Travis County Commissioners Court

January 31, 2006
Item 20

View captioned video from morning session.
View captioned video from afternoon session.

20. Consider and take appropriate action on the following: a. A phasing agreement between Travis County and the developer, forest city sweetwater, l.p.; b. Sweetwater ranch section 1, preliminary plan in precinct 3 (561 total lots, 544 residential, 16 mud and homeowners association lots and 1 commercial lot - 311.4 acres - state highway 71 west - no fiscal required for this preliminary plan - sewage service to be provided by lazy nine mud, (no etj). C. Sweetwater ranch section 2, preliminary plan in precinct 3 (1296 total lots, 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 mud, no etj). Good morning.

>> good morning.

>> I guess we need to lay out exactly what we have before us. There are six or seven issues based on -- on the numerous conversations we've had over the last few months. So lay those out, give staff's position. It's important for us I this I to lay out exactly what filings we have, requested today, I think the dates are important, too. Right? Joe gieselman, ana bolin with the transportation natural resource department. What you have before you are -- are two separate preliminary plans. As you may recall, the first section was approved many, many months ago. The applicant is -- is asking approval of the revised section 1 plan. Also a new approval of a -- of a section 2 of the sweetwater ranch.

>> joe, can we get the date of the approval of section 1.

>> yeah, we will. Let me go through that, because the first issue that I want to address. That is the set of rules, that t.n.r. Is using, to evaluate compliance with county policy. In all aspects, we are -- we are using chapter 82 as it existed before the court adopted what's called the interim rules. And the applicant is -- has filed documents in such a way that he's entitled to our review of his plans under the chapter 82. This is important because I think there was some expectation, even during the debate, of the first section that the applicant would -- would conform to a yet to be approved set of regulations. In the event that those regulations were adopted, second submittals. S Commissioners court first approved the preliminary plan with a phasing agreement on June 29th, 2004. And -- and we went back and looked at the transcript as well as the phasing agreement to determine where there was this ambiguity about what set of rules [indiscernible] any second submittal. The motion that was made at the time, it was for the court to approve the preliminary plan before us in phase 1, conditioned on the developer's agreement to apply to subsequent phases, that would be phase 2, 3, et cetera. And any new standards that the court adopted between now and when phase 2, with the subsequent phases are filed. That intent was embedded in the -- in the agreement, the phasing agreement that was adopted by the court and the developer. The precise wording is the developer agrees -- that approval, disapproval or conditional approval of future applications for preliminary plans or final plats, for any part of the property that is not included in sweetwater ranch section 1, the balance of the tract. Shall be governed by the orders regulations, ordinances, rules, expiration dates, and other properly adopted requirements in effect at the time a complete application for that preliminary plan are filed -- is filed. The developer submitted the application for sweetwater, section 2, preliminary plan on November 22nd, 2004. And it was deemed complete on March 14th, of 2005. The Commissioners court adopted the interim rule on July 25th, 2005. So clearly the applicant filed a completed plan for section 2 before the court adopted the interim rule. Now, the applicant submitted a revised plan for section 1. This was the one that was approved back in -- back in June 29th, 2004. During the summer, the Texas legislature passed senate bill 848. It was new law that went into effect April 27th, 2005. Almost immediately after the bill was passed. But senate bill 848, what it does is vest the applicant with the rights to follow the regulations in effect at the time when he files a plan for development that gives the regulatory agency fair notice of the project and the nature of the permit sought. The applicant filed a revised section 1 preliminary plan on August 10th, 2005. After the court's adopt of the interim rules. The applicant effectively told the grandfather [indiscernible] by submitting on June 9th, 2005 a master development plan that covered the entire area of the revised section 1 preliminary plan. And met the requirements, the fair notice requirements of senate bill 848. So in effect we were put on notice about the intent of the applicant to develop his plan and what type of permit he sought in the filing of his master development plan.

>> what's the date of the master plan.

>> June 9th, 2005. Again that preceded the July 25th adoption of the interim rule. With those laws and county regulations in place, t.n.r. Has evaluated the submittals based on chapter 82. The subdivision regulations adopted by the court that preceded the interim rule. That's not to say that the -- that the submitted plans don't conform in some ways to the interim rules. Yet in fact the -- the resubmittal of the preliminary one plan does include setbacks and things that were in the interim rule as adopted by the Commissioners court. But it wasn't the requirement of the county to have the applicant do that. So the resubmittal is closer to what the court had adopted in the interim rules, but when we make a recommendation with the Commissioners court, it is based on conformance with chapter [indiscernible] at the time it existed before the interim rule was approved. Further, there is nothing in our regulations, either chapter 82 or the interim rule that regulates land use or regulates impervious cover. So we have no basis to make comments on wloop a use is permitted -- whether or not a use is permitted or whether there's too much density or whether there's too much impervious cover. These are just not in our regulations, are not basis of our comments to the applicant. This is relevant only because a lot of the comments that were made with regard to the sweetwater applications, in some way deal with the -- with the -- the amount of traffic generated or the runoff of the development, the intensity of the development, all of those may be of concern to the community. But they are just not something that the county regulates in their current regulations.

>> joe, help me out on one other date. One of the things that we do look at has to do with the availability of water and wastewater to this particular area and the interim rules firm up clarity in terms of don't give us a piece of paper that says that it's a possibility that you have service. Show us more. What are the dates of the lower colorado river authority in terms of the service letter to either phase 1 and/or phase 2.

>> let me get the specific dates for you. I don't have them in front of me.

>> especially phase 2. In terms of whether the lcra has indeed acted upon a service commitment to the lazy nine m.u.d.

>> that comes under the health and safety code. But then when we also are able to apply our own experience with previous developments, that -- so that we can address the public safety, of constituents all over the county, that development be done in a very responsible manner, not just saying this is the best place that I can develop, it's the most beautiful piece, but what is that going to do to people who -- who travel in that area?

>> we will -- we will get to the state highway 71, if that's specifically the safety issue that you are talking about. But even with that, I mean, if -- if public safety is a consideration, should manifest itself in our development regulations. We do have standards for, safety standards that we have adopted. So -- so what I’m trying to say is that our reviews are not arbitrary. We have safety rules that would apply to site distances and such things. We would apply them, if they are adopted by the Commissioners court as a rule of governing plat review. So I just want to assure the court that we are not coming up in and making up rules as we go. They are there currently. Now, let's address state highway 71 because I want to make sure that we respond to your question. State highway 71 is a state highway. We typically will rely on another jurisdiction for comments -- for comments on their jurisdiction. It's the city of Austin or another esd, for instance, for emergency fire protection or -- in this case txdot with regard to the safety of the intersection of the subdivision streets with the state highway. Do we have comments from the state with regard to the safety of the intersection being proposed by sweetwater ranch. Further last week my safety engineers traffic safety engineers and their safety engineers went to the site, to look again at the intersection. The -- the issue is -- when are some improvements needed to 71 to improve the safety? 71 currently has -- it's a -- it's in hilly terrain, so you have some -- some certainly some sight distance issues because of the hills, both horizontal and vertical curvature of the roadway. The state currently has plans to improve what is currently a high accident location at bee creek road, so they already have committed some safety improvements. Part of those improvements will extend to the intersection of where sweetwater will tie into 71. We call those the permanent improvements. And sweetwater will participate financially participate in the creation of a left turn lane, along that stretch of roadway. Txdot will signal a traffic signal at bee creek road. That's relevant for a couple of different reasons. [indiscernible] the developer and the state restripe highway 71 so as to provide a safe harbor for turning traffic. The existing pavement with, a restripe in such a way to create a left turn lane, still have through lanes on the other side. I don't want to say that will eliminate accidents. What that is likely to do is improve safety by giving turning -- getting turning traffic out of the way of through traffic, so you will substantially reduce the rear end accidents. But you still may have turning movement accidents and that's true of any -- any location where you have high speed and higher volume traffic in opposing motions. But the -- the striping of 71 will improve the turning movements at the intersection of sweetwater's main road with state highway 71. And that improvement will be -- will be very similar to what will be provided by the permanent improvements in terms of the permanent turn lane, included as part of the signalization of bee creek road. The signal itself, once that is installed, does a couple of things that helps improve safety. Number one it stops traffic. People will begin to anticipate that there is a potential for a red light. On the horizon. And so they will approach that area more cautiously than they do now which is -- they are going to barrel through at highway speeds. So it will slow down the traffic throughout the stretch that sweetwater is fronting along state highway 71. The second thing the stoplight will do is create gaps in the opposing traffic. So now what you will see, going through the frontage along the sweetwater ranch are platoons of vehicles, that will be coming in groups. In between those platoons of traffic, there will be opportunities for traffic turning into sweetwater to enter into sweetwater safely. With that -- that improvement is, it's plan and program, probably will not go in before sweetwater plans to start construction. And so the striping of the lane is yet another way for them to address the turning movement issue at 71.

>> what about the report, though, about all of the -- of the accidents that had occurred on 71, and especially during that -- through that parted of the county?

>> that is primarily occurring at bee creek road. That is where you have a county road tying in with 71. So the -- so the high level of accidents that you have been hearing about or read in this the newspaper, at that location, that is -- that is the location where signal will be located by the permanent improvements.

>> joe, I’m troubled by the idea that we are willing to settle for improvements are committed to versus improvements are completed. There's a huge difference. When we are dealing with txdot, sometimes that can be several months or as we have found on many of our highway improvement projects, that I dealt with up in precinct 2, many years and I’m deeply troubled by that. I was born in los angeles and learned to drive in houston. It takes a lot to really freak me out on highways, but I’m there on 71. I mean, it used to be ray for me I drive 183. I am zair scared to death every time I get on 71. It has nothing to do with just that little piece there around bee creek. That whole stretch is awful. I don't like the idea of interim improvements which are basically chicken lanes, and it's frightening. And I’m just -- I’m not there and at some point we have got to turn this massive ship around and say there is a huge difference between somebody committing to improvements, which I appreciate, I really appreciate that people are committing to be partners in improvements. But to me it's all about completion. I need to see completion dates and I don't see any of that here. And --

>> the state intends to start construction in July. And be completed by November.

>> and how does that jive with proposed construction going on within that -- within that proposed plan? Subdivision?

>> the phase-in -- sweetwater construction [indiscernible]

>> I don't have that in front of me.

>> I’m not satisfied with interim improvements. I think chicken lanes, I think txdot's way that they handle things, they have done that up and down 1325, up and down 1431, it's like that's how they do it. It is a really bad way to do it. It just is. What's the least we can do just to get by and give people the impression that you have a safe harbor. You don't have a safe harbor. You are just sitting in the middle of traffic that is zooming past you at 65, miles per hour, if you are lucky. It goes faster than that. That area scares me, it's not just this segment.

>> Commissioner, are you -- are you saying that it's not better than doing nothing leaving it like it is? Because let me assure you, there are a lot of places on 71 where you have this situation.

>> I agree.

>> I suppose that you -- maybe you just go out there because you and i, we know what the problem is. The problem is that you don't have -- you don't have the appropriate money to put into the program to go out and to do things like 71. We all know that 71 is in the campo long-range plan. We also know that it's a 20 year plan. I mean, if -- if we can get it done in 20 years. Is it the best thing, absolutely not. Is it something that works better than not doing it? I mean, I don't think that we need to indicate that that is not the case. People have issues with it, but it is certainly better than leaving it two lanes in each direction that they are now. There's no question that we would like to, you know, just snap our fingers, say let's get this thing done. I think we are moving towards that. I mean, I would like to move fast e.r. Than most -- faster than most people in the community with doing comprehensive road system. But that's all that we are looking for. At this stage, it's not the best thing, but it is something that -- that, you know, begins to work in some areas, it's safer the than not doing it is all that I’m saying. I would like for the record for people to know, most people would say, it's safer than leaving it like it is.

