Travis County Commissioners Court
January 10, 2006
Item 10
Number 10 is to consider and take appropriate action on the following: a is a phasing agreement between Travis County and the developer, forest city sweetwater, lp. 10-b is -- and this is revised language. Revised sweetwater ranch section 1 preliminary plan in precinct three, 561 total lots, 544 residential, 16 m.u.d. And homeowners association lots and one commercial lot. 311.4 acres, state highway 71 west, no fiscal required for this preliminary plan. Sewage service to be provided by lazy nine m.u.d. And 10-c is sweetwater ranch section 2, preliminary plan in section 3, 1296 total lots -- that's 1296 instead of 1229. 1258 residential, 38 mud and homeowners association lots, 735.5 acres, state highway 71 west, no fiscal required for this preliminary plan. Sewage service to be provided by lazy nine m.u.d. No e.t.j.
>> joe gieselman and anna lolen with tnr. We have the applicant and the applicant's engineer present and numerous citizens to speak on the issue. This is the second time we've seen the preliminary -- one of the preliminary plans for sweetwater ranch. The court has already approved section 1. They are returning with a revised plat for section 1. They're also -- they also have submitted and we're recommending approval of a section 2 preliminary plan as well as a phasing agreement. And the phasing agreement basically has some trigger points on when other things will have to happen as the development develops out. There are also some agreements yet to come to the court for approval. One in particular would be the advanced funding agreement with txdot where the county would serve as a go between txdot and the developer for making improvements to state highway 71. We have a draft advanced funding agreement from txdot. You should see that on your court agenda here in the next couple of weeks. With that I think probably the best way to go this is have anna bolen kind of lay out what you have before you, some of the issues we have heard about in the process of reviewing the application. By the way, this -- both of these preliminary plans are subject to the rules that were adopted prior to the interim rules. When the first preliminary plan came through, we were still in discussion of developing what we called the interim rule. The second -- both the revised and the second preliminary plan were submitted prior to the time that the court approved the interim rule, so they're subject to the pre-- the rule that we had prior to the interim rule. And so I guess there was some expectation or some question about what subdivision rule the county staff was using to review these applications. And it was the one that existed prior to the interim rule. There's also a public meeting sponsored by the applicant last week. It was well attended. There was probably 20 to 30 people in attendance at our precinct three office. Commissioner Daugherty was there as well, so it was a good opportunity for a lot of the issues to kind of be laid out and for the developer to respond directly to citizens in the area that had questions about this development. So let's let anna go through the staff's review of this application.
>> hello. Anna bolen, Travis County tnr.
>> good morning, anna.
>> the first prelimb for section one was approved by Commissioners court on June 29th, 2004. It was originally resubmitted. It came in to us as a master development plan on June 9th, 2005, and that was during the time that preliminaries were under a suspension, but because of house bill 848 -- and that was the house bill that was commonly known as the cocktail napkin -- we were able to get things in as mass sister development plans if that's how we saw that. So that's how that came to our office. But this revised preliminary plan has -- it increased the acreage. There's now 311 acres under this revised section 1 preliminary plan. It slightly decreased the number of lots. By our count there's seven fewer lots. To us most significantly the linear footage of streets went down almost 7,000, and the impervious cover went from 23.7 to 19.9% impervious cover. One of the things that reviewwise welized about the re-- we liked about the revised preliminary plan on section 1 was where the loop street went back and met up with 71, we felt it was a better intersection with 71 and more appropriate. At the end of the day that's txdot's choice. Txdot is the final authority on all things intersecting with txdot roads, but I think that it was a better intersection and I think that txdot most likely felt the same way. Also --
>> I’m not sure I understand that point. So instead of what we have, what?
>> instead of what we have originally?
>> on 71, the intersection you're saying has been changed.
>> the intersection location of the second -- there's a loop street, and the secondary -- where the loop goes back and intersects back on to 71, that second point of access on that loop is in we feel a more desirable point with regards to sight distance.
>> anna, you've got that up there on the map. Can you show us which one here is the primary entrance and which is the one that you say is the one that's being --
>> this is the primary --
>> you will have to talk in the mic.
>> this is the primary and this is the secondary.
>> so what's the change, though? Initially what proposed and as a result of action by txdot, what do we have today?
>> I think originally it was more in this location, and it's now further back.
>> okay. And farther back is safer because of the sight distance issue?
>> yes. Additionally that movement allowed them to save some groves of trees, I believe they're spanish oaks. I’m not sure on that, but there were several reasons why the applicant came in and wanted to revise the prelim, and they definitely had to work with txdot on the new configuration of the road and the connection to 71. That was one of the issues. Now obviously when anyone is going to do anything with the txdot road, you know, that's very important, so that was one of the factors that went into that. Now, along this same time -- actually, before that, in October of 2004 they submitted an application for the section 2 preliminary plan. And this preliminary plan has 1296 total lots and about 61,000 linear feet of streets and 16.52% impervious cover. Now, during the course of the review and then during the public meetings that we've had, there have been several issues raised and there has been controversy concerning this development. We have heard all kinds of comments, especially involving the transportation with txdot-related 71, involving safety, involving wrecks on 71 and so on and so forth. We've heard comments regarding wastewater, where they are with regards to getting their permit, how long they're going to be doing truck and haul, who's regulating that. We've also been hearing things regarding mps and their lcra permit, a lot of questions regarding that and environmental quality and water quality. And then there's been a lot of discussion about what sets of egz they were under -- regs they were under. If I had to pick the gist of the biggest comments that we've heard, the most concerns, those are the most concerning issues that we've heard.
>> and do we have answers to those questions?
>> yes. Like joe said, starting from the bottom up, staff reviewed this per the regs that we feel that this is under and we feel that that was our regular chapter 82, and we reviewed it as such. I’m going to let the applicant discuss some of these. I’ll tell you that when this section 1 was approved they had final plat notes, I think commonly referred to as the young development plat notes. Now, these were for final plats, not for preliminary plans, but I’m going to ask them to speak to where they are with regards to satisfying those because that has a lot to do with a lot of these issues.
>> can you tell us what the plat notes are?
>> yes, sir. The first plat note has to do with whether or not they need a u.s. Army corps of engineers' review of their permits or their project, if they need a permit from them. And I’m going to paraphase unless you want me to read.
>> what's the gist of the note? Is the gist of the note that they should tell us whether they need one?
>> well, they have to provide evidence that the final plat and construction plans have been submitted to the u.s. Army corps of engineers for review and issuance of any appropriate permit prior to us approving any final plat. The gist of the second note is the same, that they have to provide evidence that they've submitted the final plat and construction plans to lower colorado river authority water resources and protection division for review and consideration of a non-point source pollution prior to us approving any plats. The third note is they have to submit their construction plans and street and drainage infrastructure improvements associated with the subdivision proposed intersections of 71 west to txdot, to the Austin district, and work with them regarding right-of-way dedication and any improvements prior to us approving any final plats. And the fourth note is that they have to work with tceq and/or -- and by work with, I mean provide evidence of construction plans for the storm water, water and wastewater and infrastructure improvements associated with the subdivision to tceq and lower colorado river authority as appropriate, and the lazy nine m.u.d. For review of those plans prior to us approving any final plat. And keep in mind we're looking at preliminaries now, however, it does speak to -- you know, this is work that they're doing at this point anyways because they're teeing up to be doing final in the future, and their engineer is the most appropriate person to speak to you about this.
>> so what are you not allowed to do prior to final plat approval?
>> well, you're not allowed to start building. You don't have construction plans. You're certainly not allowed to sell lots if you don't have lots. You don't have a permit.
>> so our understand sg that you cannot do those things until there is final plat approval.
>> no.
>> so these plat notes, the four that you mentioned, are preconditions to doing those things. And my first legal question to tom knuckles is whether that's his interpretation too of -- after we convene in executive session, mr. Nuckolls.
>> we had them include these final plat notes on both preliminary plans. Even though these were final plat notes, I wanted to be sure that the will of the court back in 2004 was clearly shown and not lost, had no way of getting lost anywhere has been shown on these prelims.
>> and are those by agreement between Travis County and applicant or county imposed?
>> I understand it was by agreement.
>> they were by agreement.
>> anna, when you all give or when you gave your approval or your recommending approval for this, did you all try to take any of that based on the responses that the engineers had concerning the plat notes? Or did you feel like had you not even seen those, given the work that we all do with the county, are you saying that you -- that the county was supportive of the recommendation regardless of what the responses were --
>> these are final plat notes. I mean, it's kind of a strange question in that I know that they're final plat notes. On the one hand, I would have expected them to be doing these things anyways because I would be expecting that there would be final plats coming and they know they would be doing these things. So a good engineer would be doing this regardless, putting this applicant and this engineer out of the picture. I make our recommendation based on what they submitted on this specific application, these notes aside.
>> so whenever you hear a line of questioning that could be subject to interpretation, what do you do with that? This community is pretty famous for having, let us tell you what our expert thinks and let us tell you what our expert thinks. So when you have that, how do you come down on here's how we're going to --
>> actually, I appreciate the peer review, quite frankly, and we've benefitted from it. In part we've benefitted from it in that we have interim rules and we'll benefit from that more with permanent rules, and I hope that everyone continues towards that. I think right now, you know, it's unfortunate when perhaps -- perhaps when at the end of the day I have to look at what set of rules were in place for which project. I’ll be very glad when everything is under the same set, but, you know, I do take it seriously when someone questions whatever and then I go back and look, well, which set am I supposed to be looking at? And then whether or not I did look to see what the engineer -- I did ask him, you know, where are you on these plat notes? I want to know, you know, whether or not it's totally ger main or not.
>> when can we expect a request for final plat approval?
>> I do not. We have to have some things done.
>> so when we ask to do final plat approval, would there be one request covering various sections or would there be a request for section one and then at the appropriate time section 2, do you see what I’m saying?
>> I would imagine it would be section by section, but that's a question for the developer. I would imagine the next request you would see from this would be the advanced funding dwreament. Agreement.
>> so on section one, preliminary plan, when it's ready for final plat approval, we would expect a request for final plat approval on section 1?
