you have to build that road and not disturb more than five acres at a time you guys are going to be looking at pretty expensive road costs in the future. I don't think it's what you are disturbing, it's what preventive measures to keep the silt under control. That's my comment.
>> thank you.
>> judge Biscoe and other Commissioners, my name is Karen peterson. My family owns approximately 35 acres in southwest Travis County. We have been good stewards of the land for 18 years and have been retired and living on our land for 13 years. We have just learned about some of the proposed rules that may affect our property. This land is precious to us san our family investment and home. We love the land and value the natural resources it holds. We also want to be able to have the land for our children, that they may enjoy it, but also to use as a financial safety net if they are ever need it. I would like to request the opportunity to have some professionals review the impact of these regulations and make sure we are striking a balance between environmental protection and economic protection. And that all homeowners that this would effect have the opportunity to speak. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you, ms. Peterson. Yes, sir.
>> my name is george sueman, I’m a landowner in Travis County. Like others, I purchased the land a number of years ago because of the beauty of the terrain and the vistas, and I can't imagine spoiling this land. In fact, i've gone to extensive efforts to -- to improve the protection and enhance the beauty of my property. Now, I understand these rules are to protect the watershed and I applaud you for that. On the other hand, I agree with other landowners that we haven't had time to assess the impact of these rules on our property, and I just request consideration to have the time to assess that and to give our comments at a later date. That's all I have.
>> any idea how much time you think would be reasonable?
>> I think three or four weeks would be adequate.
>> okay.
>> for me, anyway.
>> yes, sir.
>> my name is raul amini. Judge Biscoe, Commissioners court, thank you for hearing this. I have land in western Travis County. I hope to be a homeowner there at some point in time. Obviously that my land will be subject to some of the new rules you are proposing. Since these rules were released only last week, I echo what the previous several people have said, that we've not had time to investigate what the impact will be potentially on future activity, on the value of our land, and we just request some time to consult professionals and get more informed and more knowledgeable about the proposed rules. I understand that as the southwest Travis County dialogue group met, it suggested that there was a need for some more time. Evidently some of the rules were hastily prepared, and I’m asking to get us some additional time so we can investigate. I also want to thank Commissioner Daugherty for calling a meeting for tomorrow for the original delay and thank you for hearing us today.
>> thank you.
>> thank you. Yes, sir.
>> I’m gene lowenthal. As tom pointed out, there's nothing -- there is no ground breaking in this set of rules that are being proposed. They are all borrowed from -- from other places. So [inaudible] why we need three or four weeks to study them. That's number one. Number two, we have several stakeholder groups, all which are balanced with people who represent different interests. These stakeholder groups with working in good faith to come up with water quality measures in the next several months. I know several of those -- three of those stakeholder groups and I can tell you that in every case the bar is going to be raised on water quality. The lcra m.p.s. Stakeholder revision committee is talk being about much stricter rules than they have today. Certainly they've reached a water quality planning group is going to have much more strict rules than we have today. I think it's very important for the Commissioners to pick a leadership -- take a leadership committee and I’m real happy that you are taking this opportunity to get ahead of it. It's an equity question. You know, people who are submitting their plats today are going to have an advantage over folks who are coming after these inevitable improvements are, you know, greater regulations on water quality so it won't be fair. It is fair to put the eupblt rim rules in place -- interim rules in place so that we have a level playing field. You are going to hear a lot of people here today say it's not fair. I've got this land and you are going to change the rules for me. Well, those rules are going to change. And the idea of having interim rules is to make a level playing field, and that's the right thing to do. As to the question as whether these rules would have prevented a west cypress hills, lick creek problem, absolutely. In fact, the lcra is now in an ad hoc way requiring that people who get lcra water comply with construction water quality rules. It's in bill gunn's contract, there should be an ordinance that controls construction time water quality. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> now, you are on the lcra --
>> the travis m.p.s. Ordinance.
>> any recommendations when --
>> stakeholders have their part and then it has to go through all the bureaucracy of lcra and the board. And so we will be done probably in April, but the board won't have an opportunity to pass them until August. Probably the earliest. So again we have this gap. You heard about the gap for the southwest Travis County. There will be a gap with the regional water quality planning. The way to fill that gap is with these interim rules. It is the smart thing to do.
>> okay.
>> good afternoon, Commissioners, judge Biscoe. My name is lisa pythian and I’m a resident here in Travis County. I feel like an anomaly because I’m not a stakeholder and I’m not a homeowner -- I am a stakeholder, I’m not a homeowner, but I live here. I moved here about three years ago and one of the reasons I was drawn to this place was the beauty of the hill country. I try to stay informed. I read the paper and I pay attention to what's happening in my community. I’m not an expert on any of these issues, I’m somebody that just -- that cares about what happens. And i've been watching what's been happening here in Travis County, and I know that there's a complex issue of property rights and development rights, but within of my concerns is community rights. What I see is bulldozers taking down trees, more roads coming in, pipelines going out, hill sides that were once beautiful now spotted with new homes. And I -- there's a way -- I can hardly tolerate it anymore. When I saw this in the paper, I knew I was going to be in the area, I said let me come, i've never been to this room before, but I as someone who loves this area feels like at some point it is an uneven playing field and the lcra and the tceq, they are non-elected bodies. They have a different set of interests they are care about, the developers. And as elected officials, I feel like someone has to look out for the community interests. Because our children and the environment are losing. We're losing. We're losing the hill country. And so I really applaud you for trying to take a step in the right direction. I think what you are doing is the right direction. I actually hoped that you would do more. I looked at the summary and it says you may require some stuff. I want to you say you will require some stuff there. So I guess in conclusion I really appreciate the opportunity to come and have my -- speak my word, let you know what my heart feels about this stuff and urge you to in the end act in the balance of the community and the future and the environment because even with rules we know that our ability to enforce those rules is limited and that in the end developers and other people, that these methods of controlling stuff, they fail as well. We know the tceq doesn't even have the money to enforce this so I think we need to e.r.r. On the side of greater protection because in the end we're going to get less anyway. Thank you for the time. Appreciate it.