>> I appreciate that. I just want to make the point that I think the discussions need to be severed. I think we need to have a separate item and let's talk about actions and how we partner with the state to make that a safer road. But I don't want it tied into yet one more piece of pressure on what's going to be going out there. Not only the people who will live there, but the people who live there now and construction equipment. I want to receiver the discussions, let's talk about 71, but I don't want to have it tied into yet another preliminary plan going in out there.

>> you want to talk about 71, then -- then we need to draw a circle with a line through it in western Travis County and say, you are not going to do anything in western Travis County. We cannot -- it is not reasonable to think that you can fix 71 within any reasonable amount of time, let's lay that on the table because that is the case. If that's what we want to do, then let's go to campo and let's you and I sponsor something that says you know what, we want to stick a bunch of things in front of what we have -- slated right now to go on some sort of a time schedule. Let's get behind 71 and the real problem with 71 that we all know the elevation changes, the excessive speed that you have, the fact that people are at the lake, you know, not drinking kool-aid. You know, there are a number of things that you have on 71. And we -- we know that.

>> I hear that.

>> it is part of the problem that we have in this community. I think it is incumbents on all of us arrest elected officials to say how are are we going to do that.

>> [one moment please for change in captioners]

>> I think safety of our citizens is first and foremost.

>> well, this is a safety measure. This is safer than not doing the other.

>> they're not even safe in the city of Austin.

>> that's true.

>> you try to get into one of those lanes thinking that you're going to be able to blend into traffic safety, and more time than not it's not possible. Especially at night.

>> is it safer than doing the whole road, probably not. I would agree with that.

>> it would be a nightmare for me.

>> has the state committed to do the striping of the middle line or are they just considering it now?

>> actually, txdot has already -- my name is david giewr ra, I work with tnr in traffic engineering. I met with txdot last Friday at the site. Txdot has already created plans for the widening of 71 in the haven't of where this is to this property and bee creek. It is being reviewed by their processes and it will be let sometime in may of this year, and scheduled for completion by November of this year.

>> okay. That's the permanent improvements.

>> the striping I think their position is basically they're waiting to stripe that as soon as is necessary. And the developer has agreed to pay for that striping. So that is a matter of basically probable milling the existing lines and restriping it. It's not something that takes probably more than a week to do.

>> okay. Anything else regarding highway 71 or other traffic issues?

>> I guess the other issue with regard to the timing of these things, if in fact the permanent improvements are completed by November of this year, November '06, the schedule that the developer has laid out has construction beginning on the model homes on the 26 single lots in about the summer of '06, about July. And then the balance of the subdivision looks like it will start in late '06, probably the fourth quarter. So part of what you're going to see is some level of construction equipment going in before the permanent improvements are done. I don't think you'll see any type of customers, home buyers coming in probably until after the improvements are done. So the risk is to the -- an accident caused by construction equipment going in and out of the subdivision. I want to clarify that because there is a period of time when the applicant will be constructing the subdivision, going in and out of sweetwater in that period of time will be the truck and the heavy equipment that will probably be on the site constructing their infrastructure. When they start going to framing of the houses, then you will probably have plumbers, framers and that sort of traffic coming in and out, but I know you mentioned that mothers and children going into the site, I think that's probably going to occur after they get the model homes set up. So the timing -- you're likely to see that the permanent improvements, if they stay on the schedule, will have been completed before you see the families visiting the site or looking at home. I just want to kind of lay that out. There's an issue of timing. And just what type of traffic is coming in and out of the subdivision.

>> and did you find anything on final action by the lcra related to [inaudible - no mic].

>> I think it was over in our offices and joe has gone back to get that.

>> let's take the water and wastewater as the next issue.

>> the site of the treatment plant was of issue because it was identified between the original submittal and the resubmittal in part because the applicant did not own the property that he is going to place the treatment plant on, but the wastewater treatment is pretty much designed as you would typically design a gravity flow system. It's at the lowest point in the subdivision. To do otherwise would require the location of a pumping system to pump it back uphill to a treatment plant. There's probably greater risk of leakage in that type of system than there would be in a gravity flow system. Any time you have to repump treated effluent uphill to another site you're bringing in the possibility of pump failure, so all to say that this system is a very traditional gravity flow system to the lowest point in the subdivision. That location has now been identified, which is on additional property that has been acquired by the applicant. The applicant also did an environmental survey for environmentally critical features as well as cultural resources on that site, and none were discovered by the consulting company that did the survey. So that was also another issue of what is located on the treatment plant site. And there are also buffers provided on the wastewater treatment site. The issue of pump and hall is somewhat of a separate issue, they do propose to do a puch and haul system, it will take treated effluent for disposal to another location during a period of time that may last up to a year. They have agreed by letter not to start a pump and haul conveyance until after the start of construction of the sewer plant. With that said, there will be a pump and haul probably for up to a year until that plant is completed.

>> is the pump and haul, joe, is that designated for the use of the model homes that will be showcased on the property? Is that just for those particular usage? In order, until the wastewater treatment plant can be completed? Is that the case?

>> yes. According to a letter that the applicant sent out on January 23rd, it says it will be -- they'll be using it for -- hold on. Let me be sure that I get this right. It says that they're willing to agree that no pump and hall -- they won't use pump and hall until construction has commenced on the sewage treatment plant and there will be no occupancy of residences until commencement of that construction. Construction and showing of model homes is not considered occupancy for the purposes of this paragraph. And that they're willing to state to that in a plat note on the prelim and any final plats for that first village.

>> I think the answer to that is if you read carefully that there will be occupied residents whose effluent will be pumped and halled for a period of time. What they have stipulated is that they will not start the pump and hall until the beginning commencement of construction of the treatment plant. And that the construction, the mere construction of the model homes does not constitute occupancy, but that's not to say that there will be units that were occupied who is effluent will be pumped and hauled during a period of time.

>> joe, can you tell me the difference between pump and haul and what the septic tank pumpers -- aren't most people in western Travis County on septic? I mean, unless you're in a large subdivision that has some sort of a central system?

>> that's correct.

>> what is the difference between what has to happen in sweetwater with pump and haul and somebody going in to an area where there are a number of homes now and those trucks having to -- I suppose they've got to pump and haul it. Is there a difference in what this is? I mean, I’m confused about that. Are they all the same. If you see a truck going down the road in a subdivision that is out there pumping septic tanks, is there a difference in these two?

>> I think the answer to that question is is there any difference between what they're doing and the act of hauling, not. Probably the frequency of the haul is going to be different given the volume of how many homes we're talking about.

>> so technically most or an awful lot of western Travis County is pump and haul. That is the business that if you're in that business, that's what you're doing? Wherever you live.

>> you have pump and haul.

>> there's no difference in this other than the fact that you have a subdivision that is saying that they may need to have this before some sort of a central system is put in place.

>> is completed.

>> is completed. Okay. So it is the same?

>> yes.

>> pump and haul -- western Travis County pumps and hauls right now.

>> that's correct.

>> any other questions regarding wastewater?

>> one other question, judge. In that little 40-acre -- the 40 acres, I’m not referring to the university of Texas, y'all. In the 40-acre set aside for the permanent water wastewater treatment plant, is there any possibility of -- there would be open space, I guess, other than the fact that the water wastewater treatment facility will be located there. Is there any possibility of it just being used, this 40 acres, just for that? Is that a disclosure of any shape or form saying this is the only usage of that 40 acres where the water wastewater treatment plant would be located, the permanent one? Is there any indication from the applicant to suggest that that would be the only usage and it wouldn't be anything else dealing with that? Because that is part of the change as far as from the old section 1 or the original section 1 of the preliminary plan and then the change to the new section 1 preliminary plan is apparently that 40 ache easy. So I’m trying to get a feel. Have we had any indication from that as far as the open space aspects of that particular 40 acres?

>> if I’m reading your question right, is there anything other than open spaces that's planned for the 40 acres and the treatment plant.

>> right. Except that is supposed to be the lowest point on the plat itself, what type of designation for future use has been associated with that particular tract other than the solid waste facility?

>> again, the plat, from a regular point of view, we don't regulate what is put on the property. It is he is I guessnated -- designated on the plan as being a wastewater treatment site and the remainder is open spaces. I can't tell you that the applicant doesn't have other future uses planned for that parcel. I don't have the knowledge. And perhaps the applicant can address that issue himself, but I can't say that there's some future uses that could occur in a preplatting of the subdivision.

>> okay, thank you.

>> any other questions for staff regarding the wastewater plant? Or other features? Okay. What's next, commercial?

>> yes, the commercial lot. There was an issue again, other than the fact that it is now designated as a commercial lot, we typically do not comment on the use of the property. So it's in a planning perspective probably in an appropriate location because it along a major arterial. It is across from the intersection of bee creek road where anyone would probably expect there to be commercial development. Access to the commercial lot is going to be provided by the intersection at the signal. Also it will have relatively safe ingress and egress for the turn movements into the site. So it was designated as a preferred location for development in our southwest growth dialogue process, but again the county has no way to enforce locations of commercial notes, it's just a matter of economics and where they're likely to occur just by virtue of the market. So I’m not sure we have any comment beyond that in terms of the use of the property on that lot.

>> do we try to address that issue in the interim rules?

>> no. Not even the interim rule really addresses land use. As I said earlier, neither the chapter 82 nor the current interim rule address land use, (indiscernible) or impervious cover. So we just are not -- we don't address land uses. We would on the other hand address when we saw the site plan and we'd be interested in their driveway locations along the perimeter of state highway 71 to make sure that there was safe access to and from the site. That would be looked at within the purview of our road regulations, and we would certainly also look at the drainage from the site.

>> okay. Commercial tract? Next issue?

>> the next issue would be the water quality regulations. Again, this application will conform with the regulations of the lower colorado river authority, their point source regulations. And let me have either -- would you like to address it? Would you get into specifics on how this application is viewed by the lower colorado river authority and their non-point source?

>> yes. My name is theresa caulkins. I’m an engineer in the development services group here in tnr. The applicant does fall under the lcra non-point source permit requirements. They currently have an application under review at lcra that deals with water quality provisions both during construction and in the post construction phase. In this project they are required to provide best management practices that remove oil and grease, tsf's, certain pollutants that can be expected to be generated at the site to certain specific removal efficiencies, depending on the actual slopes where the project and the improvements are located. These improvements can be bio retention ponds that actually treat storm water runoff through vegetation.

>> [inaudible - no mic].

>> actually on this project it's proposed to be both. It's proposed to be detention for the one year storm, for erosion protection, as well as detention for the larger storm event.

>> would you do this for me? Explain the difference between retention and detention ponds.

>> certainly. A retention pond is actually going to retain diverted storm water without really -- it will actually capture that water for infilltation and a vegetated area. Whereas a detention pond actually captures that water and stores it for a short period of time, for a timed release basically to did he detain flows to predevelopment levels.

>> okay.

>> so there are actually some bio retention ponds proposed in this project in numerous locations throughout the project to actually divert the first flash storm water, which is considered to be the water that has the highest high level for pollution and let that filter through, basically to clean it up. There are also requirements in addition to the post construction storm water controls to provide construction phase storm water controls which would be your traditional silt fences, rock berms, also vegetative filter strips, those kinds of things.

>> can you help us understand what the lcra is going to be doing in relation to this permit. I think we're all extraordinarily heightened by sensitivity of what happened on lick creek, and everything seems to be after the fact that something failed that people moved in and responded to it. What proactive things will the lcra be doing in relation to any kind of an mps permanent, or is it all reactive if something goes wrong?