>> of a portion of section 1.
>> okay. And the actions that are prohibited before final plat approval that you described a few minutes ago would be disallowed until final plat approval?
>> it's just like -- in my opinion, and obviously I work very closely with tom on this. They're like any other person in that until they have a permit, which they're not going to have until they have a final plat, they can't go doing things.
>> anna, can you tell me what difference it would have made in terms of your review if you were doing it with the eyes of the interim rules versus what they came under? What more would they have had to do?
>> we would have needed some additional information to review with regards to environmental -- the environmental features site-wide to begin with. Some of the answers we don't know, quite frankly, because we didn't get that type of information. We don't know about the critical features site-wide. We know about the critical features in the drainageways because our regular rules require that information, but as far as the site, the entire site, what kind of buffers would have kicked in, that is one of the biggest questions I think that we have -- that we don't know.
>> what more would they have had to show in relation to evidence of wastewater service? Because that's the thing that just sticks out like a sore thumb. I’m used to pump and haul. When something's broken down and you need a little bit of time to get in there and make a fix. It is not something that is used as a start-up operation and it's certainly not something that doesn't have a defined beginning point and a defined ending point. Help me out.
>> they would have needed to show that they have the capacity and the where -- at the prelim stage, how much it's going to cost, the capacity. They wouldn't need to have the contract yet, but -- because remember we didn't want them to have -- the developers to pay for -- to reserve the utility, but they would have needed to have the plan in place enough to where they know the phasing of when whatever utility is going to happen, how much it's going to cost, and we would have to have evidence from the utility that this is -- that they're both on the same page with this.
>> do we think that pump and haul is evidence of wastewater service? Help me out there. That to me is a band-aid, but that's not what I would consider -- I mean, I am so struck by two weeks ago we had a plat -- what it, 10 acres? Trying to go from two lots to three. And I mean, we were grilling them on impact on transportation, whether there was going to be water service available in a drought. And here we've got what seems to me, and please correct me if I’m wrong, someone who has a business plan is saying, we're going to pump and haul sewage because the system that people will rely on, the homeowners will be relying on, the consumers will be relying on, flat out isn't going to be up and operating. Again, I think of pump and haul as being something's happened, there's a problem, and you need to have some time to go in there and make your fix. I don't know if this is a question for mr. Nuckolls, but it's certainly a question for me, if we're in true consumer protection, my goodness, why would we lead somebody to the impression that they do not have reliable wastewater service for relying on a truck to come and pump and haul it out of the neighborhood. That to me doesn't say wastewater service. And if it does, that's not right. Help me out.
>> at this point we're looking to tceq with regards to wastewater. Under the interim, that remains -- I stand by quha I said before. We would look to see what the phasing is, what the contractual obligation is, everyone agrees on here's what it's going to cost at what phase and so on and so forth. I don't know a that we specifically talked about pump and haul being appropriate or inappropriate when we discussed the interims. I don't recall us doing that.
>> two more questions. Flesh out --
>> tom, make a note of that. That will be one of the legal questions for you, tom.
>> flesh out for me this whole timing issue on txdot because some of us have been incredibly frustrated that we get the money in place and it still takes forever. Are these improvements going to have to be constructed before we get all these vehicles and all these construction vehicles, things that don't really have a lot of pickup on them in terms of getting across a busy intersection, or is this something that gets in when it gets in and it's basically at the other end in terms of the sales end? Huge concerns about all the construction equipment. What are the contractual things related to getting those txdot improvements done at the intersections?
>> I know that the phasing phaseagreement doesn't specify that they have to do it in advance; however, I know that we have the advanced funding agreement from txdot and I anticipate putting that on the agenda within the next -- I would say within the next month. I know from what the developer said at the public meeting that was held that his intent, what he wants to do as well. And he can speak the best for that. As far as what txdot's plans are, I personally haven't spoken with them.
>> so does the advanced funding agreement indicate when the construction will take place?
>> usually not.
>> and be completed.
>> but at the same time, we have never predicated our approval of plats on an outside third agency's completion of a project. I mean, basically as long as the item has been funded, neither the applicant nor Travis County will be able to tell txdot when to initiate a project. I mean, that's -- they're totally independent on that.
>> so does txdot normally do this work themself or do they accurate it out?
>> they do it totally by their procedures. They'll put it out to bid as one of their own projects and it will be done on their timetable.
>> I want to get the money available to them as soon as possible. I agree about 71 totally. I drive that too.
>> and txdot has very defined, sometimes frustrating letting schedules, that are not flexibility and do not say I want to move this up. And I went through this up on 1325 up near wells branch. Shoreline drive took three years of incessant calling over there and practically losing the life of john lewis for them to get off their butts and get that done. Final question here. Tell me what do we know about this commercial lot? That was not part of any kind of discussions. It certainly would have an impact on any kind of traffic on 71. And if you're having a little mom and pop 7-11 kind of thing at the front, that's one kind of traffic. If it's a wal-mart, that's a different kind of a traffic. Help me understand what's going on here because how can we possibly evaluate ins and outs, traffic, etcetera? Because we were under the impression we had two entrances going into what is a residential area and now this changes a lot.
>> the commercial lot was not in the original section 1 preliminary. It is new to the revised section 1 preliminary. Other than it's possibly going to be commercial, I don't have information on that.
>> how large is it? How large is that lot? And how close is it to either one of those defined intersections there? Is it somewhere at one of those intersections or is it somewhere in between?
>> I think it's this -- do you know where to point to it?
>> it's at the light of the intersection of 71 and (indiscernible) road.
>> it's the whole thing, isn't it, bill? Isn't it that whole -- come up and point to that, bill. Bill, come up and point to it. So we see where it is. I think it's that tract.
>> this is the tract right here, and this tract is 14 acres, about 10 of which is usable, and always was. We labeled that so that the Commissioners could, without question, know what was going to happen there. We don't have to plat it at all. We don't have to subdivide 10 acres or more, we can simply sell it by meets and biewndz. But we thought it would be more honorable here if we put this is what's going to have it' here. We don't have anything in mind, no one has approached us. [inaudible - no mic].
>> can you come to the mic there? We can't have you not on mic.
>> yes, ma'am.
>> so is the access for that commercial lot going to be off of 71 or is the access for that commercial lot going to be at your defined intersection where people would turn in at a safe place and then take access off of your internal road?
>> it will be off 71. There's already a light there. And we have to pay for the installation of the left turn and there will be a left turn lanes and we'll go over those lanes in a moment, but txdot is going to extend the left turn lanes that our advanced funding agreement provides, they're going to extend them on to the light at bee creek road, and then there will be a left turn lane in order to enter that commercial tract.
>> okay. This is where I’m going, because we had just a mess up there at four points off of 2222 where we had everything smashed in at the intersection there, and all of a sudden h.e.b. And target come in there and all of a sudden, everybody wants to not turn at the light, they want to go down to their own entrance in there, and it is a total mess. And they wound up having to do this right turn in, right turn out thing because it was so dangerous that people would not use the defined, safe place to make the crossing at a light, they would go do the chicken lane thing and cut across traffic that many times is speeding up to try and make the light. So I just do not want to have a recreation of a horrible situation out near four points, but they're doing it. And it's a state road, but it is not good for safety and it is certainly not good for consumers who are extraordinarily confused thinking, oh, I can just turn down here, no, I can't, and then they have no way to get around and get back into that.
>> I understand, Commissioner. Of course, all the driveway permits will have to be permitted by txdot. Any time we get ready for a site plan they will have to review what the driveway cuts are. With the lights there, we both know where the driveway cut will be, it will be at the light. We do not have an access to that commercial from inside the subdivision, so there won't be a tendency for people to, as you say, turn off early, try to shortcut to get into the commercial area. They will have to go into the left turn lane and there will be a right turn acceleration lane also, but they will have to go into the left turn lane, go to light and make access to the commercial from the light. That will be the only authorized permit for a driveway permit there will be.
>> I’ll stop at this point, judge.
>> so the commercial tract will be set aside for development, but the timing really depends on when a commercial tenant approaches you.
>> yes, sir.
>> so we know about the timing for the development of the residential lots, but the commercial lot really will unfold I guess whenever a commercial tent nant --
>> we certainly don't have one now, sir.
>> there is one follow-up question, judge. Because you are carving out the commercial lot right now, at whatever point the commercial lot comes in, would they be coming under the old rules or would their site plans be evaluated under the interim rules or whatever is in place at that time?
>> under your provisions right now, even under your interim rules, this tract would of course have the same plat notes as the balance of -- that this has on it. And those lat note, if you -- plat notes, we of course have to have utility service, we can't get permits without it. The driveway permit, you all will have a chance to see. There's nothing in your interim rules concerning site plan. So the same -- he'd we'd have to get approval from you today, would be the same approvals you would have on your interim rules anyway.
>> go ahead.
>> I’m listening to what anna has presented to us today, and then going through this whole interim rule activity that we have had to deal with. The plat notes that you mentioned earlier, are you in agreement with those plat notes as far as what she actually laid out, the review that has to be done by of course txdot and lcra and a whole lot of these other folks?
>> yes, sir.
>> and are the folks that are here today -- I was at the meeting that was held here with Commissioner Daugherty and other folks in the community. Are they basically in agreement with the outcome of what you're doing and the plat notes that will help guide some of the things that I think may not come up under the interim rules, but apparently has been in place or imbedded in plat notes? And I guess I have to hear that because --
>> Commissioner, do not I do not speak for the folks here. To quickly review Commissioner Sonleitner's comments regarding sewer, of course these people will bring it up, our primary plan is not a pump and haul, Commissioner. Our plan is a txdot discharge permit. The pump and haul is a stand by. And what we're simply doing is showing that we have a plan in place in the event that we are under construction with the plant and for some reason we get a delay, that we have a plan to solve that. Now, as far as pump and haul, the lazy nine has 400 available spots. We can drop that sewer into that manhole, which is the same manhole we would deliver the pump and haul to. The board of directors of the m.u.d. Would not like to have to be required to do that because that line is a throwaway, it's a waste of money. It may not be 90 days, maybe 120 days. As developers, we would be more than happy right now, if you want to add another plat note on here, that says we cannot occupy a house if we don't have a permit and the plant's not under construction. There's no objection to that. We won't occupy a house if we don't have a permit and plant's not under construction.