>> thank you.
>> good afternoon, judge Biscoe and Commissioners. My name is lauren ross. I am an environmental engineer practicing in these issues here in this community since 1990. And I am here to speak in support of your proposed interim measures. At the request of your constituents, I have reviewed many of the subdivision engineering plans in Travis County under your current rules, and those plans are significantly deficient to protect water quality. We've all seen the consequences of those inadequate rules in degradation in lick creek, and I want to tell you that west cypress hills is not fundamentally different than sweetwater, lazy 9 or other developments in your community that have been approved without any water quality regulations at all. Local communities must have the right to protect our drinking water supplies for future generations. We understand people have rights to develop their property and our community will grow, but we cannot allow the greed of the developers to come in and place subdivisions right on top of our creeks and rivers and the recharge areas for our drinking water supplies with absolutely no regulation to protect water quality. This is exactly what is happening in unincorporated Travis County outside of the jurisdiction of our cities, the tceq-edwards rules and lcra. More rules, as I understand it from reading the ordinance, is intended to apply exactly where there is currently no regulation whatsoever. Your rules are completely and conservatively within what has been well accepted as water quality protection in the surrounding communities for more than a decade and they do nothing more but level the playing field between all of these other people's neighbors who are currently required to comply with the rules. I urge you to pass the regulations based on the best available science. I think they are reasonable balance between recognizing the rights of property owners and the need to protect water supply for future generations. And I would like to just close by reminding us of our history. In 1992, the Austin community passed the save our springs ordinance to protect water quality, and I think that one of the single most persuasive arguments that we made in passing that ordinance was that in the six years since the city had passed the comprehensive watershed ordinance in 1986, fully 84% of the development went through without complying with our ordinance. That ordinance was delayed from may until August, and I don't remember the numbers, although I looked at that newspaper article, I think the number was something like 197 development applications came in to the city of Austin between the original voting date and what we got August 8th of 1992. And the consequences that 13 years later, that ordinance that the city of Austin still touts as our, you know, flagship water quality protection ordinance, there have been exactly three commercial developments that have complied. Every single other commercial development has been grandfathered. When you delay these ordinances, when you fail to pass these interim ordinances, the [inaudible] are very smart and the Texas legislature has set up that chapter 245. You will get no protectionen the citizens in Travis County, all of those, those who live along lick creek and those who are downstream need these water quality protection ordinances. Thank you so much. I’m glad you finally reached a point to consider this regulation.
>> thank you.
>> let me ask you a question. Would you think that the reason that developers -- that there have only been three out of the 197, do you think there is an indication there that that is a problem somewhere with people being able to comply? I mean I think that most of us in this community want good, sensible development. But when you have 99% of the people that is against some sort of regulation -- I mean I know plenty of developers that are not just rape, pillage impervious cover everything they say. There has got to be somewhere in the middle where people don't just run and hide whenever they feel like they've got to comply with s.o.s.
>> let me name the three companies, h.e.b. At the intersection of william cannon and brodie lane, seton hospital on highway290 and teufrpl inland on mopac. I think the reason developers don't comply falls easily into two reasons. One reason is because you can make more money if you put more impervious cover on your land. That is just a matter of economics and you are very -- just bottom line, you are going to weigh how much money goes in your bank account with the level of water quality protection we're going to have for our communities. And I think the second reason is that, you know, we have been sold this bill of goods that somehow we can put engineered water quality controls as a substitute and the tceq regulations, and in fact your own regulations I think are there. We can put water quality controls as a substitute for impervious cover limits. But your ordinance is not planning to limit development. I have been in negotiations with so many developers, and let me tell you, what you are requiring of them is the kind of thing that they want to do. Because it lets them believe that they can sustain those high impervious cover levels. In other words, your ordinance will lead straight in the line of what is come in and put in the very best or at least adequately good amount engineered water quality controls. There is no water quality protection community that argues about construction based controls. 80% of the damage from sediment to our creeks is going to come through that construction phase. You know that you absolutely have to come in and make people put those sub fences in correctly. Maybe people not scrape 70 acres of steeply sloped, thin soiled Texas hill country and leave it open and bare. That doesn't take a ph.d. In engineering to figure out. I’m sorry I’m going on and on. Did I answer your question? A.
>> I think you did. You kind of had my entertained. I mean I understand that. You are right. I don't think you can scrape 70 acres and not expect it to did he go good date something. My point is after we get over something where you don't have 197 people that want to stand on this land --
>> you had 197 people who submitted applications. You had two-thirds of the voters of the Austin community in one of the largest historical turnouts ever come out and support that. So -- so if you talk about community, and I’m an engineer, but I read some of those survey polls. Every community wants to protect their water quality. We may disagree on other things, but you know what, again, you don't have to have a ph.d. In engineering to understand that we have to protect our -- the quality of our water. We have to protect the quality of our creeks that feed Lake Travis, that feed the barton springs aquifer. Yes, it's wonderful if you live on like creek. It's the most beautiful place I have ever, ever seen, and I don't live very close to it, but I get to walk on it occasionally. But we're not talking about the aesthetic value of 60 landowners along a creek, we really are talking about preserving the water quality of this community. And we have an obligation to do that not just for ourselves but for future generations.