>> actually, I would believe that the lcra is looking at this permit very carefully as everyone is. And I believe that during the construction phase they would be very careful to also include limitations on the total amount of area that can be disturbed at any one time in order to prevent any such occurrence as sick creek occurring again.

>> I’d like to add that I have talked with lcra and I’ve told them that we would like to review the same things that they are and partner with them, because we're also concerned in being sure that we don't have another lick creek incident. And I want to be sure that our voices are heard in that in their review process as well. And they seem amenable that.

>> so does lcra actually try to enforce some sequencing of construction.

>> they can.

>> yes.

>> but do they do that?

>> they're authorized to do it, but do they?

>> they have actually employed additional enforcement personnel. Part of it is they have a larger area than Travis County to monitor construction activities. But yes, the answer to that is in our review of the construction plans they can limit how much land is exposed to development at any amount of time.

>> so really what they're trying to do is make sure that you have a plan that is pretty stringent with regards to what you do to keep from having an incident? Being ever more vigilant than what obviously people have been in the past, which is the reason why we had the problem. And then don't they have the ability to -- if there is any inkling of an issue or problem, to basically shut the project down?

>> they have two mechanisms of this. One is the water wholesale contract and one is their ordinance. In their water wholesale contract it has imbedded in that some water quality measures as well. But one is the stop work order. They have two mechanisms to do that. And it also includes daily fines and they accrue daily for each penalty.

>> do we think that lcra will have somebody on a daily basis? I would think owe on because the last thing they need is another incident like lick creek. I mean, who knows? I guess we can ask them that, but I would think that everybody is going to insist that there's somebody out watching every project that's being built in western Travis County, especially if it's next to a creek.

>> I haven't asked if they're going to have someone out there daily, but certainly one of the things that I did express to lcra when I talked to them about the desire to have a voice in the review and to coordinate was I wanted to coordinate who's watching this and accountability to each other and to our citizens, and that would include watching it and response should something happen. So that's definitely something that we could talk -- that we need to talk about.

>> theresa, do you think the -- when we talk about the nps permits and rules that lcra has adopted, and I think they ratified them in December or January, that their board did, where does sweetwater fall with regards to compliance with the new lcra, nps rules? Does it comply with that?

>> I’m not sure if you're asking me if they comply with the new ordinance that lcra has adopted. I couldn't speak to that. I just know that they are still in the review process for their nps permit. I don't think they've completed it at this point.

>> can you tell me in the engineering world of water flow, stuff like that, in the plat itself is there sufficient detention/retention designation that will lessen the impact of water going downhill where the lowest point of the plat, where the 40 acres and where all the tributaries and everything seem to come in at some angle in that particular low area. The detention and also retention indication or designation within the plat itself, is that in your mind from an engineering state of mind sufficient to offset that type of flow as it goes downhill.

>> the applicant has submitted a drainage report that does include detention ponds that are higher up in the watershed to detain any increase in flow. They're actually showing that at development they'll actually have a small reduction in the peak flow rates for the 25-year and the 100-year storm events for flows leaving the property. So they have actually met our requirements to show that they are mitigating any increase in flow.

>> let's get to the nitty-gritty here, mr. Gieselman. What's staff recommendation as to section 1 and why?

>> the tnr recommends that the court approve not only the resubmittal, but also the section 2 preliminary plan because it meets county regulations.

>> what's the recommendation on section 2?

>> the same.

>> if the applicant were to go back to the initial filing for section 1, what issues would go away and what issues would remain? So there is -- say there is no revised one, but there is the initial filing.

>> I think you would probably end up with a less desirable intersection of the loop road for state highway 71, so I think the safety issues have improved between the resubmittal and the existing original submittal. I think you also have more -- while not specifically regulated by the county, you would have more impervious cover in the original plan than you have in the resubmittal. You also have no setbacks -- you have more setbacks in the resubmittal. So overall I think you have a better subdivision in the resubmittal than you did in the original version, but if it comes down to just pure regulations, section 1 just meet county regulations. The resubmittal does a better job of some of the issues that we were trying to address in our interim rules.

>> the changes that are contained in revised 1 compare to changes that we have received in other preliminary plans are ordinary, extraordinary? More or less?

>> I would say it's probably ordinary in the fact that it actually has improved in the process. We like to see that. You should see some improvement from one submittal to the next. And that shows I think the working between the county and the applicant to start addressing some of these things that had been of concern.

>> is it fair to say that when the court approved the preliminary plan section one, our hope is that we would get interim rules adopted.

>> I think that was clearly the intent that we would have new rules in place before sweetwater would submit a second application. But it was a long process and it certainly had a lot of input from a lot of different stakeholders. I think the product that we have in terms of the interlocal shows that, so I’m not sure it's a fault that we were -- came behind sweetwater in our adoption of the interim rule. But that is a fact.

>> any other questions for staff?

>> yeah. Just go back again on the dates. We adopted the interim rules on July 25th, 2005. Make it really clear here. Mr. Gunn had submitted a completed application for phase 2 on what date?

>> March 4th, 2005.

>> thank you. And going back on my dates, in terms of when we did the phase 1 preliminary plan, that was June 29th. Do I have the dates here right? March 14th he had a completed application on phase 2. We did the phase 1 on June 29th and the interim rules are July 25th. Do I have those dates correct?

>> that's correct.

>> of '05.

>> June 29th was of '04.

>> the original submittal of section 1 was June 29th of '04.

>> almost a year earlier.

>> okay. But when we adopted the interim rules, was it made extraordinarily clear that this was one that already had a completed application on a phase two? Because we were asking that in terms of what's out there, what could be -- what's completed. And you all were doing a very fast assessment of completed, not completed. Was it made extraordinarily clear to us when we made the date of those interim rules that phase 2 already had a completed application and was basically date stamped in under the old rules? I don't remember that discussion. I remember talking about other people's stuff of whether they had a true completed application or not, but I don't remember that discussion at all.

>> if we just look at the dates, is it fair to say that the problematic action would be the revisions to section 1?

>> that's correct.

>> they were made after the interim rules were adopted.

>> any other questions for staff?

>> do you want to take comments from the folks or are you willing to entertain a motion at least on b? I mean, I think that from staff and the court has indicated that the revised section 1 is without question the thing that we need to do. I mean, do you want to wait and hear from folks?

>> I think section 1 is probably the most problematic. 2 seems to be a little bit less problematic. My recommendation would be, now, we probably need a short session with tom, but if there are no other questions for staff, then I suggest maybe we take any comments the applicant may have in response to staff, then let others come and give comments.

>> I’d like to have one more question, judge. From a legal point of view, since the -- if the court -- I don't know what the court is going to do today after we hear all the testimony, but the applicant has -- does he still have the right to proceed under the approved preliminary plan that was submitted in June, the original one, the one that the court ended up approving, the 271-acre proposal for section 1? He can still proceed with that revision, if they intend to do that, if nothing happens here today, he can still proceed with that, which would be less favorable to what's happening here today. Is that --

>> that's true. The original section 1 preliminary y'all approved in June of '04. So he can proceed to final plat that. If he submits a final plat, it meets all the requirements of the preliminary that you approved, you're legally obligated to approve his plat for that. So yes, they can proceed with the original section 1.

>> if we okay that, that's how he will go back to the original.

>> well, if for some reason they withdrew the current proposal to change section 1, then they could go back and build under the original section 1. That's what I’m saying.

>> I’m sorry. Go ahead.

>> in other words, if you --

>> I’m sorry, go ahead, tom.

>> if for some reason you decided their request for changes to section 1 doesn't meet county requirements, that's not going to stop this project. They can go back and build under the section 1 that y'all approved in 2004.

>> all right, thank you.

>> but that section one has a different intersection. The commercial tract is designated open space. Appeared there is no wastewater treatment plant on initial section 1.

>> okay.

>> so you may want to sit on the end there so you will be close to us if we need you. Anything from the applicant?

>> good morning.

>> good morning. My name is bill gunn and I represent sweetwater limited partnership, which is also a partner with four city enterprises, a new york new york stock exchange company. The representative of four city is sierra messora, who is here today. On the phase 1, we do have our drawing here if you all would like, but I think everybody is up fairly -- fairly up to speed on what changes we made to the road. Basically the opportunity for us to acquire a piece of property on 71 and move this road did not present itself when we were originally submitting the preliminary, or I can assure you we would have used that access. But we really have improved the safety of 71, and I think that is one of the things that seems to have generated as many comments as many other is the difficulty of the traffic to be able to have long-term site lines before they have to take some kind of action. The left turn striping and the left turn lanes will assist in the first entryway, which is the nearest one to bee creek road. And then in order for us to accommodate a reasonable circulation and taking into account fire department rules and regulations, in the access of original phase 1 we regrettably had to come down the side of a mesa, and as you drive along 71 and look into the subdivision, there are three distinct mesas that are relatively flat. That's the area being developed. We had to come down the side of one of those and cross a creek and get on to 71, which made some fully deep cuts as you come down that mesa. We have essentially eliminated any of that type of cut in the phase 1. There was a beautiful grove of trees. That grove of trees will be saved. And the sight line, although not any better than the old sight line, you aren't sitting on a lengthy curvature just prior to coming up to the bridge and trying to make a right or left turn while you've cued up at a little bridge. It has a double reverse curve in it. I think in all regards it's better for the family and it's safer. The number of lots have been reduced. In total street, we've reduced the total street about 4,000 feet because we had to travel quite a ways to the west to get another access on what's called the third access in phase 2 and we can now eliminate that, the county doesn't have to maintain it, we've also eliminated one creek crossing. I think these improvements are substantial and I think the county should, like us, be pleased with the results. Any questions about --

>> I didn't ask you if you could take off the table some possibilities for the commercial tract, specifically no filling station or car wash.

>> yes, sir, we will restrict it or whatever the county on plat note or deed restriction both, we'll do both. We have no desire to have a filling station or car wash there. It's too close to the creek, to a major part of the creek is right behind it.

>> let's say the state is able to keep its commitment and do the permanent improvements on 71 between July and November of '06. What construction activities would you have going on during the same period?

>> I’m not sure. If you can tell me a little bit what you're looking for, I will be better able to answer it.

>> joe thinks that -- joe told us a few minutes ago that he thought the state would make the improvements on 71, the permanent improvements between July and November of this year, '06.

>> yes, sir.

>> so my question is during that same time what construction activities would you have going on?

>> well, there is a water line that will be being constructed from the lcra tank down to our entryway. The major water line is a 20 and a 24-inch combination water line. That equipment would generally move in and stay on site until it's completed, but it will be parallel to 71 just off the right-of-way on 71. However, about 85% of that distance, of that line, has excellent sight lines. It's still flat and it's before you start down toward bee creek where the site plan -- of course, once you roll over the top of the hill, that's where the sight line gets fairly bad and the speed gets fairly fast. So most of that line is in an area where there's excellent site line. We always tell the contractor we don't really have to tell contractors anymore, they move their equipment in at first light. They don't like to sit there and try to cut across traffic with heavy equipment on the back of a trailer either. We don't mind putting it in our bid documents if that's what the county would like. We can put in the bid documents that they can't put equipment on and off before the hours of 7:00 in the morning, and I don't think there's any contractor that would object to that in the morning.

>> if things go according to plans, when would you start constructing homes for sale?

>> we've asked for a final plat on that and we will be commencing that in the time frame that you've mentioned.

>> you'll need to pop up the microphone if you're going to speak.

>> good morning. I’m with four city land group. What bill is referring to is actually this portion of pedernales summit parkway, and then the 23 model home lots. The balance of what we're calling pedernales summit parkway, which is what we're anticipating to be under construction in the remainder of the year is the remainder of section 1.