>> what about the plant completed?
>> there are some things that we can't schedule exactly. We would like to have the flexibility in the event that plant is not completed to pump and haul. We will agree to a limit on it.
>> limit of how long?
>> 120 days.
>> and what happened if all of a sudden you still hit some kind of a wall and all of a sudden you've got people occupying homes who need sewer service?
>> well, that puts it in the category you mentioned earlier, that's exactly what you would like. You would like to see that people are planning for emergencies. That's exactly what we're trying to do.
>> but it sounds like you would have to extend the pump and haul because you would have true life consumers inside who would expect that stuff taken away.
>> Commissioner, pump and haul is very expensive, we know it's very expensive. We would like not to do that. We also would like -- I don't think that municipal plants and the city of Austin, people have septic tanks. It's the same truck and the same service, it's all licensed, under the tceq. The tceq is going to make these determinations. If they see that we have permit problems, they are not going to issue us a pump and haul license. They're not going to give us a permit.
>> if we prioritize completion of the wastewater treatment facility of a plant, that would reduce the likelihood that it not be built in time, right? What drives that, I guess? Is it --
>> we would like to have today, judge, a permit in hand. We don't --
>> but to construct the --
>> a (indiscernible) permit gives you the total requirements. It's like when you submit a plat, your staff report comes back to us with all the requirements, size, shape, parameters. We would hope to have a draft permit in our hand today. If we had that draft permit, I could tell you exactly, if we had a 10, 15 (indiscernible) permit, we can run the plant. We don't have to build one. And we can get down there, pull the slab, get a plant rented and get a line and that would be our desire. But for you folks to make sure that we weren't going forward without any plans at all, I want to have several plans. And one, of course, the first and primary is a discharge permit. That's our first choice. Our second choice would be to deal with the lcra with 400 taps and to use the 400 they've got in lake point. Our third choice is pump and haul, so I think we've covered every base we know how to cover. When it comes to our left turn lanes, which is another point of concern, we'll put the money up. That's all we're authorized by law to do. We've done everything that we can do.
>> where are you spraying?
>> this area right here.
>> is that a golf course or --
>> it will be dedicated to the district. It's 376 acres. It's 0-15 slopes.
>> and does it have critical water features on it?
>> no. It's not in the recharge.
>> I have a couple more questions to ask.
>> did we let you finish, ms. Bolin? Any additional questions of ms. Bolen? Because if the applicant has responses, and I know we have additional questions, then we can hear from other citizens who have come down. Any questions of ms. Bolen?
>> I just had one. I know that back in March --
>> have a seat, mr. Gunn. Get comfortable there.
>> before it over with I understand that you may have been open to a possibility of adding another plat notes, so that may be something of concern. But let me go back to what I’d like to ask anna. Back in March of '05 we looked at a moratorium, ended up voting on a moratorium on this particular interim rule process. My concern, if that is the truth, if that's true, then later I understand that the cocktail napkin legislation passed by the state, senate bill 848, came up in April 27th of '05 I guess is the actual date of when the legislation was passed. I guess my concern -- and I know during the interim rule process, and hopefully we can get to a permanent situation because this affects a lot of folks all over the county, not just southwestern Travis County where a lot of this is taking place. And the concern is this, is that there may be things that are grandfathered in and grandfathered out, like hb 1704 or senate bill 848, and I know we've been discussing interim rules, but I’d like to know where we are as far as these things grandfathered in and grandfathered out, because what I’m hearing -- I’ll give you an example of what I’m hearing here today. If you look at the particular homes that are being constructed in buildout situations in a situation, we in the interim rules process wanted to ensure that the necessary utilities provide water for an example. Water and water and wastewater was available to that buildout. Now, the question is since mr. Gunn has brought in the first plat notes, looking at the lcra, looking at tceq for framplz of what's in this plat notes, does that also assure us that stages of interim rules are actually addressed in these plat notes as far as the interim rules -- as far as what we adopted in July of '05?
>> to me if I’m understanding your question correctly, it's kind of hard to see because the plat notes say, like evidence it's submitted, whether or not it's evidence that they've adequately met their requirements, the plat notes are silent to that. But that's why when we did the interim rules, why we went in the direction that we did in my opinion, and why we probably had a little bit of duplication, if you will, with some of the other entities or wanted to see more evidence than not was so that we knew, so that we could definitively ask when people asked us questions because we knew or we saw, we saw the evidence with our own eyes, with our own review staff, with the review staff that we have now and the review staff that we're getting just for this very question because we don't want to have to depend on other people, we want to be able to say, look, we see this ourselves, we can answer this question ourselves, here's the answer. I don't know if that answered your question. I hope that I did.
>> to some degree. I just want to make sure what you suggested making sure that we have the proper service in that area as far as water utility providers that are going to be done with any plat notes.
>> that's certainly something that we want to -- that we wanted to achieve in the interim rules, and that we're going to want to achieve in the permanent rules.
>> lastly, in the full review processes by u.s. Corps of engineers, lcra, also tceq and txdot, as far as reviewing this process, do we have to hear from them or before the Commissioners court have to finalize what we're looking at here today as far as a plan?
>> as far as final plats I would say you would.
>> final plat, but not the plan itself?
>> right. I wanted to know the answer myself. And I figured that y'all would as well. I shouldn't say y'all. I figured the Commissioners court would as well, you know, just given the nature of this topic. But I wanted to know the answer as well, so I asked the question. Where it's mandated by plat note is at the final plat stage. That's how I would answer your question.
>> that's my final question, judge.
>> the answer to where they are with regards to those plat notes is I think best addressed by either the applicant or the applicant's engineer.
>> any other questions for ms. Bolen or joe?
>> just comments. I think I would feel really comfortable if we had some evidence that work is being done to get to the point of needing the plat notes requirements because otherwise why would we put them on there if they didn't have any meaning at all to us? The other thing that -- that's what I heard here.
>> Commissioner, that's kind of why I asked the question, even at the prelim stage, even that they're not right for prelim, they're right for a final plat, I still wanted to know personally and I thought that you would want to know. And I do have evidence somewhat on the txdot one because I know I’m going to be bringing the advanced funding agreement. I personally called tom haggermeyer this morning. I know members of my staff have been working with the lcra, but I wanted to know a little bit more about that. And I’ve been hearing from the applicant on it and whatnot, but I wanted to know about it myself. I invited him this morning, he's preparing for our meeting this afternoon that I think a lot of people here in the audience are going to be at.
>> and I appreciate that and I also appreciate the experience that other members of the court have had with txdot and tceq, and I respect that as well. And that means a lot to me as well.
>> any other questions for joe or ms. Bolen?
>> one quick one. Are there any triggering of what we call the elgin clock? That's usually when we get to platting stage. Are there any things that we need to be aware of if we have more questions, need more time, we need to flesh out more answer snz this is a plan, not a plat. It's a discretionary plan norkts a mandated thing?
>> is there an answer to that? Was that an answer to that question?
>> yeah, it's a plan, not a plat.
>> okay. Joe, the agreement with txdot is a three-party agreement?
>> it's an agreement between -- actually, the advanced funding agreement is between the county and with txdot. What we do at the same time is do an indemnification agreement, because if y'all recall the last time we had an agreement like that, the wording is rather onerous to the county and we like to pass along that lovely wording back to the constituent involved, so we do an indemnification agreement to pass that right back to the developer. So there will be two agreements that go hand in hand whenever we do an advanced funding agreement.
>> okay.
>> so ultimately when this intersection gets done is up to bob day of txdot.
>> we want to be sure that we have the money sooner rather than later to kind of help motivate.
>> okay.
>> the answer is yes, it's up to bob day.
>> I thought I was reading yes into that. Any other questions? Can we get y'all to move down just one? Free up those two chairs there so we can hear from the applicant and maybe address some of the concerns and then we'll hear from others. Now, what I’m hearing from the applicant is that as to the intersection, the applicant has to pay for it, so it doesn't matter to applicant how fast we could get txdot to build that. That's a question for applicant. Right, mr. Gunn? And engineer?
>> bear with us one moment. We are full of answers.
>> thanks for adding full of answers to that, engineer.
>> your honor, and court, my name is greg wheeler with wheeler engineering. I’m the engineer for sweetwater and lazy nine m.u.d. I will try to shed a little bit more light on some of these issues, and let me start -- since we ended with txdot, let's start with txdot. When the original preliminary plan was approved, 2004, there was a great deal of discussion about the location of that intersection and what type of turn lane and lane widening and improved shoulder improvements might need to be made to make that a fully functional intersection for the number of lots that might be involved with that project. A traffic impact analysis was done for both sections of sweetwater ranch, and it had several recommendations for the improvements that would need to be made. We took those and began preliminary design work on these intersection improvements. We had extensive working sections with the south area office of txdot and with the district office. As it turns out, the district also had a project that they were currently designing to make intersection improvements at bee creek road and 71. That project is funded through the district. What we did with txdot is to take our designs for our intersection and those improvements on 71, and we have now married those to the txdot plans for their intersection improvements at bee creek road. That is according to pat cruiseway at the district office. As of last Friday that project on a an April letting schedule. I can't guarantee that that will happen, but that's what on their schedule district office.
>> April of '06?
>> yes, sir. I don't know how long it will take to construct that project, but they will essentially build the entire intersection -- they have taken our plans and their plans. This is bee creek road and 71. This is our proposed intersection of pedernales parkway and 71. And so the improvements will begin approximately a third of a mile east of our intersection and they will end approximately a third of a mile west of bee creek road. And what you will wind up with is a protected center turn lane for that entire distance, with the transitions and tapers on either end, and you will have fully protected left turns from the westbound lanes because that's where their problems are today is people turning left on bee creek road and the westbound traffic shooting right up behind them. That will be fully protected. There will be a free right turn lane at that intersection. There will be along the commercial lot a paved 10-foot wide shoulder so that we can have appropriate right turn access into the commercial lot, we'll have the primary driveway at the intersection that's currently controlled by signal. We'll have the 10-foot paved shoulder all the way up the distance east of our intersection that although txdot will not call it an acceleration lane, it will function as an acceleration lane.