>> let me ask -- I’m sorry. Were you finished? This particular interim rules setting regs that we have before us today, is there any prohibition that the court in its wisdom could maybe adopt these rules as quickly as possible with the advent of those disagreements that we are hearing and arguments on both sides looking at maybe amending or even [inaudible] some of the recommendations that will be coming later from the committee, from which I heard there are members from the committee. But I think the direction I’m trying to get in is having something put on the table such as these interim rules. And -- because it's not only Commissioner Daugherty's southwest portion of Travis County, but it also has some impact on the rest of the county. So my concern is is there any prohibition from that occurring.
>> no, there's no prohibition on adopting a rule or regulation with a view towards coming back at a later date and amending it, repealing it, whatever you want to do. Really i've never seen a regulation that couldn't be amended or repealed once it was adopted. It's sort of in the nature of the thing. And -- and as a matter of fact, I believe you were not on the dais when these were proposed last week that the suggested approach we had was go ahead and adopt these and go through a 30-day process and then come back and revisit them at that point. Actually we laid that on the table last Tuesday.
>> right. And I’m still leaning toward that direction. What I’m saying is because of the fact that I don't know how long this is -- this process is going to go on, but I do know we need to do something about it now. So I understand that it's specifically geared at -- some of the content we have here is specifically geared for those particular areas of Travis County that has a lot of water quality issues as far as maintaining, but heck, I got water quality issues also in precinct 1 and precinct 4 and all the other parts of the county, precinct 2, we've all got concerns about it. And I don't want to -- in my opinion, I don't want to see this thing draw out forever where we end up not coming to an end, and of course we don't reach a goal as far as what staff has put before us. And I have received a lot of e-mails from folks saying, hey, we should go in this direction. I don't have any problem with that at all. Now, I don't know what's the will of the court going to be on this item today whether we look at it today or next week or whatever, but I am really in support of adopting what we have right now. [applause] and from that standpoint build on it with a further meeting if necessary. It may not even be necessary. But that's the direction I’m coming from because what I’m hearing, this thing has a lot of other legs and arms and eyes and ears and a whole bunch of other stuff that may not meet the goal of what we're intending to do here. And that's the direction I don't want to go in. I’m just letting everybody know exactly where I’m coming from as one member of this Travis County Commissioners court. Thank you.
>> we do have a few of the residents to want to give comments. By the way, is as one resident comes forward if one would would come forward.
>> good amp. Afternoon. Appreciatesome of the passion e knowledge that you've experienced in previous speakers. I’m not quite up to that speed. But I would like to share a few thoughts and comments. I cannot speak to the specific site or circumstance surrounding west cypress creek. I know a little but not enough to be dangerous of the science or the statutes which may or may not have been proposed, implemented or violated in that particular event. I don't know about the reckless procedures that may have been part and parcel of what's made the newspaper several times over the last few months. But I do know there are state and federal statutes that I’m involved with almost every day having to do with this kind of event put out by tceq, put out by the environmental protection agency or the department of the interior among others. I am a real estate investor and developer in Travis County. I am a member of the real estate council and the home builders association of greater Austin. But I speak for neither of those two organizations. I'll let others be their spokesmen. I, like Commissioner Davis, am concerned about the law of unintended consequences that may visit us with the adoption of this particular eupblt rim ordinance. There are rose in that room that think there's not just one part of the county that needs to be protecting and that's southwest Travis County, but I believe there are parts and parcels of the entire county that we need to take care of. Most of my activity has been in precinct 2 over the years. We're currently evaluating a project in precinct 4, and have done things in precinct 1. Gerald, I’m sorry, but I can't handle the brain damage of coming to work in your neck of the woods. If they give me any more territory I may get around to visiting that as well. This speaks to residential developments greater than 20 acres and I would suggest to you that residential developments of any size could, in fact, create the same sort of damage. And that would be encouraged to take a 100-acre development and cut it up into 15-acre pieces so I become exempt from this and have an unfair advantage over my competition. I don't think that would be fair either. We're told that this applies only to lands which are in external to the e.t.j. Of cities and municipalities in the counties, which drain into a water supply, watershed or storm water impoundment, ostensibly being only lakes travis and lake Austin. But I think we also have to look, the city of Pflugerville has built a impoundment, is building a immaterial pointment for its water supply. There are dams below tom miller and longhorn on the colorado river which do in fact impound water and from which water is extrapolated for sale to cities and other organizations to our east. So I think that the reach of this particular ordinance without clarification or specificity -- you know what I’m talking.
>> specificity.
>> thank you very much. That's a republican and as an independent I have difficulty with them from time to time. I would just like a little more time to sit with those who are interested. I support the theory, I support the practice. I don't support the specific document before you today. I'd be happy to answer any questions.
>> questions?