>> so the home that you referred to, that's where you put the model homes?

>> correct.

>> where would you put the first homes that are constructed for sale?

>> that would be somewhere in village g.

>> and when would you --

>> but we obviously can't get to village g until this roadway is built, so that would be late this year, hopefully it's probably not until next year, early part of next year.

>> so the home construction is after that?

>> correct. There's no way of getting to any of these parcels in section one unless we have this roadway built to it.

>> bill, I’m now remembering my question that I wanted to give to you. I’ll call it the left entrance here as I’m looking at it here. You've got a loop that goes around and you've got two points that you're entering 71, correct?

>> uh-huh.

>> very distinctly outside of your m.u.d. There is something happening between your m.u.d. And the highway. What is going to happen there in that property that you do not know -- do not own? Do you know what's going to happen there? Because it's kind of an unknown sitting there that something else is standing in the way or is going to be out there as well creating pressure, etcetera on that particular intersection. Help me out.

>> Commissioner Sonleitner, when you say "our m.u.d." let me say something here. The district, lazy 9 m.u.d., was created by the legislature. Sweetwater is larger than lazy 9 m.u.d. Lazy 9 m.u.d. Only constitutes a portion of all the property here being called sweetwater. That portion of the property that is in Austin's e.t.j. Is not in lazy 9 m.u.d. Lazy 9 m.u.d. At this time has two property owners, rgj reynolds, and what we are platting here as phase 1 and phase 2. Because the other property owners have filed a preliminary on that portion of the property they bought from sweetwater, and you all have already -- I think that's in your process.

>> that's really what I wanted to make sure I’m understanding. Sorry if I didn't properly word it, but there is an out parcel there. The non-greenpeace. Is that part of the cometski tract?

>> yes, ma'am.

>> are we ea wear of what's happening on that? Because it's relevant in the sense of understanding everything that's happening at that particular intersection what's in this and what's in that. And I don't have that in front of me.

>> I know that application has been filed, has been declared administratively complete and is being reviewed by tnr staff. Obviously only the staff can tell you the status of that review and what the issues are. I do have personal nl that their application was filed and is under review.

>> do you recall about how many homes are in the plan?

>> do you recall the number of homes. It's 1200 acres there?

>> yes, that's correct. And Commissioner Sonleitner, the other little piece you may be talking about is what's called the combs tract along the frontage there. Yes, there are two homes. They've been there for many, many years and we do not own them.

>> it was really more of what has been happening at the intersection. Is that intersection, bill, going to be, for lack of a better word, joint use? Is that road going to serve not only your subdivision development, but will it also be used to serve the other?

>> we have not been asked by them to grant an easement to get access to this road? And when you look at the topo, in order for them to gain access to this road, they would have to build a bridge, and I imagine it's three-quarters of a million minimum bridge.

>> it doesn't look possible, but I wanted to ask that question.

>> mr. Gunn, in terms of complying with the lcra requirements, what do you have in mind in terms of the sequencing of construction.

>> there are three distinct mesas as you can see. What we're discussing with the lcra is being able to construct some in each one of those areas we may not want to construct in any of those areas, but as you can see there are three small tributaries that surround those areas, and each one of the little mesas, if you will, has a ridge down the middle of it and drains off to tributaries on either side of it. We would like to, of course, in our negotiations, and I’m sure the lcra will have a lot to say about this, but we would like to maintain construction in one of those drainage areas at a time. And the lcra has not yet come back to us we've made two proposals on how much construction we would have at one time and they have not come back to us with that counterproposal, but we have received some replies on the nps permit from them just this week, so we anticipate that we'll be negotiating for that amount that we can have under construction at any one time very shortly. I’m going to guess it would be in the neighborhood of, say, 25 acres in each one of those little drainage areas or maybe 75 acres or maybe 100 acres at the time. If you break down the drainage areas, that's a very small amount at a time.

>> mr. Gunn, you mentioned earlier -- I posed the question earlier about the 40 acres. I would like to start there on my first question. The question was at the time the designated location of the water wastewater treatment facility on that particular 40-acre site, was there anything else going to be located on that site? And I pose the question because of the fact that in the original section 1 plan, preliminary plan, that wasn't something wasn't a part of this process. And if you go back and look at the calculation of the impervious cover, you're looking at about 22.71% of impervious cover. However, with this additional 40 acres with that particular wastewater site facility being located there and other things going on I guess as far as the calculation of the reduction of the length of the roads and stuff like that that would be on the particular site and within this plan, further reduction of calculation as far as impervious cover reduced to 19.99, I guess, percent of impervious cover according to what I have here. And I guess my question to you is with that lower calculation, was that open space calculated in the process as far as the 40 acres, is that --

>> yes, it was. I’m not sure what my engineer deducted for the plant itself. The plant, of course, will have a concrete slab that it sits on, so obviously that will not be -- that will be counted out of it. But the 40 acres itself, just like on the original phase 2, the 40 acres was in phase 2, it was all basically just green space. That green space will be dedicated to the m.u.d.

>> okay. That will be something that will be deeded and dedicated?

>> deeded or dedicated at your wish. Now, as far as what really is on the use, tceq will have a lot to say about that. They're required today, all the anti-terror rules and everything, they're requiring us to put large nine foot fences around it, so there will be a fence completely around it. They are requiring us to build elaborate service roads now so trucks can get in and out. For safety reasons we ought to have a service road anyway. So there will be a service road down to it. And those sort of things will be in that 40 acres, but the balance that tceq does not require for use of the sewer system, then yes, it will be open space.

>> under m.u.d. Law, tom, if you can help me out, a designation of 40 acres as opposed to deeding it over to the persons within the district, within the m.u.d. Itself, which one has the more power?

>> well, the deed. The deed conveys fee simple title, which is everything that you can own.

>> okay. I guess when you get down to it -- and the other concern was that the lowest part, I guess, of what's coming down as far as this that was in the floodplain and all the flow apparently coming in from the different tributary and things like that, it seemed to be that in that part of that area, so I’m kind of concerned to try to protect whatever should be protected there, especially water flow going into other tributaries and leading off of the development.

>> let me start with the big picture and I’ll work our way down.

>> all right, thanks.

>> the big picture here, all of our tributaries as exists today hit the main part of bee creek sooner than the main buildup in the main creek of bee creek. So the implications of that are that when we have 100 year floods that these three tributaries are adding to the main problem in bee creek. And the reason for that is it goes into it and is gone before the main flow builds up and comes down the main body of the creek. So based on that, it was difficult for us to try to build some type of detention system that interfered with that because if you start detaining the water, then the main part of bee creek starts coming down the creek and you now are sending flow into a timing frame that before was to your benefit and now is not. But with the county's help, what we have done is we have gone upstream if you will and detain water that was coming on to us that's already existing, but we started detaining that water. Now, your county regulations require all developers to ensure that they have detained any type of increased flow on their neighbor's property. And of course we comply, but the only way to comply is we immediately detain water coming on to us and held that water, and by holding that water, if you deduct that water from the other flow, then we've met all the qualifications. The neighbors have no increase in flow on them. And most of the water that was trying to get to the main body of bee creek still gets there, and it gets there at the speed and the timing frame that it needed. So that's the basis. Now, when you get down to the pieces in the engineering, it's a little bit different, but that's the concept and that's the concept that we've designed these. Now, we do detain on site and the lots in the sul did he sack, some of those cul-de-sacs do not have loss on them. That is for our water quality ponds and each water quality pond, of course, does detain some water. So in order to filter the water or in our case in some instances we are retaining the water and reirrigating the water elsewhere and completely removing it out of the system. So that's what those -- but those ponds do detain some.

>> and with that -- I’m still going to have to go back down to the the wastewater treatment. And the treated effluent that will leave this particular facility will actually spray irrigation, something that's off site, I think a 300-acre site just to the -- just north of that. And I guess that is something that has to deal with the city of Austin, I think, as far as their requirements, as far as the review. The review for that particular deal. And as far as that line going up to spray and irrigate that off site, not within the section one or two in this plan, is that something that's already been worked out with the city or is being worked out under --

>> yes, sir, it's worked out as we speak. We are in the process.

>> and as far as the setback from the cluster of houses, the actual homes that persons will occupy, is the setbacks -- what is about the average set back from the line of those tributaries?

>> I imagine the average is probably 250, 300 feet. I don't think there's anyplace on there except I think there's one little spot on there, Commissioner, where we're probably under 100 feet, but if you took the average, what would you say it is, ray?

>> about 300.

>> it's 300.

>> about 300 feet?

>> yes, sir.

>> I’ve got a couple more questions, but I don't want to hog all your time, but I do have some more questions. I’ll get to them later, judge.

>> what would be your response to a request to commit to delay construction of homes for sale? And the question is worded that way because it gives the state an extra month to complete permanent improvements on 71.

>> Commissioner, if you need occupancy restrictions by January '07, yes, sir, we can comply with that. As far as construction, we hope that the striping would allow the construction vehicles to enter the subdivision without impeding traffic in an excessive way. Four is all we're contemplating.

>> so you believe that would impose a hardship?

>> I guess the question really is --

>> judge, I’m trying to understand the meaning of sale --

>> let me ask it another way. What if you concentrated on building the road and the model homes during the rest of this year? And I’m envisioning the state of Texas out on 71 making improvements. And if they get done by November or December, maybe you can complete the road and the model homes within that time frame?

>> we can come close, yes, sir.

>> then you will start building up home for sale afterwards.

>> and there may be some builders -- of course, if we had ability to get access to the subdivision, that could start while we're paving streets, but it would be very unusual in our situation that they would want to do that.

>> judge, are you talking about occupancy or are you talking about taking --

>> I’m talking about building.

>> is your concern the traffic that would be generated by the construction of the houses?

>> right.

>> the builders are not -- today, judge, most home builders do not spec their houses. They are sold out of the model homes, so in essence it's like Commissioner (indiscernible) over here builds a new program. Most folks come in and it's a semi custom house. So they're not going to be out there, it's not like your typical subdivision where it's dirt and we can lay them out in slabs 10 or 15 at a time and go under construction and have them, quote, spec houses. That won't be the situation here.

>> so you don't think that the decrease in traffic impact would be significant?

>> it will not be significant, judge.

>> okay.

>> bill, what about the possibility on feet, which is the phase 2, section 2, that this get withdrawn and it comes back for review under the interim water quality rules.

>> Commissioner Sonleitner, I don't know what you're attempting to gain by that because if we are -- if we withdraw our phase one, we will take phase one that we've got approved and go forward. We cannot -- we can no longer afford not to.

>> not phase one, phase two. There are two things before us. You have revisions to phase one, and I’m trying to separate that out from -- you also have on here section 2 preliminary plan. That was the part that some of us had great expectations that would come under interim water quality rules. I’m asking you about section 2 being withdrawn, which is item c, and resubmitted in accordance with the interim water quality rules.