>> rick, help me out with something so we have precision of language. You used the word, it's part of txdot's letting schedule. Does that mean an award or is that they let it out there for purposes of getting the project on the streets and there is x amount of period and there is x amount of period more before the transportation commission finally awards the project? Help me understand letting schedule versus you've got a project, go build it?
>> as I understand their letting schedule, and I’m not an expert on letting schedules. As I understand in my discussions with their staff, the letting is actually the advertisement for bids. And so if they advertise in April, they've probably open bids, I would suspect end of may, first of June. Then it will take them probably 60 days to get it to the commission for award. So there will probably be -- I would estimate that they would be under construction by the last quarter of this year.
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> in a perfect world, I would suspect that we would be advertising for bids for this first section of pedernales parkway and the first 22 lots of the subdivision, probably the first of the summer. With an anticipation of being under construction by the end of the -- of the third quarter, start of the first quarter. Because the first thing that we have to -- this is where this gets unique, texdot will actually build the interjecting roadway. Because it's all within their right-of-way. We will pick up at the right-of-way line. The very first thing that we have to do is build a bridge. Across one of these tributaries. What we will be building right here, equipment will come in there, but it's going to stay there for a while. Not like there is going to be a constant movement of equipment in and out on a daily basis. We have got a fairly significant spanned bridge to build it.
>> having gone through a lot of this on s.h. 130 in terms of the impact to our county roads out there, there is a lot of equipment that gets moved around and I’m concerned already up front that in a perfect world, which let's concede we don't have, that you are not going to have constructed improvements matching up under your best case scenario of you moving heavy equipment and people and vehicles on to that site that we need to be making left turns, right turn, whatever turns off of 71 and that's that's a concern for me, because I have been through this rodeo before on many precinct 2 projects.
>> I understand. Everybody has the same issue. There will be no equipment moving to the best of my knowledge on any county roads to get to this site. State highway 71 is a state road.
>> you are saying that texdot now plans to construct both of those intersections.
>> that's correct.
>> and as far as you know, there will be a letting in April, basically.
>> yes, sir.
>> okay.
>> well, now, if this is true, joe, why do we -- why do we have the -- the agreement?
>> texdot is funding this --
>> texdot is funding part of it as part of a safety project at bee creek road, but the piece that we need the advance funding agreement for is the developer fee that's being married to it. That's where we are the pass-through entity. It gets the developer's money to the state, then pull the two projects together into one.
>> the developer and texdot are ready, it's just a matter of us getting the -- the money part of the agreement in place.
>> we have the draft afa right now and what we will do is we'll create the mirror agreement with the developers so that they are almost identical.
>> okay. Any other questions about the intersection?
>> judge, again, if you would indulge me one moment, on the existing approved preliminary plan, for section 1, which is shown on this aerial photograph, I recognize that it may be difficult to see these lines, they -- the original second intersection that -- that ms. Bolin referred to is this reverse curve street that comes down a very steep hill and crosses a very significant tribute terri to bee creek -- tributary to bee creek. That was required for the first preliminary plan so that we would have two points of ingress and egress. Admittedly at the time it is not a highly desirable solution for the developer or for the county quite frankly or for anybody else. But if the revised preliminary plan for section 1 is not approved, then we are obligated under the terms of the approved preliminary plan to build the extra 7,000 feet of street, and destroy a very pristine stand of spanish oak trees. That is our obligation under the current approved preliminary plan. Is that it?
>> judge, also, I would like to -- I would like to point out that in order for us to have the second entry, what occurred was a property owner on 71 at our new location approached us and told us that their land was available for purchase. And right at $800,000. We determined that if -- if we could move this location and go to the second location, that we could save this grove of trees, we would not have a -- an exposed cut coming down the hill, that you could see from 71. And that we -- that we also could include some other open space, which would help us and that would be right behind the new second entryway. That land is under contract, if we don't get phase 1 amended preliminary, the contract of course will expire. And we will -- we will have to go with the old section 1 roadway. Before we put the land under contract, and before we proceeded, we of course realized that we were all into potential interim and amended preliminaries and so we -- we went ahead and honored the -- the moratorium. That's why we are just now coming before you. But we did not amend this phase 1 preliminary without coming to the Commissioners and to our Commissioner in particular and your staff before we ever put it under contract and before we ever made the first move to amend anything to explain that this is what we would like and if it's good for the county, and if it's good for texdot, then we ought to proceed. At no time during this time have we ever been told to stop proceeding so -- so I paid this engineer here about $100,000 to get this done.
>> don't tell us how much --
>> I don't know what he's charging me today, judge. [laughter]
>> it makes sense to me, but if there are issues with it, then I guess they will surface during this meeting. But the reasons for the change seem to make sense and I understand ms. Bolin's position to be that this -- that the alternative is better than the initial idea as to the second intersection, right?
>> we have less cuts, we have less fills, we have a little bit better sight line. We are --
>> entering at a place where you are still decelerating or accelerating down a hill, whichever the case may be, whichever side of the road that you're on. We now are in a flatter portion of the road, and the deceleration acceleration is somewhat over with. So, yes, it's a better situation for everybody and as -- as ms. Bolin pointed out to you, we have reduced the amount of streets, therefore excavation I think by 7,000 linear feet out here, we did not increase the number of lots. We reduced the number of lots.
>> joe, you would bring something a little bit more in the spirit of incrementallism. If the only thing -- that does make sense in terms of less cut, less impervious cover it makes sense. But did you have to tack on a whole lot of other things that raise a lot of questions related to --
>> let me explain [multiple voices]
>> I understand you are talking -- first of all there's 41 acres.
>> and [multiple voices]
>> let me explain it. Did you bring the exhibit with you?
>> [indiscernible]
>> Commissioner Sonleitner, the 41 acres is simply to fill the distance between the old plat and the new road and it's 100% open space. Not one lot exists in this 41 acres. It simply is not to leave a large gap in a plat that you all don't know what's going on. It's to be dedicated greenbelt. If you want us to take it off the plat we are pleased to do so. It's going to be deeded to the district. It does not ever have to be subdivided. We can deed it on meets and bounds description, we will deed it to the district at some later time and we will be happy to do that.
>> I’m feeling a little uncomfortable in terms of that somehow if you don't get this revision, you are blaming the Travis County Commissioners court for destroying the -- the stand of oaks when the reality is, that in trying to accommodate some legitimate schedules that you had and to be as accommodating as we could, within our discretionary actions, that's what you were going to do and we were going to give you permission to do it. So I really am very uncomfortable that somehow if you now have to do that stand, that you are blaming it on us, that's what you guys wanted to do to begin with. It was only in our trying to be accommodating on schedules, you could have had that worked outlet, that never would have been an issue today.
>> Commissioner, all that I was trying to explain to you is we did come to the Commissioners before we took action. We did ask permission to do so. But if it's not desirable, at this time, it's -- we regret that we spent the money to do it. But the 41 acres that's in question here, if you want it removed from the preliminary, it can be done with an eraser in about five minutes in the back room. We are tickled to death to take it off the plat.
>> let's leave it on for the time being, though.
>> rick, are you done on that.
>> your honor I guess this exhibit depict the 41 acres added to the revised preliminary. As he explained, it simply fills in the gap between the old section 1 preliminary to get over to the new roadway location. And it is in fact all open space.
>> okay.
>> our goal is not to do the hall and truck. Haul and truck. What's the -- what's the best alternative? Right now the hall and truck are -- is -- haul -- pump and haul.
>> pump and haul is option 3. If our goal really is to go ahead and have that wastewater treatment plant built by the time homes are occupied, how do we get that done?
>> as mr. Gun previously indicated, we were in hopes of having that draft permit from tceq by today. As it turns outlet and looks, itment probably be the end of the month before we have that document. We have spent the past year doing very extensive studies and field visits and evaluations of a variety of technical people from tceq and lcra predominantly on the spray irrigation fields. To make sure that they will satisfy the needs of the volume of water that we are going to have to dispose. We are in the final throes of having that all memorialized in the draft permit. So as soon as we have that draft permit, as bill said earlier, I think we will be able to put together a much more substantial schedule of when that plant could be completed. Is there a way to absolutely avoid doing any pump and haul if we run into any snags? The only other realistic option is the one that mr. Gun previously described, that is to build a lift station and a force main that would go back up a fairly lengthy distance east up highway 71 to falcon head basically, connect to a manhole. And I suppose that could be done in lieu of -- of doing a pump and haul. But the truth -- the honest answer is until we get the draft permit, I can't give you a hard and fast schedule when we think that's going to happen.
>> okay. Tceq regulates the pump and haul?
>> they do indeed. It's regulated through the regional offices, not regulated through the central permit offices.
>> and the regional office is located here in Austin?
>> yes, sir.
>> basically when you go to get that permit, you -- you estimate the quantity of waste that you think that you will have to pump and haul, they give you a permit for that. If you need to exceed it, you go back for a permit extension?
>> yes, sir. You can go back and ask. I don't know whether it will be granted.
>> okay. Any other questions regarding pump and haul? The -- we talked before been disturbing land, I think. About disturbing land, I think. And what's the plan regarding I guess minimizing the quantity of land that would be disturbed by the construction?
>> well, the -- the plan as it stands today is that we are going to -- we are going to do very discrete elements of the subdivision at a time. As I showed you earlier, the first phase of construction will be a very short portion of the primary entry road and that first little loop street that does 22 lots. That's the first phase, that's one of the discreet element that would be done. The next phase would be the portion of the boulevard that is required to access the remainder of the property. And to the extent that we could absolutely anticipate builder demands, we are probably looking at final subdivision plats that would not be any greater than 60 to 80 lots at a time. Because it -- it is just not -- you know, within the overall cash flow of this project, that it makes a logical progression of how the lots will actually probably be purchased and build upon. So -- so the phasing of the project has been set up so that it will follow a logical progression, the discreet elements, those elements could be controlled very carefully, and we are not going to go out here and try to do 600 acres worth of development at a time. It's not practical to do that.