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> good afternoon. Judge and court. My name is harry savvy, the executive vice president for the home builders association of greater Austin. We're the -- we represent the more than 750-member firms that have built more than 95% of the homes in the Austin region over the last year. Just last year the construction of more than 12,000 new single-family homes in this metropolitan area, $1.3 billion, that's with a b, in new income to our economy and for business and workers. 30,000 jobs to the region's -- to the -- for the local regional economy. And $168 million in additional local taxes and fees. I came to you today and, again, not being an engineer, and you will hear testimony from engineers today and there will be more interaction with mr. Daugherty tomorrow, and I apologize, I’m scheduled to be out of town. There are three general areas I was going to ask you to look at today. First, it seems to me that passing these regulations as written is a violation of the Texas taking statute. If you do not do a regulatory taking assessment. It is clear to I think every engineering practitioner that i've talked to that even if you prove these rules improve water quality enhancement for Travis County, let me make a parenthetical khepbt that I don't agree, we don't agree, many of us do not agree, and there are also legal scholars who question the legal authority of Travis County to enact water quality requirements. Even if you accept that premises, it's impossible to show you are going to have the same level of impact on the baffle Travis County where you do not have the cost features associated with edwards aquifer. Again, I’m here to ask you to give strong consideration to our claim that this regulation triggers [inaudible] taking impact assessment that's described in the local government code -- not local government, I’m sorry, government code. The second area I think actually -- lauren talked about earlier, because we represent the home building industry we have a number of concerns regarding this level of regulation. And almost all of them do deal with cost. I know that there are leaders in part of this community that you are trying to preserve hill country views or water quality or roadways that aren't too crowded or the integrity of the neighborhoods, but most people will recognize that. I think that's -- elected officials recognize that is a code word for we don't want more people, particularly don't want affordable housing in our area. The home builders association along with naacp, lulac, commissioned a study which I just handed out and we used numbers for the metropolitan area. We used kyle as a case study. I know kyle is not in Travis County, but it shows the impact on a region of increase in home costs by $20,000. What this study clearly shows it has a disproportionate impact on the working class, in this case a study of hispanics and african-americans. The last area that i'd like to really address is that there are many technical arguments on the merits of this ordinance and the details of it. But -- and I think your staff alluded to some of the issues and problems in full implementation when they talked about beginning to even phase that in. Which raises our question how are you going to ultimately staff out for the level of enforcement that this requires. The last time we checked, and again, that was a number of years ago, Austin had eight time the times and nine times the development budget of anyone in the state. That doesn't count hidden costs that I allowed to earlier. Does Travis County really want to become the city of Austin which has become so effective in driving off residential developments. 20% of all building permits issued last year were subsidized. As far as I know virtually all of the entry-level housing had subsidy. Do you really want to drive future housen and business and jobs to go to adjacent counties. That fact with the people will move to adjacent counties is something our members are too well aware of because they compete in that regional market. Thank you.
>> did you say you were not going to be able to attend the meeting with Commissioner Daugherty?
>> I’m sorry, Commissioner, I was scheduled to be out of town.
>> can there be a representative there?
>> we will have a number of representatives there.
>> okay. Because really I’m really looking at trying to build on something here, but I’m really kind of leaning again for getting something in place. I think if we don't get anything in place, I think it will be a deathment to --
>> not to argue with the county attorney because I haven't heard him say anything yet, but again, I think we may need to do something no matter what if you are going to apply to the regulatory requirements.
>> I think what the county attorney suggested is that the I want room rules that we have here now are sufficient for us to act on. Now, if that's -- if that is not my understanding, then I guess i've interpreted wrong.
>> i'll clarify, Commissioner. Harry is correct in that chapter 2007 of the government code does apply, and normally there's a 30-day posting requirement, but there are exceptions to that requirement.
>> okay.
>> and I believe these regulation fall within those exceptions.
>> okay.
>> but that's my basis for saying if you choose to adopt them immediately, you should be through that posting for 30 days and come back and readopt and make any refinements at that time that you want to.
>> can I read the court the exact language. It says an exemption is allowed if, a, it is taken in response to real and substantial threat to public health and safety; b, is designed to significantly advance the health and safety purpose; and c, does not imposea greater burden than is necessary to achieve the health and safety programs.
>> that's one of the exceptions. There's also one for actions taken in response to a state or federal mandate which brings us back to what I mentioned at the beginning of the presentation which was state and federal law mandates that Travis County manage the development that sends storm water into your drainage system.
>> and then on the other end, I’m concerned about the health and safety of people who live downstream, and we all know that development upstream always has an effect on the velocity of water as it heads down toward precinct 4. And what that is -- but that is an area that is the preferred development area in this county, and I wonder why home builders don't build more affordable housing east of i-35 where it would be welcomed. [applause]
>> and so -- and then we are concerned downstream about clean water. And -- because regardless of how much money you make, you want to be able to drink clean water. Which also has an effect on a person's health. And I guess the younger human beings have more of an effect of clean water. So I think this is -- I appreciate the study, but to have a copy of it. I think there's some other things that we can put in place to really address affordable housing, the quality of water, and especially drinking water. Even poor people like clean drinking water.
>> thank you.
>> how many more do we have that would like to give comments today. Can I see hands? One. Just one more? Two more. We're about to cut off and move on to other items. Two more.