>> Commissioner Sonleitner, we have not done a detailed study to answer your question, which by the way it would take a detailed study. I will give you two reasons why. Under the new interim rules, you're requiring 90% of all added pollutants to be removed. We have not distinguished between these water quality ponds that you see between phase one and phase two, so that means in order to -- we would have one set of retention ponds and water quality ponds at one standard and we would have to build other water quality ponds to meet the new standards. So that's one problem we've got. The second problem we've got has to do with cuts and fills, and that's a major problem because in order to meet the curvature requirements on major boulevards and roadways of the county and without asking for variances on that which none of us desire to do, we place the major road in such a place where the curvatures and the site lines all accommodated public transportation to the maximum extent. To make those curvatures, sometimes, and especially in the hill country, it will throw you into a ridge that you didn't want to be thrown into under normal circumstance, but to make the curvature you do, so your cuts exceed what's new on regulation cuts. And the fills would be the same way because sometimes when you come down the slope have you to do headlines and fills in order to accommodate the slopes. In those two areas, without going back to the lab and doing calculations, I’ll promise you that is a real hardship. And I guess the heartache I’m having is I guess you had anticipation that phase two was always going to be under the old rules and that's not where my head was at, and it was one thing for us to try and move you ahead through the process related to 544 residential lots, but this next piece is another 1200 residential lots and I think the issues that get raised and settled as you go through water quality review are precisely the issues that are the issues at hand. And so I appreciate the position you're in, but I hope you can also appreciate the position that we are in that when we pass the interim water quality rules, we thought there actually might be some people that would have to actually go through that review. And I certainly have that anticipation, whether it was made clear at the time or not. That was my anticipation was that phase 2 would come under the interim water quality rules because it was such a larger piece of property than what we were dealing with in phase one. And that was my knowledge base and this was someplace where you were someplace else, but I think where most everybody was is that we thought phase two would come under the interim water quality rules.

>> not everybody. I didn't feel that way. The way I felt is that we said there are things that you may have to comply with that you don't have to comply with right now.

>> correct.

>> but it was also said because this project was started way before with people putting lots of money in a project to only turn around and say you have got something that will kill your deal. Yes, I said, and I still intend to say that there are some things that I want you to do, that I think you need to do, you shake your head no all day long, but I know what I said, I know what our intentions were. Maybe we have different opinions up here. If you're talking about taking a deal and saying comply with these things, kill the deal, then fine, let's all say what the thing is. It was not the intent I don't think of this court because we should have told them at the time. You might as well cut your interim, you might as well cut and run because you are fixing to have to comply with things that actually will kill your deal. Does that mean that we don't ask you to -- to stay away from the creeks, get the buffers the way that the interim rules said. Work with us on, bill, you know you're going to be asked for ridges, where things are being built in those areas? You've got other neighbors that don't want you peering over them. You're going to be asked those kind of things. But -- I don't want the room to feel like, we told you that whenever you came back that you were going to have to comply with 100% of the interim rules because that's not what -- that's not what I meant.

>> Commissioner, I know during the time we were going through this process, and mr. Gunn, I don't know if you were here and a part as far as going through this whole interim rule deal. And hopefully we can get to the point that we adopt permanent rules, even if we have to piecemeal the rest of it. But that's the direction I’d like to go in because during this time frame I know as far as I’m concerned, as far as submitting -- I didn't support a moratorium at all because I wanted right then and there to come up under some type of structure as far as rules are concerned; however, that didn't happen. It didn't happen. You know, the moratorium went through and of course since it went through we're having to deal with a whole lot of things that we didn't have to deal with at that time. But what I’m trying to say is that of course now we're having to deal with a situation as far as the legal person over here, tom, what's the deal on this? In other words, if the court supported and approved the preliminary plan back in June, then where does that leave us now? So I’m trying my best to work out something here where you will have the right -- you heard the county attorney say that by all right you could reject this and go and file and proceed under the 271-acre scenario. This is what I don't want to see happen because that's the worst case, that's getting loas cloerser to the lick creek situation more so than we're doing here now. I’m concerned about that. I do not want another lick creek situation here. And I’d like to see all the preventive situation that we can get in place to make sure that don't happen. I’m going to need everybody's help to do this and everybody's assistance, but definitely don't want to go back to revisit lick creek. So that's where I’m coming from on this. I don't want to go back there. Thank you.

>> Commissioner Sonleitner and Davis, I sympathize with your misunderstanding. However, I sure wish about some nine months ago someone had told me, by the way, don't spend any more engineering dollars here or someone had told the staff, hey, you just submitted all these street profiles and all your engineering data and you've submitted it under the wrong idea. We have spent -- and I don't want to talk money on the dais. I don't think that's appropriate. We have spent large sums of money, I can tell you that, to get to where we are. And no one asks us to speculate on the hypothetical, no one asks us, hey, are you guys willing to go forward and start trying to submit plans for approval, but if anyone changes them, are you willing to throw those in the trash? And if someone changes those, three them in the trash and ad nauseam. That wasn't requested of us. We've done everything that was requested of us and then some. But to ask us to go back when we're right at at the final approval time, when we've submitted all the engineering, all the water quality, all the detention, we've done all of this and then to now tell us that you want us to just trash it and go back, we can't agree to that, Commissioner.

>> mr. Gunn, the questions I’ve posed to you today were some of the same questions I heard coming from the persons that will I guess be coming up after you today.

>> that's what I’m saying.

>> and those were the questions that were raised. And I wanted to make sure that everybody understand exactly the process, exactly what those answers are, exactly where we are, so those are the reasons for the questions because I hear those questions and I wanted them to hear the answers to those questions from you. So that's why I posed those questions as I did because those --

>> Commissioner, I will say this. We're willing to reduce phase 2 density by 100 lots if that will suffice for the requirement that we go back and try to come under the interim rules. And I’ll commit to that. I’ll commit to that right now. But that commitment is only if we get approval.

>> we've got a little time, y'all. We have officials here from san antonio, from the h.u.d. Office, and I invited them up to explain to us how the county could access $2.4 million. And I told them that I thought we could reach them at 11:00 o'clock. We will clearly need more than another 25 minutes on this item, unless nobody else plans to give comment. Who else plans to give comments? So it makes sense to me to recess this item until 1:30. We typically break from 12 to 1:30 and my recommendation is that we do that, call it back up at 2:30. And I apologize. And that we take 28 up, and I am serious about that $2.4 million, and you can listen to them. And alicia, if you would think about us taking another week on the medical examiner's item. We will have the executive session interviews, those, so I think that will have us close to being on time. If we do the sweetwater item at 1:30, we certainly won't have the time squeeze that he would we would have if we started right now. So I apologize and I hope you can work with me on that.

>> thank you, judge and Commissioners.

>> but I do move that we recess this item until 1:30. And make sure that those who planned to come down over lunch do not come down. Is there a second? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.

(Back to top)

Before noon we were discussing the sweetwater matter. Number 20. And -- and applicant and representatives were at the table. Do we have any more questions? Okay. More comments?

>> just one, judge. Commissioner Gomez, Daugherty, Sonleitner and Davis, Commissioner Davis, I’m not sure that my last answer addresses the question that you had, some of my colleagues weren't quite sure that I understood your question. So if I did address it, fine, if I didn't, I’m here to answer --

>> which one -- [multiple voices]

>> we were talking about -- [multiple voices]

>> you have to remind me which question it was.

>> we were trying to talk about how to prevent a lick creek, what we could do to --

>> oh, yes in other words what provisions have you made I guess looking at your -- your nps, dealing with lcra, water quality and also those things that -- that I think is where we can prevent that movement of -- of dirt and things like that whereby we will not have a similar lick creek type scenario that -- that have been experienced. I think all of us here do not want to embrace something like that. [indiscernible] so if you can help me out, tell me what steps are in place to ensure and -- some level of comfort, where that will not take place again, can you just maybe just help me out a little bit on that?

>> yes, sir. And I will repeat things here that I have been told, in hopes that they are exactly accurate. But first I think that I need to address what happened at lick creek. Believe me, if I’m incorrect in any fashion, the residents here who have endured that problem will surely let you know. What happened at lick creek was a clearing permit was issued as an agricultural permit. Now, as you know, developers, once they file a plan, which we had filed, bring ourselves under the county's scrutiny and/or the lcra's scrutiny. But a rancher has the right to go out and clear his cedar off his ranch without anybody's scrutiny and I think we all agree he well should have that right. In this case these gentlemen treated the land, it's my understanding, they treated the land l.i.-c.o. An agricultural permit would, or if you will a rancher. When they cleared the cedar they did your standard cedar clearing methods, that's take a dozer and knock the cedar over. Of course you expose all of the ground roots when you do that with the dirt hanging on them. And they cleared a very large section. I don't know how many acres it was, but it was sizable. They used some of the material from this clearing process to -- to build a -- build an either then detention dam. Which they were to place their major entry road into the subdivision. And just as they got all of this earthen material disturbed, without receding provisions or -- reseeding provisions or engineering techniques, along came a very fine rain and it rained and rained and rained. Well, their detention pond being incomplete, filled up and overflowed the weir and so the silt and all of the materials started washing on -- on these people's property. And all that exposed cedar and cedar roots and all that topsoil was gone. And of course the only way to get it back is to haul it back. But these people here suffered through all of that. The things that we are doing to ensure that doesn't happen again, first of all, you all got a very strong wakeup call, not that the staff needed a wakeup call because the staff was under the impression that -- that the area of water quality was under tceq and lcra's jurisdiction and solely their jurisdiction. But the neighbors here don't have anybody to complain to as an elected official of the two state bureaucracy was in charge. So they came to you. -- I don't blame you for responding. Well, we are endanger sure, number one, we don't tear up that much dirt. We are not going to go out there and clear and knock over cedar trees and expose their roots. If we go cut cedar trees, we plan to cut them, if you will, at the surface, not to go doze them over. They do not intend to build any earthen detention ponds. None. What we are going to build as the two detention systems on the water that enter our property, they are concrete structures, vertical structures, they take up very little horizontal room. They take up very little horizontal room, they will not end up washing away because of their concrete nature. Those two things will help. Of course the lcra totally changed their provisions for us what their provisions for them are. So the lcra will be [indiscernible] too.

>> any other questions for him? Now several residents indicated a -- an intention to give comments this afternoon. Please come forward. And as you give us your name, we would be happy to get your comments.

>> thank you, judge, Commissioners. My name is christie news. I live near bee creek road and highway 71 intersection. I’m with the hill country alliance. And I just want to address some of the points that were made today and maybe shed a little bit of light on some of the details. In the report that you received from staff, they mentioned the southwest growth dialogue. That it was the stakeholders were engaged in that process at the time that the -- that this project was brought to you in -- on June 29th. Actually the reason that the southwest growth dialogue began was because there was so much public dismay over that project that was brought to you on June 29th. That's what actually brought about the southwest Travis County growth dialogue. There were a lot of citizens engaged at the time and a huge amount of energy ready to be put into working with y'all on developing a new ordinance. But all that energy was channeled into the southwest Travis County growth dialogue, a nine month long project. And that project ended up not resulting directly resulting in an ordinance. Although the staff used that information to bring you an ordinance, which was a good thing. We do feel like, though, if the county would have put the energy into the ordinance immediately after June 29th, we may not be in the mess that we are in right now. We did all assume the interim rules were going to apply to this development and i, too, am going to offer a quote from June 29th. This is the second to the motion. Judge, I’m going to second the motion, I want to make sure everyone understands what we are doing with this thing. They will be able to go forward with the 271-acre tract they have in place under the rules that we have now. But anything beyond that, whenever they come back for final platting, whatever we come up with as a regional agreement, those will have to apply before we consider doing anything beyond this first phase, is that agreeable with you, mr. Gun?