>> complete buildout of both of these sections?
>> complete buildout.
>> one and two.
>> on what? Eight years?
>> eight years?
>> 10 years?
>> eight or nine.
>> so it would be coming in, phasing it into that --
>> we will bringing in subdivision plats and construction plans annually, semi annually for the next six to eight years.
>> okay. We wouldn't anticipate more than 200 sales a year. At this time we don't. We could get above that, but we don't anticipate it at this time.
>> okay. Trying to look at the magnitude of what we are dealing with here. Thanks. 7.
>> any other questions for rick or the applicant?
>> judge, if you will indulge me for a couple more bumper stickers about the plat notes. The first one is about the corporation of engineers. We have completed a very extensive analysis of the jurisdictional waterways within the property. Those studies have been submitted to fort worth district office of the corps, the corps has assigned the project a project number. We have a preliminary determination that indicates that all of the crossings of the jurisdictional waterways are less than a 10th of an acre of non-tidal waters, will be covered by a nationwide permit. We do not need any specific section 404 permits for any of these improvements. That work has been -- that work has been done for sections one and two. As far as the lcra, we have prepared a very extensive master plan for the non-point source pollution control system. That's been submitted to them, it's been through the first review. And we are in the second round of review comments and moving toward an approval of that master plan as we speak. So that's completed. Tceq, we have already talked about, the wastewater permit has been in process for -- for some 10 months now. And all of the construction plans for the utilities will have to be submitted to them. As part of the requirements of the utility district.
>> it seems like you have been making some forward progress in terms of more specificity. Is there some reason that that information was not shared on a more timely basis with the neighborhood and impacted neighborhoods in some kind of a public meeting where they would have more notice than last week to be able to ask some questions and to get more comfortable with this, or not. I’m just -- I’m just wondering about the timing of all of this. That if indeed we take what you just said there as being the complete truth, why wasn't that shared in a public meeting where I thought we had some pledges that more information would be shared in a timely manner and in a public setting so that we are not asking all of these questions here in court for the first time as opposed to gee, can they get more comfortable or not. And for us to be able to focus down on what are the results -- unresolved issues. I’m -- I’m just a little troubled, more than just a little troubled, I’m troubled by the -- the public meeting did not occur until last week and I think we had to ask that that meeting occur. As opposed to that it was scheduled on your initiative to -- to share this good information with -- with everyone involved and that we got all of the neighborhoods involved as opposed to -- to just some of the neighborhoods involved. I don't know, it's just one of those -- it's a trust factor in terms of everybody -- everybody has been through a lot. We have all been through a lot. It's just my goodness, where did the -- where did the public input process get tripped up here.
>> well, I -- Commissioner I’ll have to express some confusion on my part. I don't know that there is a public involvement process for preparing a preliminary plan. Per se. We had meetings for -- for the section 1 preliminary plan that got approved. What came out of that was that set of plat notes. A lot of obligations on our part to do a whole lot of work that's off balance sheet, it's not in the county standards anywhere, and we did that. We took that upon ourselves to accommodate all of that, we have done that work. All of that work has been provided to the agencies that were specified within the plat notes. Forgive me --
>> Commissioner, if I could address something here, the information that we just gave you about -- about the jurisdictional waters, that information was shared with you when we were here for the preliminary on the first section. Rick and I both were in the southwest growth dialogue group. That question came up at that dialogue, also. Concerning full permits. We also addressed it at that time. Many of the members that are here today of the homeowners association were in his office, his engineering office after some of those growth dialogues and received information from him. And there wasn't one single exhibit that we put under lock and key, they could have anything they wanted.
>> let me rephrase it then in terms of the concern. The first I heard any word of this, that this was coming back to our agenda was Thursday. Thursday morning and it was probably about the same time that I get an e-mail from christie muse, who had just found out about it by accident, I will let her explain how that happened, but it was just it seemed like people found out in a very back door kind of way as opposed to its fixing to come and to basically make sure that everybody had full knowledge and again to be able to get a lot of these questions around concerns out there and discussed so that this venue could be used to narrow the focus of our issues as opposed to for some of us this is the first time that we are hearing it. We don't get our agenda packet until Thursday afternoon. So Friday is like the first day that we get to see it. It's like if you want us to be properly briefed on this as well, to be able to respond to questions that we are getting outside of the precinct, I’m not in the loop on some of these things because it is isn't my precinct, that doesn't mean that I don't have a vote on this Commissioners court and want to be very well versed in terms of making a decision on this. I -- that's where my concern is that it's coming back? Why?
>> let me ask you what kind of information are you asked for? Take us back over the last six months, do you -- are you asked, is your office asked for information regarding where permits are, how they are coming along, do you get those kind of questions?
>> we do. And -- and I can tell you this is one of the most frequently open recorded subdivision. In fact we keep the files in a box. That is the point that I want here. There is nothing secretive about this thing. If anybody calls my office and asked for it, I give them the information. Let's not make this thing sound like all of a sudden something came up. Bill gun came to me, said I think that I need to do an open meeting, you know, probably in haste, we said okay let's do something, it was back in December, nobody wanted to do it in December because it was during the holidays, I said okay let's not do it, not make it sound like somebody is trying to pull something over on someone. This is not the spirit of this thing. This is a real simple deal. You have got people that don't want something to happen. You have got a developer that's trying to get something to happen. Let's get beyond that. That's what we have got here before us today. We might as well hear it all because there are some legitimate concerns. There are legitimate concerns about how you start this thing when the road is not done. I will be the first to say yes that is -- concerns me as well. But you know let's get beyond the stuff about oh, somebody is not being heard, somebody is not getting the information. You are right, Commissioner, there are plenty of things that we see on our agenda, if you want to know it, everybody knows how high profile this project is. I mean ask. If you want ana at t.n.r. To say on a weekly basis we want to get this thing to you this is going to be heavy lifting, there are people that don't want this to take place. But let's just call it what it really is. What you got is you have got a controversial deal. And we know that that's what the case is. So let's just deal with it heads up. If there's somebody that can't answer a question, then let's try to get an answer. If you can't get an answer that you are not satisfied with, well then, you know, we'll talk about that as well. But there is not anything in this process where I am convinced that the developer is trying to do something behind the scenes where they are not, you know, fulfilling and they are not giving information. Because to date I don't think that anybody has ever asked me, no one has called me, said I’m trying to get this from sweetwater, they are for the giving it to me because I will tell you, I mean, it's real easy to get information today. As a matter of fact by law you can't keep that. As maybe e-mails as fly around and -- as many e-mails fly around and all of the things that we have, you have got to be on jupiter to not know that these kind of things are open, they are available. That's where we are with this kind of thing. Let's move on because there's nothing secretive about this thing.
>> any other questions? For the applicant or the engineer? We do have residents who can v come down to address -- who have come down to address the court on this issue. Now is their opportunity to give their comments. If you give us your full name, we will be happy to get your comments.
>> good morning, thank you, I’m christie mews, thank you for listening. I’m with the hill country alliance and I’m also a resident a couple of miles from this project. I’m going to skip around a little bit because I was taking notes, I wanted to clarify a couple of things from earlier. First I want to thank the staff, I know they have worked way overtime on this. Particularly anna. Regarding the public meeting, the neighborhood association downstream from the development had been requesting a meeting with bill gun I believe three times. In the month of December. All three times those meetings had got cancelled. I e-mailed judge Biscoe, I may have e-mailed you on this I’m not sure Commissioner Daugherty requesting a meeting and I believe that -- I know that a neighbor in travis settlement also requested the meeting. I would be surprised if -- if bill gunn requested that meeting. I question that. The meeting was not truly a public meeting. Because there was no public invited or public notification for the meeting. It was a meeting for specific people. Several people have asked me how the meeting went. It was fairly well attended. But I just want to explain, it's very difficult when you are not technical and don't have the kind of education, rick wheeler is a very savvy business person, but just to give you an example of how issues are addressed, I mean, I asked about the wastewater facility because the wastewater facility on a map we have is located adjacent to a critical waterway, a critical water feature. And basically I was told that was wrong, but it is next to one of the major tributaries to bee creek road, excuse me, to bee creek. We asked about the possibility of seepage from pipes to reversing that water -- that waterway and basically we get an answer like well that won't happen, there won't be any seepage. That's the end of the discussion. So just to clarify kind of how the public meetings go. That's how it goes, we raise issues but it's very difficult to have the issues addressed. The question may be answered but -- but I guess I’ll move on from there. You all asked bill gun when he was going to start construction. He clearly told people at the public meeting that he was ready to roll trucks in 90 to 100 days. Today that was a big hem and haw. An unknown of when, that was what he told us. Regarding the plat notes, we've had a lot of discussion about the plat notes. The plat notes that were put on to the project in 2004, please understand they only require submittals of these kinds of applications, there's no requirement that these permits are ever going to be completed. They are only submittals. Ana said this, I want to reiterate. Everything in those plat notes are things that they would be doing anyway. What we really need to look at, at this project is the fact that it needs to meet the interim water quality rules. When we met in June of 2004, it was June 29th, you had a lot of citizens here, it was a big meeting that we all remember well, but very clear statements were made, we drew a box around the 271 acres, that he brought for preliminary approval. We told, you all instructed bill gunn that he would have to waive his grandfatherring rights. We used those words, anything above and beyond these 271 acres were going to adhere new water quality rules. You as our Commissioners acknowledged at that time that we didn't have adequate subdivision rules to protect water quality. We still don't have that. We have a step towards that in these interim quality rules. We are still not all the way there. You then instructed the staff to take a hard look at 873 and to write some subdivision ordinances. We left and that was the intent. I think that was good, a good moment. The public walked away feeling good. And bill gunn agreed to this. We had a lot of energy in the community at that time, about 30 of us met with Commissioner Daugherty almost immediately after that meeting to get rolling on working as partners on these interim rules. Or water quality rules. But all that energy got channelled into southwest Travis County growth dialogue. That process wasn't -- didn't have the purpose of writing ordinances. It was a discussion group. Phil gun -- bill gunn was asked to participate in that. He didn't attend meetings regularly and was asked to step down as a voting member of that group. Back to the interim water quality rules, staff recognizes a lot of time was going by, we were still vulnerable. Still no rules in place. They did their job, they brought rules to you on March 8th. On that day, sweetwater was -- did not have an an administratively complete section 2. The developers and attorneys came, they protested and nothing was done and the community was left vulnerable for yet another week. And in that week, actually, the day before the moratorium was put into place is the date he got his administratively complete status. I don't think that was your intention and that is what happened, but I think we need to go back and ask him to resubmit and be reviewed under the interim water quality rules. You said that you were looking to, I want to go back to a couple of key points here, correct a couple of things if I can. You said that you were looking to the tceq for permitting on this pump and haul. All I can tell you is I did talk to the actual person who is reviewing the project. He told me that pump and haul would be permitted, only for a contingency plan. There will be no permanent, no permit out there for him to use pump and haul to get started. That's what was told to me by the reviewer. If he does do that, it will be unregulated and unpermitted. Karen Sonleitner asked a good question, that would be if this commercial lot got developed would it be required to fall under the interim water quality rules. That question really wasn't answered by the developer. It would not. So if you approved the plans today, these two plans, you are furthering this grandfatherring motion. If you approve both of these, then, yes, that commercial lot is grandfathered in, we are kind of back to where we were before. Everything is grandfathered in. So when you clarified is this a plat or a plan, it's a plan. So whatever you approve today, is grandfathered, now under these interim -- excuse me, under the old rules. Not the interim water quality rules. Under the old rules. Please don't, please don't approve this today. I think that there's two other things, two other reasons why they need to be following the interim water quality rules, that's the critical water futures that -- that ana talked about that needs to be looked at. Even the water treatment plant which is right on one of them. I think that needs to be relooked at. Secondly the -- the rules that he needs to follow for how much land can be disturbed during the -- during the construction phase, that was the big problem with lick creek. There have been some guidelines set, both in the technical manuals about how much land can be disturbed during construction. If we make them go back, adhere interim rules, they will have to adhere that. If it's as little as five acres, more than five acres at a time, there's very specific bmp's that he has to follow, so please don't approve this today. Thank you.