>> thank you, my name is hank smith, principal owner of steve faulkner engineering. I've been doing engineering in Austin since 1982. I've kind of got a split background. I live in precinct 3 and the edwards aquifer runs through my backyard. Half of my property is on the edwards, half off. Most of my career has been working in the land development area, however, I spent eight years working for the Texas water commission. I wrote the edwards aquifer rules. I wrote the first technical guide that was in place that is being used as part of these rules. I’m very familiar with what it takes to develop over the edwards aquifer, those protections and am aoeg toy participate in the programs. The one thing I can say in the rule making process I participated in with the city of Austin and the ones I conducted at the tceq, we always got input from the development community and those people who are going to be impacted before we sent out a set of rules. Generally before we even sent them out in draft format. These came out last Monday night, the night before they were to be adopted and we had not had time to look at them. There are no rules out there and developers are free to build whatever they want, that's simply not true. The stayed -- the tceq rules regarding construction that's applying across the country. They apply everywhere regardless. And what you are adopting is simply those same basic rules for construction activities in compliance with those rules to this document with a few exceptions. Lcra regulations apply in the basin that drains to Lake Travis in this area. Tceq rules apply in the contributing zone, which is this area. Right now you have tceq for the edwards, lcra regulations for their area, and you have the statewide or federal regulations for non-point source regulations that are out here. The regulations you have, when you listen to what tom has to say and what these plans mean and what joe describes them as, it's not much more than we have right now. When you read through the document as anything three different people read a sentence, they are going to read it three different ways. We have a lot of questions about what specifically these things mean. They may be fine, they may not be, depends how the county is going to interpret a lot of these things. I've got a whole list of questions and concerns that I think will be answered tomorrow. I'll be here working with harry representing the home builders association. I think it's more questions we need answered before we can come back and say yes, this is okay or no it has impacts we can't live with. I’m also a participant in the regional water quality planning effort that Commissioner you are on the core committee of. We're wrapping that group up. Supposedly tomorrow night is one of our last meetings before they draft their final documents. That's been a process that's been going on for almost two years. Some of the things in there that give me concern, is one, Karen you mentioned this earlier, a concern about wanting an agreement for your utility provider before you ever come to the county. There's a lot of projects, several of them I’m working on right now where we have gone and gotten agreements with the city of Austin, you can never negotiate an agreement with the city of Austin for utilities without having something else in that agreement. We worked those out. We come to an agreement with the city. Utility providers come to the county. We make our final preliminary plan to the county. Right now the county is at sometimes disagreeing and saying there's items in those agreements the county doesn't agree with. I have concerns about putting us in the position now of having to negotiate agreements up front with other entities and handing that agreement to the county and saying this is what we've agreed to if there's not some assurance the county is going to take that and say fine, no matter what you agree to, we'll accept that. I think a better process may be to say you have to start that process before you come to the county and you will not issue any permits or approve plats until that is complete. But let those processes going on simultaneously. We're going to negotiate with you -- that information is being made to the county at that same point in time and we can get confirmation and concurrence from the county these things are okay and not having the two processes taking place at two separate times and having to renegotiate agreements we have right now. There's some real implementation problems I have with the way this is written right now. I think there may be easy ways to work those out, but we need the time to sit down and come to some kind of consensus with staff and hear how they are going to implement this program. I'll be glad to answer any questions you may have. I'll save my technical questions for tomorrow.
>> thank you.
>> I’m with the hill country alliance. We don't represent the kind of dollars mr. Savvio does, but we do represent a lot of people, people who are concerned, people in the hill country and people who promote a responsible approach to growth. We're not no growthers, we just want to see smart development, smart projects happen in the hill country. I was here back in June when you made a decision to carefully look at water quality protection rules and what you can implement as the county, and I appreciate you making all the progress that you've made since last June. And the hard work that the staff has put in, the long hours to bring these rules to you today. I also am a participant in the southwest Travis County panel and I was there when we discussed the interim rules last week. And there were a variety of opinions, as mr. Geiselman stated. But I think the underlying issue was time hasn't stood still while the panel has been doing their work. And the folks in the room who were opposed to interim rules or felt as though they under mind the process, we asked them if they would rather have a moratorium and most of the people said yes, they would. So some kind of mechanism so that developments didn't slip through the cracks we'll we're working on the division. I did talk to three developers over the last couple of days about these interim rules who all said they were rules they could easily comply with. This morning I had a coverings with joe roebach and he said to the best of his knowledge he is in compliance with these rules. They are reasonable and they need to be implemented as soon as possible. I wanted to remind you as tom said you are required to regulate development that drains into our water supply and if it is at all possible for you to go ahead and adopt those rules I think the sooner do you that the better. If we can take time to review them after they are adopted, maybe we can look at ways to strengthen them or make them to where the developers are more happy with them, but I think Commissioner Davis' suggestion of implementing them sooner is a good idea. We want to make sure not one more project makes its way through the cracks, and I thank you for your time and the efforts you all have made so far.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> my name is david smith. I represent a number of developers in western Travis County and all over Travis County i've worked. These rules are sort of an amall gum of pieces and properties from other ordinances. I think the water issue is illustrateive of the haste that they were put together. It's very unclear, very ambiguous. It's much like going to a salad bar blindfolded. You just get pieces and parts. And hopefully it tastes good, but the unintended consequences of hasty ordinance taken with pieces and parts from other ordinances is not worth it. Let's take a little bit of time, look at the -- I have a number of concerns. I share several of the Commissioners' concerns that this only applies in precinct 3. I think everyone deserves water quality. If we need buffers on creeks, let's have them on all the kraoegs. They may vary, but if it's a good idea in part of the county, it's a good idea in all of the county. I think the existing water quality regulations from tceq, the -- all the state and federal regulations, they apply everywhere. If they are not being enforced, pick up the phone and call the regulators. You don't need to adopt another layer of regulation on top of existing regulations. If it's an enforcement problem, then that's the other agencies. What will come about is if you adopt a regulation that's not being enforced, then you become an additional plaintiff. You can hire some more attorneys to go along with mr. Nuckols because anyone who doesn't like a project in Travis County is going to be suing you. I will be at the meeting tomorrow. I’m a member of the southwest growth advisory committee. I think it's a hasty ordinance. There's no emergency. There's no need to adopt it now. Thank you.