>> yes, sir, judge, it is. That's why we left that day thinking the interim rules. Would apply to in gun's development. I want to bring up, seems like we have gotten ourselves into a bad situation because of a technicality. And received a letter [indiscernible] one day before the moratorium went into place. The interim rules were introduced on March 1st. Two weeks went by without any court action. The court was afraid during those two weeks because the development community was pressuring you and implying there would be a lawsuit filed if you passed those interim rules as they were written. We -- we did not know that the sweetwater development was sitting there and that it was not administratively complete. I reiterate what Commissioner Sonleitner brought up this morning and that is why didn't anyone speak up about this between March 1st and March 15th? It was a lost opportunity. The key issue that was keeping mr. Gunn from getting his administratively complete status was txdot. I got letters from may 11th and 13th demonstrating that they were working out these details, may 11th and 13th, then he got his administratively complete status on the 14th. [indiscernible] written on April 6th. I talked about this with staff. And I trust staff and I think staff has done a great job with this. This is not a criticism of them. But this is normal. They are kind of working out the details, after the administratively complete status. I ask you with so much at stake here today, I think these are legitimate questions, to explore. I ask you at a very, very minimum to require this developer not to start any construction until the two-way turn lane is constructed. I think that's fair. It's not too much to ask. Removing one lane of westbound traffic to accommodate a temporary turn lane, it's not a solution. It will make the situation more dangerous. I don't really see why there's a reason to negotiate this. Just fix the road first. The commercial tract, I’m going to go back to that again, I don't see why the developer will be allowed to grandfather in this commercial tract along 71. Why does he get the last grandfathered commercial development? If he wants to bring a commercial development to that piece of land right there, why can't he file it under the rules that are in place now? It's one more thing that he doesn't need to -- to get grandfathered in under. I met yesterday with tceq staff. They are very concerned about the location of the wastewater treatment plant, located less than a mile from Lake Travis. That is the concern of the reviewers right now. The developers, engineers and tceq staff, they are going back and forth on the details of the wastewater plan. The developer zest engineers have resisted with complying with all of the things tceq has recommended. If there's any way you can request some assurance from tceq that this will in fact be permitted before you grandfather this much density I think that would be helpful to the downstream neighborhood. We are talking about the bee creek arm of Lake Travis. I would also ask you to consider a plat note that requires that the wastewater treatment plant be complete before anyone occupies the homes. I also don't think that's too much to ask. I talked to the tceq staff about the developer doing this pump and haul system for a year before they -- before the wastewater treatment plant is completed. Again they told me, I mentioned this to you before, if they do that it won't be permitted by tceq. They do not permit that as a start-up operation. So I don't know any more details about that, but I would like you to add that. There's no reason why they need to do that. Finish the plant and then occupy the homes. I do have a letter demonstrated that the -- demonstrating that the developer has not met the requirements of the nps ordinance. Again we ask you not to grandfather this much density until you are assured that they can in fact need the ordinance. There was questions earlier about which nps ordinance they are going to have to follow, it's the old nps ordinance, not the new nps ordinance, the staff person that's reviewing it said there would be significant improvements made to the project if they were required to adhere to the new one. But like I said, it's not a possibility, they are grandfathered there, too. I also hope that you will draft a written plan for the construction phase controls. I hear you relying on lcra for that. That's what we did during the lick creek situation. We have relied on lcra. Lcra's -- has a different motivation. And lcra wants to sell water to this developer and so the lcra wants to make this work. You know, your job is to protect the safety concerns of the community out there. So -- so I would ask that you put something in writing about the construction phase controls. And I know there's something in the interim rules that states if more than five acres at a time is disturbed, there's some additional bnp's, I don't know the details of that, but it's mentioned. Maybe you could use something about that language. But I don't think 75 or 100-acres at a time is -- is considered to be a small amount of land to be disturbed. Maybe under 2500. I don't know what the details should be. But if you could work that out before you grandfather, that would be helpful, too. Also could a plat note be added that would hold this developer somehow accountable to the degradation of bee creek? I just want you to consider the time, energy and money that the lick creek neighborhood had to go to to get the west cypress hills to 7 to. So could -- to stop. So could there be mechanism for neighbors downstream of this development where the creek was going south, they could get it stopped in a timely manner. That would be helpful. I’m asking you not to approve this item today until you can work these things out. Not to allow construction until the turn lane is complete. Remove the commercial area. Get assurance from tceq and the lcra that those permits can actually be obtained. Put the construction phase controls in writing. And put something in writing to hold the developer accountable to bee creek. And no pump and haul on 71. We learned a lesson from lick creek. That was the sack efficiently lamb. We -- sacrificial lamb. We know better now. I hope that you will consider the health and safety of the community above the profit margin of this developer. Thank you for listening.

>> thank you.

>> I share with my neighbors the traffic concerns and the water concerns. My name is chris hartman, I live about five miles down the road from bee creek. About a mile from the lick creek. And I’m also one of those people who was in an accident right there near bee creek last year that totaled my car. Fortunately I was not injured. I want to bring up a very different concern that relates to the frailty of that whole environment. I moved to my land 10 years ago. I applaud the tree by tree. We did that, my husband and myself. Cleared the cedar tree by tree, I watched that land come back. On my piece of land is a madrone tree. I suspect very strongly that there are a number of mad drone trees, very rare in this part of Texas, in fact in Texas in this area at all. They are beautiful trees. There was a spring when I was driving that area, my madrone was flowering, I suspect there are quite a number of madrone trees in that area. There's something unique to that area that my neighbors know because they drive it all the time. If there's a prediction of scattered showers, anywhere, driving along 71, where you are going to hit rain is at bee creek area. So I would like to see, some kind of environmental impact statement made public that we can understand if there are some reasons why there's parts of that land that -- that should not be developed or should be protected in some way. Because of some special aspects like the madrone tree, maybe -- I’m not an expert, but at least have somebody look at it to see what might be there in that special area, in a very beautiful area as it is now. It's one of the most beautiful areas along 71. My husband who passed away, a little over a year ago said that he would cry when he saw that area as developed, so I’m glad he's not going to see it.

>> thank you.

>> [indiscernible] I live about two miles from the proposed sweetwater. And I want to address the -- the idea that was mentioned earlier, the spirit and intent of what was considered and talked about on June 29th and -- 2004. I left here and I know many of us left here with the understanding, at least the -- with the understanding that in fact the preliminary plat of phase 1 was not going to be -- under any other rules within -- that were -- other than that time. After that was a different story. And those new rules following the subsequent phases would be subject to. And I don't think that Commissioner Sonleitner you had a -- you had a misunderstanding at all. I understood that completely. And your words reflect that so do other Commissioner's. I just want to read, this is a quote from that day. Commissioner Daugherty you said 1704, referring to senate bill, is the thing that would allow this thing to be grandfathered which is the one thing that I don't want. We will make sure that it's in writing that 1704 will be set aside. So anything beyond this initial agreement, the 27 -- 271 will come under the new things. And Commissioner Sonleitner said let me make it very clear. This is almost like I am putting a fence around this 271 acres. To the rules that are in place today, to this 271. There was no question what -- how clear this understanding was to me. I think to everyone who was here. And I’m afraid it was mr. Gunn who really misunderstood. If he went on the assumption that in fact he should go ahead and act as if he was under the old rules because that simply isn't so. I think if anybody reads those transcripts they will -- they will come away with the same understanding. Short of that, I would like to address two or three major points. Of course one is highway 71. I don't think it can be overstated how dangerous a road that is. Heard it from people actually in car wrecks, it is -- it is as we've said notoriously famous for being very dangerous. This morning it was said there was planned to be a traffic light installed at the bee creek intersection. But there has been a traffic light there for some time. I would say since the fall of '04. So -- so the recent Austin american-statesman poll or whatever from the traffic Texas public safety department showed that highway 71 was the second most fatal road in Travis County. Right up there next to 35. That was done with that light in place. So -- so I don't find a whole lot of comfort in that. That that is going to help the flow of traffic or turning from a -- from a -- even a left-hand turn lane once it is -- once it is constructed. And I -- I want to make clear if this painted lines were to be temporarily put in place before the permitted construction, does that mean there would be one flowing lane through and one turn lane? Because that is -- I mean if that's -- if that's what we are talking about, I don't see that as a benefit at all. I see that as equally as hazardous as trying to turn left on to two oncoming lanes of traffic. It's going to be a nightmare, it's going to be a mess. I would ask that -- that without fail that those -- those left-hand turn lanes are constructed before anybody starts constructing or building anything on sweetwater. I really feel strongly about it. My other concern was the pump and haul. My understanding the last time, mr. Gunn responded when we were here a couple of weeks back, was that in fact the pump and haul was something that he could change. I think the response to your question or concerns about it, Commissioner Sonleitner. He said well we don't have to do it that way. I was thinking this sounds like it could be off the table here. But it's not. It's back in and it's back in only after construction of the homes begin. Is there any reason it can't be started sooner than April 2007? I don't understand why we can't -- why the wastewater treatment plant can't be done sooner and started construction. I personally feel that it's a -- it's a -- it's -- considering the traffic on highway 71, think that it is just an accident, a huge, horrible accident waiting to happen. To -- I want to say I just had my septic cleaned out, the people that I have talked to, for the most part, one lady said seven years, 18 years they have done it twice in 18 years, sounds like a little much. But it's not something that the few houses considering sweetwater would triple the amount of existing homes there, we are talking about a minimal amount of sewage tankers running around out there. Sweetwater that would be a -- a totally different story where you are really multiplying an awful lot. So as far as I would hope that no one is allowed to move in. Until the wastewater treatment plant is complete. Lastly, part of the phase 1 preliminary, in there to be considered as just a change. And I -- I don't feel that it's appropriate to have it in there. I don't see any reason that it should come under the interim rule. It was after the fact. I urge you not to approve these two today.

>> pedernales canyon ranch.

>> pedernales canyon trail.

>> canyon trail.

>> right when I took office, one of the biggest concerns that you had, doing exactly what we are saying is going to be done on 71. Now, I understand, I mean having asked a number of folks, because there were deaths, you know, at that road. And it -- I mean it was terrible. I mean it was, you know, does that the highway department -- something that the highway department said we need to get in and do something like this. I understand that, you know, a number of the numbers, having gone through there and asked everybody, but that that has benefited you all greatly by having -- now, do you take a lane outside as you are going west, you know, absolutely? But I don't want -- I mean, I don't think that it's the best thing y'all. I mean, I’m just looking for, I mean, something that's better. Pepper, is it better? I guess you go on it every time you leave, you know, your neighborhood that you have to turn there. Do you feel much safer knowing that somebody is not coming up on your rear end 75 miles per hour?

>> absolutely. Absolutely, but let me address this. If you drove this on a daily basis, which most of us do, you would discover that where it is narrowed down to that single lane, you have got your suicide lane, you have got -- if you live out in that direction and you travel it on a regular basis, you are probably going to abide by the law and the speed limit. If you don't and we know that that's a recreational area, new people coming out there or people just coming out there to enjoy the lake. You are going 65 miles per hour, they are going 75 miles per hour and they will pass you in that turn lane. It is the -- it's the darned thing that you have ever seen, there's, you know, nothing any of under the circumstances can do about it except just go oh, my god. By the time you get down to pedernales canyon trail, to make that left turn, absolutely, it has made a measurable difference. So -- so in light of what I think you would like to do, I would really like to see it. Coming town to bee creek, pretty hilly. I’m not sure site wise everybody who doesn't live out in the area isn't completely aware that there was a red light there. How fast the traffic is going -- I understand from one of our neighbors who contacted the sheriff's department that starting tomorrow there's supposed to be a lot of law officers out there trying to check the traffic issues that we are having out there as far as speed is concerned. But until that happens, I just feel like creating this single lane in that hilly terrain with trucks and cars and families, it's -- it's going to be real scary, but, you know, maybe if somebody could draw it out for us, and let us take a look at what the plan is, and where those turn lanes would be entering, it would -- it may relieve us or it may, you know, concern --

>> they are pretty standard, pepper, nobody knows it better than you. Because you live down there.

>> well --

>> what I’ve been told is because I think that within a -- within a three year period there have been like three or -- two or three people killed.