>> I guess we ought to have one question and answer, that is basically is the -- is the proposed site for the wastewater treatment plant, you are saying over or near a tributary.
>> next to.
>> next to a tributary?
>> I don't know what she means by next to. In general --
>> come up so -- come on up so we can hear you on the mic. Grab a mic there, mr. Gun, respond to that. Of course sewer flows downhill. It's located at the lowest place, we will have several contingency plans as required by the tceq before we can get a permit. The plant of course is located in the lowest spot so that it can -- so the sewer can be collected. It can be processed, lifted up the hill to the spray area, that's common to all sewer plants everywhere. As far as the -- what we are talking about the critical features, what's in the interim plans, one of the items in your interim plan has to do with an environmental assessment that determines seepage, creeks, springs, that sort of thing. Of course in our development as ana already told you, most of that is in the drainage areas. That is where the creeks are. Those seepages will be on the sides. We already have buffers on the top of the bluffs. There are standards that you are going to have to write. You don't have them today. You don't have a criteria for someone to follow today. You say you might want buffers between 100 and 300 feet, but you don't say under what circumstance, for what side of the spring, who is to determine it, who is going to be licensed, what the -- what the approval authority is, who is accountable, none of that is written yet. You have to write those things. We have already been through all the drainage areas and the buffers required for the drainage areas and I think that we pretty well qualify under the new for the drainage setbacks, do we not?
>> we didn't review it under the interim rules, we reviewed it under our current rules. But that would be -- [indiscernible]
>> I understand.
>> I guess staff I need to ask, is there any common language within the confines of lcra regs and Travis County regs when it comes to water quality? Are they basically the same as far as embedded in the interim rules? I would say that --
>> do you want to tell them? Can you answer that question? I’m sorry, I meant to ask tom that.
>> the Travis County interim rules were based on -- on lcra's old Lake Travis non-point source pollution ordinance. At one point they were basically identical. The lcra amended that ordinance so now the county interim rule requirements and the lcra requirements are now slightly different. At one point they were virtually identical. I do on notice that lcra is one of the permitting -- as far as the plat notes. Anyway.
>> can I just make one comment about the lcra? They have submitted this master plan to the lcra for nps approval, if there's an occasion that they are on their way with that, I question that. I talked to the reviewer, he has not looked at the information that was submitted most recently, it's a big question mark. There's no indication whether or not it's going to meet the ordinance. The engineers that we've asked to look at the plan, tell us that there's just no way that it can. I think that we need to evaluate if it's actually going to be able to meet the nps ordinance. There's no indication at this time that it is. A lot of the lots on development, there's just no mechanism for capturing the runoff. They are actually talking about putting these controls in, the backs of the lot, that require four feet of soil to be brought in and added to the terrain in order to have a -- to have a way to catch the runoff from the lots. So it's -- some of the engineers that have looked at it said they haven't really seen that before. Really why I posed that question, it appears to be outside of the realm of the county interim rules, I’m going back to sb 848, a lot of other stuff. I’m trying to look at what other arena can -- can that water quality issue be addressed. That's why I pose the question. Looking at the -- I think -- answered the question, if there is a difference, a slight difference between what's embedded in the interim rules with Travis County and what's also there as far as lcra non-point solution amended. So that's -- I’m trying to -- just to clarify the record. I did chat with ms. Mews and others about a series of issues. Shortly after that meeting I met with mr. Gunn and his representatives in my office. During that meeting requested the public meeting. Mr. Gun probably already had been thinking about doing it, but I got back with you, apparently mr. Gunn agreed to meet previously. So I mean it -- as to who made that happen, apparently several of us chatted with mr. Gunn. But as a follow-up, I did meet with him and representatives in my office, it was one of the issues that I raised. Okay.
>> thank you, I’m the president of the hamilton pool road scenic corridor coalition. I feel compelled to remind everyone that our group is not against growth. We did not protest mr. Robuck's belvedere project. It's the kind of development that's being proposed. It's unfortunate mr. Gunn and forest city have not embraced mr. Ro buck's position. I’m going to say a dirty word today. In fact two dirty words, impervious cover. I mention this taboo concept not because I expect to see it embraced in county regulations during my lifetime, but because it is still relevant in any case. Politics aside, it is no longer a theory but a -- but a scientific fact that there's a very strong correlation between high impervious cover and degradation of water quality. And there's only so much that an engineer can do. Even an excellent engineer like rick wheeler to mitigate the effects of high impervious cover. We have been told that the impervious cover for sweetwater is 19.9%. Which sounds pretty good until you take a closer look. It's achieved by setting aside natural spaces and clustering development. Now, clustering is supposed to be a very good concept for, you know, environmentally, but it's not always -- doesn't always work out that way. There are ways to cluster, that are good and there are ways to cluster that can be overdone and improperly implemented in such a way that it damages water quality rather than enhancing. That's the case with sweetwater. Mr. Gunn tells us this Thursday night that lot sizes will range from 6,000 skeet to 12,000 square feet. At the low end that's seven lots per acre. Seven lots per acre. Each house will be a minimum of 3,000 square feet. 6,000-foot lot, 3,000 -- if it's two stories, 3500 square foot house and -- and you throw in the two car garage and the circular driveway, you are going to have a footprint of at least 3,000 square foot. So on on a per lot basis, you know, not even counting the patio and pool, you are talking about 50% impervious cover on each lot. Now when you add all of the roadways, each cluster, each cluster will have a local impervious cover of about 60%. I think that I’m being conservative there. 60% per cluster. And of course that's also the commercial tract that's been added. Which typically would be in excess of 70% of impervious cover. So --
>> add in the open space, what's the effect of that?
>> well, the open space, we heard it's on average it's 20%. Now --
>> okay. When you calculate --
>> in the cluster --
>> sure, when you calculate the impervious cover, though, I mean I thought that we were recommending sort of clustering development providing more open space, and I guess it depends on if you -- if you look at all of the aggregate of the tracts, then I guess --
>> on average, it's 20% approximately. And so that's -- but it's achieved by clustering, which ought to be good for the environment because you have less roadways, so on, but the clustering is so dense, and so close to the creeks, and on such terrain, that I think common sense as well as science will tell us that -- that the -- what's going to happen here.
>> how far is it from you, keith, the creek, bee creek in essence, how many feet?
>> it depends on where in the tributary it is. Is rick still here? Yeah. What's the buffer size?
>> [indiscernible]
>> 250 feet from the buffer, from the center line? Center line of the creek?
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> no, I’m not saying they are not buffers, I’m just saying that -- well here's the bottom line. You have 1800 large houses on tiny lots, crammed together like sardines overlooking bee creek, with -- with 1800 houses, 1800 or more cars, probably 3,000 cars, dogs pooping, fertilized lawns, what's going to happen is there will be a storm event or a sequence of storm events that overwhelm the -- the storm water retention ponds, and will send a torrent of polluted water unabated to Lake Travis. You can't get away with that much density, that much impervious cover, it's diagnose to happen regularly, we are not talking every 10 years, it's going to happen maybe annually. But significant pollutant loads rushing down these channels to Lake Travis. So I understand that density limits are not on the table here. All that we are asking is what christie pointed out. That the Commissioners at least honor the agreement that was made in June of 2004 when the sweetwater project received preliminary plat approval for the first section. Subsequent sections should be subject to new and more stringent rules for protecting water quality. Be they promulgated by the county or by the lcra. To me, you know, a deal is a deal. A deal was made that day, may have been a gentleman's agreement, but it still ought to be held up.
>> gene, may I ask -- you are a business guy, I -- we're deal guys. Compare this tract to robuck's. You know this tract has very, very few similarities with joel roebuck's tract. In terms of all of the creeks, if you go and take joel's tract and you apply interim rules, joel --
>> you pass.