>> what's your first name, mr. Smith?
>> david.
>> david, do you think that you could have stopped west cypress hills if you were the engineer? Do you think that you could have done something -- do you think something could have been done -- I know you don't like to second guess engineers, but --
>> I think they could have --
>> an engineering problem?
>> no, it was a management problem. It needed more erosion controls. The things they've done since then.
>> given that the creek is full of algae and silt what would be your explanation of that?
>> they didn't manage their construction very well.
>> you think that the engineering they had in place --
>> I haven't reviewed their engineering.
>> everything that I hear, and i've sat in many of the meetings, is that, now he you know, there's some engineering concerns.
>> well, that pond was built to the lcra standards. There's almost an identical pond on -- right off of 71 in the barton springs watershed. That same almost identical design has been built all over Austin.
>> well, david, if it was built to lcra standards and they had a problem with it, don't you think the lcra standards are messed up?
>> no -- [applause]
>> if the lcra didn't enforce -- if the lcra didn't enforce the erosion control standards and the management didn't revegitate things properly, yeah, it's a problem. But the basic construction, that basic design is a standard engineering design that's been used all over this part of the country. And lcra has their regulations. What you are doing is adopting lcra's regulations. Why adopt their regulations?
>> but the lcra is in agreement with us that we need to put stronger measures in. I mean they have said we know that there are issues, there are things that we need to do in order to ensure that some of these things don't happen. I mean nobody in this room disagrees with it. You don't degree with it.
>> I don't, and I believe the lcra is actively doing that. And for Travis County to say we're going to adopt the lcra regulations and then if something happens we're going to do something, but we don't know what, it's not spelled out, it's not stated, it makes no sense.
>> I need for you to be at the table because you are an engineer. We need for people that have the credentials -- I’m not an engineer. The thing that drives me the craziest is I can put lauren ross over here and david smith over here, and my god, it's like -- you don't even speak the same language. Then somebody has got to convince me, you know, who is right and who is wrong. I mean it is -- it is terribly frustrating.
>> I think we agree on a lot of things and we disagree on a lot of things. I went to school with lauren so we've been disagreeing for a lot of years.
>> who had the higher grade point average?
>> I believe she did. [laughter]
>> maybe you shouldn't have said that.
>> my name is laura grilke, resident of western Travis County. Not a professional in this field or a specialist of any kind. I’m a mom and I came last week to address the court so I thank you for allowing me to have my three-year-old here last week. I represent many working parents, moms, individuals, business owners and developers from western Travis County. Some of my neighbors and citizens in western Travis County feel strongly about supporting these interim rules. We need to protect water quality and manage the growth in a responsible and careful way. Because we are currently unincorporated, there aren't any regulations to cover the construction phase and we've seen the downside of that. This can be devastating to the creeks and ultimately to Lake Travis where we receive our drinking water. I’m also concerned about residents downstream. I am a downstream resident from this sweetwater proposed neighborhood and we have some concerns about construction management for such a large area. It's about five times larger than the west cypress hills development and ultimately will be in that size if it gets approved. Please approve these regulation. We really need layers of protection. It may seem to special interests of development that it's lcra and Austin ordinances, but we need these layers of protection. Don't let special interest confuse the issue. We need these regulations to be passed today and please thank you for considering this. I appreciate your time.
>> thank you. Yes, sir.
>> good afternoon, jerusalem and Commissioners, I’m colin clark from save our springs alliance and we're here to offer our support for item 23 and ask you to take a vote on it today. I was struck thinking back to last summer when bill garin came to you with his development plans for lazy 9 project. You delayed it a week and approved it. It would be interesting if the same thing would happen here. You delayed this a week and maybe today you could go ahead and approve it. We believe this is a good first step that's desperately need to do protect water quality which does have health and safety issues attached to it. Particularly the buffer zones are critical that those happen. I don't know how buffer zones increase the cost of a home, as mr. Savvio might have been suggesting. That just means you don't build right on top of the creek. That doesn't mean the house costs $20,000 more because it's 20 feet back from a creek. Some of the procedural requirements in here seem to make a lot of sense. One thing we've seen is developing playing agencies off of each other with -- in regards to utility service. For instance, getting a conditional contract with lcra for water or wastewater, then coming to you and saying, hey, we've got water or wastewater block -- locking their development standards? And going back to the provider and getting it finalized and saying we lore got it approved from Travis County. It seems to make sense, but on the front end they need to come to you with a firm commitment so you know exactly where they are at in their process. Some of those other procedural requirements would seem to allow you to catch problems before they start, as you are referring to, Commissioner Daugherty, on west cypress hills where if they are going to be scrape -pg 70 acres, if david fowler and ann bowl lynn know that on the front end, maybe you can talk to their engineer and if it's just a management problem, take care of that before the bulldozing starts. Lcra has made it clear they are not going hog wild on the enforcement businesses. They are torldz business development. They don't want to be out there enforcing the rules and it would be great if the county could do some of that. Commissioner Daugherty, you mentioned the potential for another cypress hills incident, I think it's clear sweetwater, lazy 9 is that potential for the same thing to happen to bee creek that's happened to lick creek. If there is any way to put some protections in on that property, they would be great welcomed by the downstream folks on bee creek who certainly don't want to be swimming in mud and algae. They won't be swimming if their creek gets destroyed like that. And I was also encouraged to hear that some of these provisions would apply county-wide. It was interesting to hear some of the development community to say we need that across the county. If they agree, why not approve it today. These are interim ordinances. If you approved it today, we can have the discussion tomorrow and weeks to come about what permanent measures should look like, but I don't think that there's any reason not to go forward within the day given that you are basically taking things that developers are used to complying with, used to running through and applying them to the unkin corporate unincorporated areas of the county. Thank you for your time.