>> absolutely.

>> I understand that not that you haven't had a fender bender, but have you had anybody --

>> nobody killed and we are very grateful to have that turn lane.

>> all that I’m trying to get to is it the greatest thing in the world? No. Is it -- but it's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. If you are going to go out there and do something -- I would like for somebody to say it's better than not having it at all. It's like that we don't care, I mean, what you do on 71.

>> well, let me say this. If you guys are going to okay this thing today, then it's better than a poke in the eye. But if you don't, we would be terribly grateful if you didn't until the state of Texas came out there, I mean, if they are going to have this thing completed, started in July and completed in November, to me what hurts mr. Gunn is in the pocketbook, I feel bad about that, I truly do, but for the rest of us who live out there and for the people who will be coming for summer, they don't know that this development is coming out here. They are going to be hauling boats and they are going to be hauling ski things out there. And I just wish that there was some way that you could really consider waiting until November when the state of Texas has promised to have it completed. And so that's my statement about that. But I also want all of you to know that the people who that are here are speaking out are not anti-development. I hear that all the time, especially from you Commissioner. We are not anti-development. We are people that genuinely care about the area we live in, we care about the land, we care about ourselves and our families, we care about the water and the water quality. You know, lick creek the sacrificial lamb, to this date, three years into all of this I’m not sure that we will ever have lick creek back. It feeds directly into the pedernales river. When we finally have a rain, we've been in this drought so we all know that when this rain comes, I mean that dirt, whatever else is into that dirt is going to go straight into the pedernales river and into our creek and maybe years down the line when we have our 100 year floods, something is going to get flushed out. If our engineers and their engineers can come up with some solution to, you know, slowing down this runoff. I just feel like bee creek is -- you know, I just don't know. It's not that I don't trust engineers, it's just that I know sometimes they make mistakes. So I have that to say. And then I also have to say, I will be finished, that the state of Texas, actually it was house bill 10 was passed by the 77th legislature, identifying -- for identifying and preservation of abandoned cemeteries. I wanted to bring that to mr. Gunn's attention so when he starts going into the property, that he might look. Because you know that there's cemeteries all over the -- family cemeteries that you will on this land out here. They need to be taken care of. I think he's mentioned that he would be on target with that. But yeah, I’m -- I’m voicing the same concerns and I would really like to see where -- where I think we all would, we would like to see these roads --

>> two lanes actually.

>> yeah, I mean that's where I stand on it. I know, very grateful for our turn lane into pedernales canyon trail. By the time you get down there to where we are, it's flattened out.

>> exactly.

>> it's definitely flattened out. I don't know in your plan how that works out on that real hilly terrain.

>> what's your full name, ms. Pepper.

>> pepper morris.

>> okay.

>> thank you.

>> my name is laurie [indiscernible], I appreciate your time again. I have come to every hearing on sweetwater since I found out about it. And -- in 2004. I also participated in the southwest Travis County growth dialogue, which was interesting in many ways, one of my concerns about that was in a mr. Gun and his associates used their position on the southwest Travis County growth dialogue kind of as a heads up. They knew that the reviolations were -- revisions were coming, you saw the reorganization and the submitting of the plats even as we were still meeting. That concerns me because I feel like it was taking advantage of the intent of the court, which we have heard from several folks in -- in the first hearing how it was to be boxed around the first section. I would like for the first section to be revised under the interim rules. And also not to include the dangerous first intersection. That was revised in the second plan, but I think that that just makes something common sense that that's the safest way to enter 71. I think if txdot were pressed on it, they would agree with that. A lot of loose ends left with this development, I don't think it should be approved until we have nailed down some of the important issues. I respectfully request on behalf of hundreds of my neighbors in travel settlement, downstream neighbors from this development, we rely on our ground water wells for good water. We are not going to receive any water from lcra, I would like to make sure that the water quality in bee creek is protected. I would also like to request that written commitment in the plat notes to provide accountability from the developer to the downstream neighbors so that we can halt construction if there are any problems at all. Some studies that I have seen out of Texas state university and the u.s. Geological survey are hard and fast on urban development and water degradation. It shows that -- that many times during the construction phase you have huge amounts of sediment washed down and I’m not convinced that the engineering controls and the best management practices are going to be the best in this particular watershed. We have not seen a development of this sort in this type of watershed and I have heard lake pointe, a best of your knowledge of other examples -- a bunch of other examples thrown around but it is not the same type of topography. We are dealing with greater slopes, concrete walls to fill in with dirt behind just to try to capture the runoff. In some ways I want to believe that the engineering controls will be sufficed, but I have that nagging feeling that science that's been researched might be prevailing over a paid engineering professional opinion. I’m concerned because we don't have another example. We have seen what's happening in california with construction and sliding of land and things lieding around retaining wall, I just think that we need to be very careful because the rains in this region tend to be, you know, heavy and -- and heavy rain event can cause some severe problems during the construction phase. Also related to the construction phase I would like to have it in the plat notes as well that we specify how much can be disturbed at one time. None of this maybe three at one time, maybe 25, 75, I think those things need to be nailed down before this is considered for approval. I’m thinking less than 25, 25 acres on slopes, take the cedar off, there's nothing really to absorb any runoff. They are certainly not going to have any of these engineering controls, I don't know secret retaining ing ponds in place when the initial road construction and other types of clearing is occurring. One of the last points will be that the lcra nps has not been met. It's not been approved. It's been turned back three times. I’m glad lcra is looking at it, it makes me really wonder if we are ready to approve this. The last point is of course highway 71. Many of my neighbors have just huge concerns about taking a lane in the construction phase. Not only is that a bad idea, the timing is bad, because you have all of the tourism, summer people that come from out of state, out of town. They are not paying attention, all of a sudden they are going to come up on this lane switch. Two years ago it wasn't like that back at Lake Travis. I just see boats and trailers. One lane of people stacking at a red light. How are you going to stop if you are going 75 to 95 miles per hour. The other day I was driving close to 70, somebody passed me doing honestly about 95 miles per hour. Right behind me was a d.p.s. Trooper to give them a ticket. I thought if we are taking a lane, on that very section, take a lane, someone is going to try to pass me right before a traffic light, it is insane. All of you live in different parts of Travis County. You have your own traffic issues on your own local streets. This is my local street I really want you to consider do not start the construction of any of it, I’m thinking of a road span 18 wheeler taking a bridge span on an 18 wheeler across 71 at any time of day, even predawn hours. I have a neighbor a doctor at brackenridge, leaves at 6:00 in the morning. He wants want to encounter a turning truck in the dawn light trying to figure out a turn to a road that's not built yet. It makes no sense. I just really appeal to you to think this through carefully, everybody has their professional opinion and my regular folks opinion is please do not pass this without these serious issues being addressed. I also would like to thank mr. Gunn for at least being open minded enough to consider a reduction in density by 100 homes, that's a little something. But I would like to see a little more. Thank you very much for your time, I have to go pick up my daughter because it's her birthday today. Thanks.

>> thank you. Hi, I’m amy jones, actually new to this area, this is the first time I’ve been down here. I have to say I’m really impressed with the thoroughness and all of the questions that you guys have been asking. I and m pressed with how this has been handled. I do feel like being in an area, it seems like the public interest is at heart. I am embarrassed about that last question. Right before we left for lunch, I heard you mention Daugherty, is that how you pronounce that? You said how much money the developer has been spending prior to this, prior to this point. And I’m embarrassed that that would be a concern of yours. I mean, the public -- the public is the concern of yours. Not how much money he spends to get to this point. That's his job. That's their job. They spend money trying to develop the area. You united to be concerned with -- you need to be concerned with your constituency, environmental issues, shame on you for being concerned about --

>> I was being just the same way about your dollars if somebody were trying to do something to you, I would ask the same question. I am not ashamed of the question that I would ask. I would do the same if somebody came up to you and wanted you to spend dollars that I didn't think that you need to be doing. That was the point.

>> so you are concerned about the money that he's spending.

>> I’m concerned about the money in your pocket, I’m concerned about the money in everybody's pocket.

>> I think that you are concerned about the money in your pocket. I think we need to be concerned with the constituency and not -- I’m embarrassed that you said that. I’m sorry. You said it. I heard it and -- and you know, it's just a shock to me that you would actually admit it up there. And going on, from that point, I appreciate that you are concerned about me because that's what -- that's what this is really all about. The neighbors out there and what we are trying to do in the safety issues. And I’m all thrown off now. Don't worry about him, he's going to be fine. In 10 years he will be on beach somewhere, we will be left cleaning up the mess that was left behind. Hopefully things will be done right we will wait and take our time. I don't understand why we have to rush. Let's take our time. Wait until some of these permits come back, wait until some of the lcra comes back. A lot of the questions that were asked the permits are still in the process. We don't have to hurry with this. Let's wait until the road is completed. And then let's look at this again. That's all that I’m asking. I’m asking to be represented and I’m asking for public safety to be kept in mind. And you know a decision like this it's going to affect the community for the next 10, 20, 30 years, it's not just this development. I’ve heard that if this -- if this development doesn't go through, there may be a lawsuit. And that the Commissioner is afraid of a -- the commission is afraid of a lawsuit. Of course, none of us want a lawsuit, they don't want a lawsuit, we don't want a lawsuit. But we can't make a decision that's going to affect the community on the fact that oh, that we may get sued. We need to make the decision on what's best for the public. And if -- if we get sued that's something that every developer from here on out is going to come in and know that they are going to find a loophole, know that there's going to be a way. They are going to go back, believe me I just moved here from los angeles, it happens over and over and over again. And if we don't stop now and look at this, think really strongly and don't be afraid to vote the right way, we can just start calling Austin houston, that's what it's going to turn in, development after development after development. So don't be afraid to vote the right way and don't be afraid to think about what it's going to look like out there in 10 or 20 years, when I moved out here, I’m recent, I’ve always heard about Texas pride, the cowboys come running in, don't mess with Texas. You know, come on! This is a mess. Sweetwater is a mess. You know, we don't want that. What happened to our Texas pride? Just let's do the right thing. Let's vote the right way. Thank you.

>> thank you.

>> thank you, ms. Jones. Yes?

>> I’m cindy phillips. I live on pedernales canyon trail. And about three years ago, my best friend was killed at that intersection. So I am very grateful to have that turn lane. I don't think that it solves the whole problem, though. And also we have been writing and calling and trying to get something done there for many years before that happened. Dorothy's death was about the 6th death in a couple of years on that intersection. That intersection is nice and flat, it has lots of visibility. You can see the turning -- the person who hit her was looking at signs. And going 60 miles per hour. It didn't really help that it was flat there. The intersection on bee creek is like this. There's a winding road that goes off of it. And there's another two or three curbs that come up the -- curves that come up the other direction. Personally, I don't even see why the subdivision entrance would be there. I think it should be relocated to the -- someplace more level. It's a really dangerous, tricky intersection. There is a light there. There is -- there is nothing to -- to warn you that there's a light there. On either side. So -- so people come up over that hill fast, then there's -- the light there -- they screech to the halt a lot of times. So I think -- I think that before we even allow subdivisions to -- to start doing their -- their developing that -- that there should be that plan, that -- that intersection planned to be safe. And I think that should be the responsibility of the -- of the subdivisions. Because they are bringing in hundreds of more cars and big construction trucks and -- and there's people who already live there and school buses that go in and out. And construction trucks go in, you know, already. And sewage trucks and -- and things like that. So -- so to me that should be part of the planning at the initial stages when you have a -- when you have a development. Should be an -- shouldn't be an after thought. Should be a safe way to get in and south before you ever start saying yeah, you can build 500 homes here. So -- so that's one issue that I want to address. I would love to see a new paradigm about who's responsible for what, not just the cost in dollars, but in lives. As many people that are sitting human here have h to die before we got that intersection, that turn lane. And they had to die in a short time, they died in two years. So that's really high on her lest of things that need to be addressed here. Another thing, I’m not going to address everything. I’m part of lick creek, obviously I’m very concerned about the water and if -- if you are depending on lcra to police this thing, then you all -- you will get help from lcra after something dreadful has happened. But as far as monitoring the whole process you are not going to get it. They don't have enough people. They are -- they are taking care of thousands of other people. So -- so you know, don't -- something needs to be written into that development agreement. That -- that makes the people who are developing responsible for that monitoring and making sure that nothing goes wrong that you don't wake up with a bunch of [indiscernible] in your creek in your back yard. The third thing that I wanted to address, one person mentioned is seems to me like there should be an environmental impact study and an endangered species census because I know for certain that there are -- there are -- black capped vireo and golden cheeked warbler habitat there. I’m 98% sure that those birds are out there. They are a national -- they are a treasure. They only occur here and the hill country. And they are also a multi-million dollar draw tourist draw. So those are treasures that we ought to be protecting as well as all of the other things that we have addressed here already.