>> no. I mean joel's tract I mean you and I have been on it. I mean it's nowhere near the elevation changes, the terrain, it's a -- there's for question that the sweetwater tract is so beautiful nobody wants anything to do with it. Maybe we should have bought it! Versus rhyme percent or whatever because -- rhyme percent or whatever because you are talking about something that is so visibly beautiful.
>> I’m not talking about aesthetics, I’m talking about water quality.
>> I’m talking those two tracts can't be compared, you would like for this to be like the roebuck tract. That's not fair to compare the two. They are two very different pieces of land. If you back to the deal, I mean, gene if you had taken and put tons of money into something, maybe somebody should, you know, I hope that everybody in western Travis County is watching all of this. It would scare me to death if I owned a sizable tract of land off of 71 or off of hamilton pool to think that you know what, I waited 20 years too long to do something with my land because there is so much scrutiny out here now, you, gene, couldn't have bought your acreage today and to have to comply. I don't -- I mean I don't want you to live anywhere other than where you want to live. Just like everybody in this room, I want you to live where you want to live. But there is a principle here. Maybe we just get down to principles. I guess if we just want to draw a big circle along -- I mean around a certain part of this community and draw a line through it and say this is do not enter, into not come in here, there are things that you can do to tracts of land that you can absolutely -- you know as well as I know, that you are just going to end up in court because of somebody -- if somebody comes out, or going to ends up at the legislature, which is what the whole 2833, all of the things that we know are coming at us, again, I’m still hopeful that you can get people for the point where do some of these things that might not have been the thing that you can do because if you don't, then you just --
>> I absolutely agree, Gerald.
>> that we are in a fight.
>> no, I agree.
>> I figure where we are is that we get people to stand here, we get people to stand here and it's -- it's damaging, you know, to both sides. And, you know, I think that both you and I are pretty reasonable people.
>> how do I start off -- how did I start off my talk? We are not against development. It's just the extremes. I think that you are right we should get away from extremes and move towards the middle a little bit.
>> you can't say that it's extreme.
>> that's exactly my point.
>> you can't say that it's extreme when it's 19% impervious cover. You can go in and absolutely find a calculation that you can say but that's 50% on that 3,000 square feet. Well, gene, that's not the way to do the math. I mean do the math use it the way it needs to be used. The environmental community is the one that came up with cluster right?
>> correct.
>> at some point in time, you tell somebody, you go out and tell me how to develop something. We want it clustered. Well now because the clustering that you are going to do is going to whack -- I don't know if it's going to happen once a year, none of us know that without a crystal ball, but at one time we told people no you can't do this kind of development because you have got way too much impervious cover. I think everybody understands that, you know, impervious cover -- impervious ground cover does yield some detrimental things to water quality. But we better find a way to say okay what really is the rule and what do we -- how are we going to predicate what we are going to do on that rule? I’m confused about whether or not if clustering is not the thing to do, which is kind of what I’m being told.
>> I said there's good clustering, bad clustering, we have done a bad job of distinguishing what the good clustering and bad clustering is for the sake of the development community. When I say we I mean the environmental folks. I think we need to do a better job of spelling it out. Let's not wash over the fact that there are some really horrific cases of clustering. Where the term has been abused and we haven't gotten the benefit but in fact have hurt the situation.
>> it is the rule. If you want --
>> it's not a rule.
>> if you want to take the land and say tell how much impervious cover, I don't think very many people at the state house would tell you that 20% is an exorbitant number.
>> that's the wrong place to ask the question.
>> well unfortunately they do make our rules. I mean I’ve got as many problems over there as you do but, I mean, we deal with the hand that we are dealt. I just wanted to make sure that you --
>> I’m trying to look at the situation rather than a rule like 20%. Say look at the actual development plan and step back and say what does common sense tell you as well as what the size of the --
>> one final question. I think that I understand the clustering argument. But there are specific water quality protection standards in our interim subdivision rules that you have in minds? That you think that we should apply?
>> no. At the end of my statement, I was saying since we can't use impervious cover, or clustering rules, things like that, let's at least use the most stringent rules that we have at our beck and call, which is the interim rules and the upcoming lcra nps revisions, I’m not, you know, didn't want to get into the specifics on it. Apply the strongest standards that we can, given that we've had the opportunity when the first section was approved. Say hey, let's put a box around that first section as christie said, do this -- do the remaining sections as best we can.
>> okay.
>> thank you.
>> mr. Penbridge, ms. Penbridge.
>> hi, I’m nell penbridge, I don't know where to begin. Not to repeat what christie said. I think we had some of the same concerns. Commissioner Sonleitner mentioned a trust factor. I think that has really hit home this morning to me. And I’m kind of putting aside what I had thought about mentioning. And as christie said and I want to repeat, we were told Thursday evening that construction would begin 90 to 120 days, you know, best scenario. Today we are hearing that's not it. That can't happen. We also heard that the left-hand turn lane would -- we would have to endure without one during construction until families moved in. Then there would be a turn lane. I am hearing now that that is totally up in the air. That's not necessarily so. Either way. I mean whether families move in or not, it's up to texdot. That's a huge concern. I know, I hope I’m sure most of you also saw Sunday's paper the metro state section front page, it has highway 71 having the second most fatalities in Travis County. And five of those, of the nine, occurred almost in front of where that sweetwater project is sited for. If you hitch in the area, drive that road, it is notoriously dangerous. Everything that I wanted to say today comes right back to highway 71. We don't control that. Texdot does. Adding a commercial site to what has been approved, what there was to be a fence around that was not initially included, seems inappropriate and adding to that highway 71 problem. I mean yeah we can make sure there's a right or a left and people don't do. But people find ways not only that. I can imagine oh, a year, two years down the line, somebody -- the developer coming in, saying we want to make an access here. All kinds of eventualities are possible. Basically just grandfathering it in. Here we go grand fathering again. Apparently no interest, no one needs it, no one wants it at this point, mr. Gunn stated that, no interest, no plans. Why would it be approved then. That was what was decided in -- not the intent of what was decided in June of '04. I guess I’m going to sum this up. Basically, I mean to back to say that we don't want sweetwater is not the case. We want and -- we do want belvedere, that's not the case at all. We want growth smartly planned and looks out for the health and welfare of everybody. And quarter quality and people and traffic. Everything. And this is where sweetwater just it doesn't happen. It simply doesn't happen. If it -- if this -- I urge you not to approve these two preliminary plans today. One because of 71. And the turn lanes. Until -- unless that can be proved that they can begin construction and they can -- excuse me, that they may not begin the construction until there are left-hand turn lanes in place, that would I think relief a whole lot of concern. The pump and haul, is the second thing. We were not told in any way, shape or form what was said here today. In fact there was a stand by or an alternate method, we were told that was going to be the method that we would have to -- that would have to be until the -- until the wastewater treatment plant was set up and completed. Apparently there are no firm details on that. To have that be allowed is unconsciousable. It should not happen. I urge you not to include accept cans of that. Acceptance of that. The third thing is the commercial. I think I mentioned it. It goes right back to 71, being I can't grandfathered in. That was not what was expressed to the public on June 29th '04. And I think that I have -- I think that I am done, I urge you not to go ahead with this.
>> thank you. I should indicate that I will need another week. And what I can do is post this item first next week so there won't be a lot of waiting around. The other thing is that I know that I have seven or eight legal questions, which we need to discuss in executive session and it looks like itment be this a -- like it will be this afternoon before we go into executive session anyway. So -- so I don't know whether everybody else is ready, I need another week on it.
>> excuse me, judge. Lield I could to verify something that you said. I did say that we will start work on the project in 90 days. We have already advertised in the newspaper, going to advertise again for the water line construction, that line will begin within 90 days. As the lcra tank and there's a 24-inch lane to be extended to the main entrance, it is being bid out. She is correct. That's what I did say.
>> okay. Yes, sir?
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> what I was informed is that the gathering of the wastewater and the effluent irrigation will all occur in the little Barton Creek watershed. So this tributary of Barton Creek is really getting hammered with a lot of pollutant loading considering that the shops at the galleria is also in this same little Barton Creek and it is also other development in and around village of bee cave including spanish oak subdivision also drains to that creek. And what I heard here just sitting in the audience hearing the back and forth, hearing the questions and so forth is it's my understanding here that we're talking about a sewage treatment plant being in the bottom of the stream. That's what I was hearing in critical water quality zones. And then to combat gravity, pumping that, initially you gather the sewage at the lowest spot because as we all know, the law of gravity, it flows downhill. Then treating it in some unspecified way and then pumping it uphill to be spray irrigated over 300-acres, it sounds to me like this could be a sequence of packing so many lots close together in a small amount of buildable area, the clustering that was mentioned, because conventionally in this area you wouldn't be gathering sewage in one spot, treating it and then pumping it somewhere else and spray irrigating it, you would be doing a lot by lot septic approach. So the only reason I could think that this is necessary is because you're really packing the houses too close together to have a site by site typical septic system. I think y'all are aware that spray irrigation is sometimes controversial. You probably saw that with Lakeway where they were spray irrigating in a field next to a school. Instead of spray irrigated, it could certainly be drip irrigated. It could be underground. So I just have a lot of questions why this particular method was chosen. It was mentioned seeping. I guess ms. Bees mentioned seeping of pipes down in the critical water quality zones. Well, at every joint of pipe where it joins another pipe, you have a potential of seepage. The development mr. Gunn mentioned lift stations or perhaps it was mr. Wheeler, so in between all the pipe joints and the lift stations, which are necessary I guess because it's a very rugged topographic ali, there aren't enough -- at each of those junk churz there's a chance for the leakage of untreated or partially treated effluent and those kinds of consequences. Finally I think there's a matter of principle here that it seems like the good faith required by a developer to follow the interim water quality rules, whether or not you are offering magazine nan mustily to grandfather them from such rules, and it seems like they're probably making enough money that if they were good neighbors they could come back and they could come up with a plan that doesn't have this devastating wastewater irrigation and that follows the interim storm water quality rules, and that what will happen will be quality development that will underpin how this area looks and how the rest of it builds out, and that in the end I think quality will matter more than quantity of the number of units and square feet you put on the ground. To think such things as tax base and the other things that you are justifiably concerned about, and I don't think that's being no growth. I think that's acknowledging the resources that are drawing the development to begin with and giving it scientifically grounded protection. That's just my, I guess, seat of the pants appraisal of the situation as I heard it. I might have missed some of the details because I am coming into this rather late and I apologize for that if I mischaracterized any of the facts. Anyway, that's all I have.