>> one more bite of the apple.
>> excuse me, Commissioner Daugherty, I came to sit back up because I could give you two specific examples on west cypress hills if you are interested on how engineering could have helped. Two very quick ones. If you look at the -- the construction part of the engineering design would be your staff would review the construction phase, erosion sedimentation controls. And there are two pieces to that. One are the silt fences and everybody has seen a silt fence. When west cypress hills put the fences in, they put them straight down the contours. Straight down the hill. They had hundreds of feet of silt fence that did absolutely no good. Any engineering review would have said put them on the contour. The other pieces that part of the review is the limits of construction. You look at the lines on the map where the bulldozers are going to go. And I talked to many professional people and they agree the limits of construction for west cypress hills were unnecessarily broad. There was no reason to ever open that up. And your staff could make them not do that as part of the review for that project. Thanks.
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> ...i moved my business here, about 270 employees, consulted with them about what they were looking for and -- if you took our company as a community, what Austin had to offer, next to education, and robust economy was the pristine environment. That we moved here for. And that being said, what I really wanted to talk with you about is the subject of greed. I'd like to admit, just to start, that I have some of that. Not as a developer, but as being someone who is very greedy about my own individual liberty and rights as a property owner. There's been a study drum beat of -- of erosion of property rights and individual rights and I see what's taken place here as -- as a continuation of that erosion. I’m very greedy about -- about my liberty and my ability to -- to do as I please as long as it doesn't affect other people. That's where compromise comes in. But I believe that the hurdle for any deliberative body, in a representative democracy is to be most protective of those individual rights that the -- that the smallest of us or the weakest of us or the minority among us have. This country has probably achieved the greatest representative democracy in the world. But even better is the constitution. I would ask you to delay this vote, certainly not have it today, but to consider a very -- very carefully and diligently any further erosion of individual property rights that owners have. 1400 acres of some of the most pristine land in the hill country. I don't want to see it developed. I want to see conserved and improved, but I also don't want to be stripped of my property rights. I want -- I see some of the things that are part of the interim rules as not being reasonable but perhaps even being extreme for some property owners. Some of the setback requirements in parts of southwest Travis County where it's quite rugged could probably debleet the value of that land by the 0%. -- 90%, make most of the hilltops unbuildable and have a dramatic impact upon some individuals. I would ask you to move very deliberately in making decisions that further reduce individual property rights.
>> thank you very much. Chap clap now, seems to me that the court is a little divided among what we ought to do today. I must confess after chatting with Commissioner Daugherty a few days ago, I told several who contacted me that I thought the court would not take action today except to receive comments and to -- to discuss and analyze this matter further. From my perspective, it would help me to have an additional week to determine exactly what impact the interim rules would have on property as well as water quality and there are a series of questions that I think we need to get lcra's response to. Which I would do by a phone call or a meeting between now and next Tuesday unless the other members of the court want to hear the responses, I could get somebody here today. In my view, it makes sense to wait at least another week. That way we give the group an opportunity to meet tomorrow, the stakeholders have a chance to chat with tom and john and joe, Commissioner Daugherty, and any other member of the court who can go. Actually, if the meeting is at 12:00 noon, we could recess this item overnight who give more than two members an opportunity to go. We could recess this for up to 24 hours. [indiscernible] 12:30 that would give us 24 hours.
>> I know I’m going to be at cuc during the luncheon. So I have my commitments there.
>> [indiscernible]
>> what's the response to that?