>> thank you.

>> thank you, ms. Phillips. Yes, sir?

>> judge Biscoe, county Commissioners, I’m bill bunch with save our springs alliance. We are here today to ask you to vote no on these matters. Or to table them until you have additional information and assurances that the environment and public safety issues are addressed. We have a number of members who live on bee creek downstream of this project who will be directly affected. There's also a community swimming area on bee creek that's absolutely gorgeous. I don't know if you have visited it yet. But I hope that you have. And if you haven't, I hope that you will go with christie or one of the others out to look at it. Because I think we shouldn't kid ourselves. This scale of development on this kind of terrain will completely destroy this creek. This development is absolutely in the wrong place. We talked to you about 1800 homes on a thousand -- 1,046 acres. Plus the commercial, plus the wastewater treatment plant. This extremely rugged, steep terrain, feeding into a -- a crystal clear creek and abutting what we all recognize as probably the most dangerous stretch of highway in Travis County I would think. That specific steep hill area. And while it certainly has similarities to the -- to the pedernales canyon trail area, it's always quite different. Mr. Gun used a description of maizes in describing this, but if you look at the map and the contour lines, these are not mesas, they are going to have to cut and fill and scrape a huge amount of -- of terrain. To pack in these homes. I don't have the exact metrics, but I would be willing to bet that it's a huge amount more of cut and fill. Than has been done over at west cypress hills. Just looking at the contour map, you can see how many of the lots, how many of the streets are traversing substantial terrain areas. This is ideal area for -- for much lower density residential, akin to what we have out there in other areas nearby. And what we have traditionally seen. This kind of dense packed development besides requiring the massive cut and fill, during the construction stage, which is going to result in massive sedimentation of the creek downstream, that alone cannot be protected against. Given the enormous downpours that we have in Texas. The flash flood capital of the world. No amount of putting up silt fences during the construction period is going to protect from this scale of cut and fill that's going to happen. But then that's not all. The rest of the problem at lick creek is from the fertilizers. These are exactly the kind of lots these dense packed suburban homes where you have massive overfertilization. Especially when you scrape what little topsoil there is off in the first place. And then you are trying to reseed with your traditional turf grass. This has environmental disaster written all over it. And there's no way around that. On the legal side, also the fairness side, I think we can't dispute that there was an understanding that you all had with mr. Gunn that we were drawing this box around the first 271 acres, and that the subsequent phases would in fact be subsequent. Would not be here on your dais today together doing the whole thing. Under older and weaker ordinances. And yet mr. Gunn rushed in the subsequent fades, lumped them -- subsequent phases, lumped them altogether so we have over 700 acres dealing with -- if your notice is correct, 1258 homes all being jammed into that second phase. That was filed only a few months after you considered the first phase. So it's -- there's no phasing. This is really abuse of that term. And he's hanging that on the technicality of the law. And I would suggest to you -- have a very firm legal basis to say no to these. If you want to call it a technicality you can. But I don't believe so.

>> [one moment please for change in captioners]

>> first of all, it was 271 acres. Now it's 311 acres. You have the commercial put in that wasn't there. You have the whole road configuration is different. So it's clearly not the same project that was submitted to you at the outset. Now then, there's the concern that, well, if you say no, they go back to the ormg one. And perhaps that is a risk. But I don't believe this developer is ready to do that. You heard mr. Gunn himself say he would have to build an extra bridge that would require a 404 permit. He would have to build, I believe he said, extra 4,000 feet of roadway. That's very expensive. He wouldn't have the commercial. He's not going to go back to do that. And even if he did, I think that what's also very clear about the grandfathering statute is that you can change your rules to address public safety. And to the extent that you have these highway concerns, you could change your traffic access rules, your public safety rules and have those apply right now or to the final plat, and you would get some substantial protection right there. You could even change your rules as to water quality as long as you're not trying to reduce impervious cover. And you can have those attach, so the grandfathering statute doesn't prevent that because those changes would specifically be doing to preventing this massive construction runoff, preventing imminent destruction of downstream property or threats to public health and safety. That's the exception. The public safety exception and the protection of private property exception to grandfathering. So you could substantially protect yourself and protect the creek and protect downstream neighbors by making those changes and have them attach even if he did try to go back to the original submittal. So that's -- that's the short version on chapter 245. One other key point to keep in mind, because I think the previous speaker is correct that there is the stated are unstated threat of litigation here. What the grandfather statute says crystal clear, the very last section, is that the only remedy a developer has if you don't grant an approval and give a grandfathering that they believe they're entitled to, the only remedy is declaratory judgment, man day must or injunction. It specifically excludes award of damages or attorneys' fees. So you have nothing to fear in term of some giant, you know, lawsuit over big money damages. You would lay it out at court and the judge would tell you which party is correct. And given the safety issues and environmental issues at stake here, that should not be a risk that should dissuade you from doing right for the public interest for your county. On the public health -- public safety side and a law side on the tceq, I believe that you can read your rules to require that they have actual permits for wastewater in hand before you approve this. Now, maybe that hasn't been your practice in the past, but I don't believe you've had a case before you that represents this kind of threat to either public safety or the environment. And that track record, if it's there, should not be a hindrance. I also don't believe -- and I understand that a lot of these aspects you think, well, we have a practice and it's in the ordinary and we should treat folks fairly, but I would be extremely surprised if you have ever even once approved a preliminary plat based on allowing the developer to pump and haul raw sewage as a strategy for managing wastewater. I’ve never heard of it. I don't believe it's legal under the statutes and rules of the tceq. I also believe it would be an streamly daing -- extremely dangerous precedent that you would be setting to let that be a valid proposition for providing wastewater service, even in the initial phases of a subdivision. Pump and haul is what you do when you have an emergency. When a pump station fails and you need to get in there for a period of a day or two and get some sewage out of there before it gets into a creek. This is not a conventional strategy for handling sewage, even for a matter of a few months, and it shouldn't be authorized today. I don't believe the tceq would permit it and I don't believe they have permitted it. To suggest, as was the back and forth with mr. Gieselman, that this is the same as pump and hauling of septic tanks is positively absurd. I mean, maybe the trucks look the same, but as was -- this earlier speaker said, you clean out a septic tank once every few years, and when you do that, that's the sludge after it's been treated. We're talking about everything you flush, everything that goes down your drain for these homes being put in trucks and again run out on the freeway. That's the most dangerous stretch of freeway in the county. It's daing reduce, it's foolish and setting an incredibly bad precedent. The bottom line here is mr. Gunn is trying to race ahead before he's really ready. He doesn't have his sewage lined up, he doesn't have the traffic safety precautions in place. Maybe this txdot time line will happen or maybe it won't. Nobody has even seen any plans that txdot might have for this stretch of road. And to have no consultation with the public to actually believe this is going to be done, the construction over the summer, which is a really bad idea, but to have -- to think it might actually be done by November I think is rather farfetched. And even if it was, you could table this today and have it back on your agenda the first week in December, and if those improvements are in place and it looks good, you could go forward at that time. But there's absolutely no reason to do it now. Furthermore, by letting him change so much as he goes along and other developers do it, you're actually creating an incentive for developers to come in, waste staff time, waste your time to have hearings after hearings because they're changing it all the time. Rather than get their ducks in order, figure out what they want to do, consult with the neighbors beforehand, not after -- you may recall they didn't even consult with the neighbors until you ordered them to go meet with them, and there was this hurried up meeting the week before y'all considered it. But really these procedures should be tightened so that your staff's not spending a bunch of time reviewing stuff that's not ready. And so you can create a strong disincentive to not have that waste in the process by saying this is what you've got to do, and if you change it, it's a change and it's a new project, so legally I think that you're on very strong ground on grandfathering to say no, and I really think that legally the developer is on ridiculously shaky ground to suggest that they can get approval for pump and haul as an actual strategy for day-to-day management of wastewater. I appreciate your time. I hope I didn't speak too much. But this really is a unique area. This is not just about opposing development. Y'all know that 70, 80, 90 percent of what comes before you is non-controversial. The community understands it, that this area is growing, but this is the wrong development and the wrong place, and I hope you'll recognize that.

>> anybody else? I do have three or four questions for tom. Do we want to do executive session now on this one item john is trying to figure out what items can be postponed until next week. So I announce that we will take item number 20 into executive session as we -- we suggested it in the item, but we didn't -- for consultation with attorney, and we will just do this one item and come back in and take action one way or the other.

I move that we postpone this item 1 more week and that by Friday the county jerusalem move to members of the court, plirkts, his representatives and members of the public who have indicated an interest in this matter and then that that document contain a list of specific actions requested and agreed to or promised. And the second category of specific actions requested by the Commissioners court, members of the court, a member or others, and that we circulate that by Friday, hopefully by e-mail or fax. So if you hear and I don't have your e-mail or fax number, make sure you have it before you leave. If you do a citizens' communication form over there, that would be real good. We have this action on the court's agenda next Tuesday. And unless the president or the governor is coming, we will have it posted first. Our intention will not be to have a long discussion, but hopefully to mull over it between now and then to clarify some of what we have heard and discussed over the last few weeks and then take be. In my view based on where we are today, that probably will do more good than anything else. Seconded by Commissioner Daugherty. Discussion?

>> just a clarification, judge, because I think people will wonder if they're going to have yet one more opportunity to comment on whatever that final list of questions, promises, issues, acts are going to be. I want people to have reasonable expectations of what's going to happen that morning.

>> my recommendation would be that if you could get your comments to us before 9:00 o'clock Monday morning is best; however, if no matter how many times we have heard from or talked with you, you have something new and different, new, different and significant, let's add one other qualifier, then I do think we ought to allow just a brief opportunity on Tuesday. This is Travis County, known for its democratic processes, so if there's something new, different and significant, then we certainly want to hear that on Tuesday. But what I’m hoping is that this document will allow us to pretty much determine where we are on all of the specifics that are not listed clearly in the preliminary plans section 1 and 2, and two, get us a direct response to some of the specific suggestions that we've heard. So this is not guaranteed to work, but I think it will put us in a much better position to clearly understand where we are compared to today. It does delay the matter another -- another week, but I think the time will be well invested if I get done what I hope to. Any more discussion? This is a head clearing motion, I guess. All in favor? Show Commissioners -- show a unanimous court. Thank you. Thank you very much for your participation and patience.

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, February 1, 2006 10:39 AM

January 31, 2006 Item 20

January 31, 2006
Item 20