>> thank you. Yes?
>> good afternoon, judge and Commissioners, colin clark with save our springs alliance. And I appreciate you continuing to take our comments. I guess to start off, broadly I think in 100 years people will look at something like this and say that really wasn't a good idea to put 1800 homes on a really hilly piece of land, but I understand y'all have to work within the constraints placed on you by the legislature and your own rules. So with those in mind, I offer these comments. Developers generally don't like to go back to a regulatory agency with a change of the project and have to get another approval, go through another hearing like this. They don't like to do that. So this is an opportunity for y'all as a Commissioners court to make this project better than you would otherwise. As you know, you aren't under any legal obligation to approve the revised plan. They want you to approve it because it benefits them. So if you're going to consider that, then why not create some benefits for the public from the people of Travis County and the water of Travis County that you might not be able to otherwise. And specifically I want to talk about the wastewater, which y'all talked about a little. The lazy nine m.u.d. As far as we know has no approval from tceq for pump and haul or for an on-site wastewater system. The pump and haul contract with eco resources would have them pump the sewage either across the pedernales river west or to hornsby bend all the way on the other side of Austin. Obviously to get to either place they will be driving on 71 with trucks of raw poop and sewage. Obviously that's dangerous and it's fool hardy, and mr. Dunn has said that it's sort of a last resort approach. And if that's the case, then why couldn't the county say, if you guys want any more approvals, you have to have a final permit from tceq for your on-site system. Mr. Dunn mentioned they're anticipate agriculture draft permit. That's one step of the process. Then they would get a final permit from tceq. If you guys said to the developers, if you want our approval, you've got to get a final permit from tceq, then we might eliminate some of this risk that they're going to start putting lots in the ground, collecting raw sewage and hauling it by trucks along 71. And I also worry if you don't put in some stipulation to that effect, the precedent is going to be developers are going to run out and -- well, who cares if the tceq permit doesn't come because they can just pump and haul the sewage away. And that could be a very dangerous precedent for the county. Regarding how they would get the pump and haul, they've got to build a collection system anyway, and that's spelled out in their pump and haul contract. So the collection system goes to a lift station, then they would take the sewage in a truck and then take it to points down the road. Mr. Gunn mentioned that they could rent a plant, you put it down at the end of the pipe. So they have an on-site opportunity to treat the sewage, the first however many lots coming through there. So that's another opportunity where the county could say, okay, guys, if you want us to provide your plans, you've got to agree that you're going to take care of that wastewater on the site and not haul it around our dangerous highways. So that's on the wastewater side. Regarding the water quality, mr. Dunn mentioned that he thinks that the revised plans meet the interim rules as regards the parameters. Why not put that in writing? If they want to come back to y'all for another approval, say okay, guys, you're changing this project around, meet our interim rules. And if they think they can do it, then they could demonstrate that to you. And as regards Commissioner Daugherty's idea, maybe we should have just bought it, let's not assume that that possibility isn't out there. I think the voters of Travis County would go for a minor tax increase to make a wonderful park on some of the most stunning canyon land we have in the county. So don't rule that out. I think that concludes -- again, you're not under any legal obligation. So if they do want something from y'all, why not get something in exchange and in the absence of that we would ask you not to approve the plan as proposed. Thanks.
>> yes?
>> thank you, judge and Commissioners to having me here today. It's not the first time I’ve spoken to you. I’m speaking as a board member for the travis settlement homeowners association. We represent hundreds of downstream neighbors to the sweetwater neighborhood. We are no no growthers. I actually resent being portrayed that way because the neighborhood I live in is filled with a lot of professional people, developers, land planners, lcra engineers, people that know about what's going to work and what's not going to work. So we're basing our concerns on just the reality, the common sense of it. We want to be partners for growth in this area, we want to be partners with mr. Gunn to see what we can do to make this the best type of development we can do that fits with this part of Travis County.
>> and your name?
>> (indiscernible). We want to be partners. We requested meetings with mr. Gunn repeatedly and they were cancelled by him. Just a small group. We weren't going to overwhelm him with the whole neighborhood. It was just a few officers, that includes regular people. We just wanted to get some facts from him before we came to Commissioners court and before we twoant a public meeting so we knew where it was at and where it goes to the public permits. I’ve sceated some of the records may self. We do have serious concerns about this neighborhood, the development's ability to meet the lcra guidelines. Lcra is not blet letting us know any information about this, but clearly lr issues about capturing storm water and all of the pieces that were outlined already. I won't go through that again. We as downstream neighbors have concern about water quality in the creek as well as quality in our wells. We all own wells in this part of the county, well maintained, not that deep of a depth on wells. And so according to several professional opinions of hydrologists, people affiliated with universities, they say many times with water contamination it will be apparent in a groundwater situation in a well before it would even be picked up on water quality in a creek, which considers the low density neighborhoods that currently exist in the area that do operate on wells, we have huge concerns about contamination in that way because lcra is not planning on piping water to my neighborhood that I’m aware of, so that leaves me in a bit of a situation with my ability to have clean water. Well documented already is the traffic issue, the left turn lane. It just needs to be done before construction and I think the county does have the ability to strongly encourage mr. Gunn to forego starting home construction and certainly have people move in when there is not a left turn lane completed and there's lots of ways to put some pressure on txdot. And I’m happy to assist in that. I would just like to make sure that that piece is one of the most important pieces on top of the water quality issue. The wastewater system planned on the westbound of bee creek with piped effluent to be sprayed, seepage is a concern. Every single person that I’ve talked to say that seepage is a reality. That a pipeline crossing the creek is crossing through the neighborhood. There's lots of potential for it to seep out and cause the worst type of organic type pollution. The homeowners association is concerned about the pump and haul, obviously. Without a tceq permit, that seems ridiculous to me that that would even be allowed. In summary we would like to ask a few things of mr. Gunn and his partners. We know that they putting a lot of time and money into this project. I understand that. I’ve been a business person for 15 years at st.david's hospital, so I understand profitability and how costs need to be balanced with all of the issues. A left lane before the construction is not too much to ask. I also ask that if the commercial is even approved, which I don't think it should be, because it been tacked on, it's just another thing to sell, no gas station at the commercial I think was the amount of canyon land and the amount of creek house that we're talking about, which is the homes putting a gas station or a car wash or something that's going to be hosed down everyday is just not on. We think the infrastructure should go in first before we start having the homes being built out. I ask that you please not approve this before you've given a lot of thought to the real issue. It's not a no growth thing. To be lumped into this you don't want it is offensive. We just want to have some answers. When we go oz a homeowners independently, we don't want to overwhelm mr. Gunn, we want to approach him and work with him. Like I said, I’d still like to can request to have a meeting on a small scale with him to continue to keep that open dialogue. It's become a trust issue because the dialogue hadn't be there. I spent a year of my time on the southwest growth dialogue, which was a great experience. I think a lot of people came together and there was some positive outcome to that. But we're at the point now where it's an approval or not approval. You don't need to approve it today. I think it warrants more time. I appreciate judge Biscoe acknowledging that he may personally need more time and I hope you all will keep an open mind to the issues that I’ve outlined today. And please try to consider putting them under the interim rules because that was what we said in June, putting -- and Karen said it and I was so pleased when we came out, putting a line around those initial accuse rage and now we're looking at a lot more. Please consider the interim rules with regard to this development. Thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> [ inaudible ]. Just on Thursday I heard about this, and it just seems to me that, you know, I really would like to have this -- the commercial and this project held to the interim rules that were decided on on July 20 20 -- whatever day it was in July. And I don't know. It just seems that there's been a whole bunch of (indiscernible) that I’m learning about. And considering the high visibility of this project, there just seems to be an effort to keep it out of visibility through the many, many, many complexities of this. And people like me, we really can't understand a whole bunch of it, so we don't know the questions that we're supposed to ask or how to go about finding that. And then I hear about people who are a lot more adverse about asking these questions not being able to get headway on getting answers themselves, so how can I as a person who is a lot more out of the loop be able to even find out? I think that maybe at the county level that there should be maybe a weekly synopsis of what is going on. That is sent out to the homeowners commissions that would be of interest so that they can respond and be informed. Thank you.
>> thank you. Last opportunity?
>> my name is john hatchet. I’m a neighbor to the sweetwater development project. Just a few things I wanted to say. The second entrance seems like a major improvement, changing it from where it was to where it's going to be. And saving the hardwoods that are there. There's a way to do that and I’d encourage that. I’d like to see section 2 try to achieve a better water quality standards that were in the interim rules. I think that was something that the developers kind of committed to when they had section one approved. And I think they might just need some encouragement to try to achieve that. The traffic conditions, perhaps there's a solution with some temporary traffic controls during construction. I don't know if that's on the jurisdiction since it's a txdot road, but maybe sheriff's personnel or something to direct traffic during the initial construction might be an option. And then a question about whether Austin might need to approve anything since the spray irrigation is going to be inside the e.t.j. I don't know if that inadvocacy Austin even to be an approving party in the development. So that pretty much are my concerns that haven't already been expressed by other people.
>> anybody disagree with the notion that the change as to the second intersection makes all the sense in the world? That's a no brainer there, right? We're all in agreement on that. Okay.
>> we've narrowed the issues. That was the point here.
>> we will have to discuss it with tom this afternoon, mull over this, maybe get some other issues addressed between now and next Tuesday is when I think I’ll have it back on, is that okay? Any problem with that? Now, when we discuss this with council in executive session, that is between the lawyers and the Commissioners court by law, and so our next open court opportunity will be next week. And with that, do we need an hour, hour and a half?
>> how about and hour and 15?
>> I move that we recess until 1:45.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
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, January 11, 2006 7:25 AM