>> judge, let me say -- I mean I’m for a week, just like I said. I’m for a week because I give a week to the people that want it passed today, just like I would the other. I’m telling ya, I am for doing something to the rules that makes sense. So what I want people to come to the meeting with tomorrow is not so far -- there's got to be some things in here that make sense to do so that we don't have problems that we have. I, too, am very concerned about when joe roebuck's project was mentioned. When joe came to my office, I asked him, do you think you can comply with these things? It just so happened he didn't have some of the concerns that some of the tracts of land have. If you are ted stuart or if you are somebody that doesn't have 3,000 acres, if you have 35 acres and you just have to -- happen to have 35 acres and you're on the pedernales river, and on the other side you've got another bluff, I guess you're all right as long as you want to plop your house right in the center of that thing, but it is not right to tell somebody, you know what, you can't develop, you can't sell your land because we have just taken 75% of the value of your property. I mean that's not right to do to anyone. Now, is it right to also go to people that have large developments that are going to put 18, 1900 homes and, say, work with me on -- there's a lot of heart ache about ridges? You know, if that ridge sells for $750,000 per lot, well then maybe if you move it down the ridge a little bit, it's still the most expensive one that you've got out there, but it's not on the top, I don't know. I mean, I’m willing to look at those kinds of things and I think that reasonable people will come to reasonable solutions. But we said it six months ago, that interim rules were something if we weren't going to do moratoriums, I am patently not for moratoriums, but I am not against coming up with reasonable things that we ask reasonable developers and reasonable landowners to say what do you think about this? There are going to be some things that I’m going to decide with the property owners and say, you know, I mean I wouldn't want that to happen to me. There are going to be some things that I’m probably going to say I think that we ought to tie to find a way to deal with that and implement some of those rules, there's got to be some y'all. So if we come to this meeting tomorrow with the intent of saying where can we find places that we can deal with this thing, that's what I hope because I will tell you that I think that we're going to have a vote next Tuesday. I don't think that this thing, you know, is going to get another six weeks. Now, might we ought to wait until the plan gets done? I don't know. If we wait until the plan gets done, then maybe you get me in a spot where I’m more willing to say, okay, joe, everything that comes in the door after tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, they need to know that you know what? We're coming up with some rules that they may have to comply with. Because that's really what people are looking for. We've got the 25 things that are in the gate so to speak right now. And I’m not for taking what people who got things in the gate and changing the rules on them. It's not supportive of that. I look forward to working with each and every one of you tomorrow, 32 -- let me say at 2:00, the Commissioners court room has someone else, so this is not something that we are going to be able to get in here and linger on for, you know, three or four hours. But we'll try to get started at 12:30 sharp. So i'll look forward to having you here, that's -- I mean, that would be my --
>> okay. Who else wants to attend the meeting tomorrow besides me? Anybody else?
>> I’m at cuc.
>> I’m at cuc.
>> [indiscernible]
>> we don't need to try to -- I will have three or four legal questions that I would get to legal after today's meeting and hopefully get answered by next Tuesday, okay? If I need to contact some of the speakers today, then I do have names, I’m assuming that I would be able to get phone numbers, but an additional week would help me. But I do hear us committing to take a vote next Tuesday. Now a vote could be to approve these, a vote could be to approve these with modifications, a vote could be to do nothing, a vote could be to put a moratorium in place, I guess. That's one of the legal questions that I would have for you to answer for me. Some formal action recommended by a vote of the Commissioners court would be next Tuesday much between now and then we would try to gather as much additional information as we need.
>> judge, if I could kind of signal to folks where I’m headed on this. And the folks that have asked me about this, I was trying to be respectful of the fact that there was a public meeting scheduled for tomorrow to try to answer as many questions as possible. I think that's a good thing. I’m going to be prepared to vote for interim rules next Tuesday and here is why: I have reached a tipping point in terms of where we are in terms of trying to be respectful of the process that's ongoing, private property rights, et cetera. But we had today another 443 acres come through the Commissioners court. And two weeks ago, when I was last here, we had yet another. It just keeps Marching on. I've been extraordinarily troubled by the gap coming between a letter for some kind of utility service and getting the -- -- the requirements that go along with that utility letter locked down. I think those things that get locked down are coming from the lcra, coming from the army corps of engineers, coming from u.s. Fish and wildlife, those items ought to be codified in a preliminary plan or a final plat. Somebody needs to take responsibility for the enforcement that is out there in terms of the rules that either the lcra or the -- or these agencies are requiring as -- I will tell you right now interim means that. That means interim. Perhaps that will get us to some conclusions to the dialogue process, that's what needs to push the process along. Having nothing in place is not working. I like Commissioner Daugherty have resisted looking at a moratorium because I find that, too, I don't think that would be helpful in terms of the dialogue process. In terms of the land owners saying they need more time to run some scenarios, I’m really surprised people have not already rub some scenarios, what if they do a moratorium, what if they go all the way on senate bill 873, which christie mews likes to tell us has been around more than two years, when are you all going to get to it. I’m surprised people are not running scenarios about impervious cover limits, density, s.o.s. Requirements, I think at the end of the day, the end of the process, we are going to have no less than what is in these interim rules. And I think those need to be in place sooner, not later. So I will be voting for the interim rules. When they come before us next week.
>> okay.
>> comart Commissioner Davis?
>> yes, judge, in fact, commission I’m willing to vote for them today.
>> yes [ applause ]
>> but -- but out of courtesy and do we have a policy -- out of courtesy, when a commission, any member of the court requests additional time, out of courtesy we normally acknowledge that. I think we have been pretty consistent with that acknowledge: however, -- with that acknowledgment. However I was going to support this for today. Of course I don't want to see it watered down any and let me say something to the folks -- I can remember the 1992 June 7th meeting down at city council when we were looking at the s.o.s. Ordinance. In fact I was there. Until about 3:00 in the mortgage morning -- 3:00 in the morning if I can remember right. That was very important then. I think water quality is still an issue. I don't think -- I think water quality, the water belongs to all of the people in the county and the quality of that water. The homes, the residential development, my god, I think Commissioner Gomez summed it up very clearly, yes, we do need homes, we need construction, we need homes in the precincts over there. There's a lack of development as far as those things. We are encouraging development to come to the east of i-35. So with those things, I was ready to vote for it today, I will have to wait until next week, god willing, judge.
>> that will be back on next week. Everybody is invited to the 12:30 meeting attorney. We appreciate you coming down and giving us your input.
>> thank you.

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 9, 2005 11:02 AM