Travis County Commissioners Court
March 14, 2006
Item 11
11 is to consider and take appropriate action on the following: a phasing agreement between Travis County and the developer forest city sweetwater, l.p. B is sweetwater ranch section one preliminary plan in precinct 3. 561 total lots, 544 residential. 16 mud and homeowners association lots and one commercial lot. 311.4 acres, state highway 71 west, no fiscal required for this preliminary plan. Sewage service to be provided by lazy nine mud. No etj. And 11 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 physical required for this preliminary plan. Sewage service to be provided by lake nine mud, no etj. In my view, the best way to proceed is to receive an update from staff, maybe questions from the court, give the developer an opportunity to respond to questions, then comments from residents who have come down on this item. I have three or four legal questions of legal counsel which will need to be taken in executive session and in my view hopefully we will be able to come back into open court and take action one way or the other this morning. And in my view, we can approve the request -- we can approve the request for conditions. We cannot approve or reject or in a worst case scenario, I guess we can do nothing. Those are four options I’m sure members of the court will think of one or two others. So where are we?
>> all right. The -- good morning, transportation natural resource department. With me, anna bolin. I think what we would like to do today is go over some additional terms, what we call exhibit b, which are items that have been negotiated where actually -- were actually being negotiated the last time the Commissioner's court considered this about a month ago. We believe these terms may help us come to the middle on some of these items, certainly would improve upon the status quo and maybe get us to the point where the court would considered a department offing or approving the preliminary plans. So with that, let me have anna step through these additional terms which will be part of the phasing agreement that the county would enter into with the dropper.
>> hi, anna bolin, Travis County tnr.
>> good morning, ma'am.
>> there are three general -- general areas of the terms, actually the first one has to do with storm water drainage and the commercial tract. Tnr would have -- well, the first thing is is that the lcra type one permit would have to be in place before the construction plans for the permit or the construction permit is issued for that phase of the development. The second point is that the executive manager for transportation natural resources has the ability to say that additional best management practices are required and those best management practices would come from the lcra technical manual, in the event that more than five acres are disturbed at a time, if development takes place on slopes greater than five -- I’m sorry, greater than 10%, or after construction if water quality falls below the baseline conditions that are established prior to construction commencing, and if -- if that happens, the executive manager of transportation natural resources has the ability to stop construction and require that they follow some best management practices, and in order to get them back on track, now, we also have the responsibility to coordinate with lcra because it is not our goal to put the developer in ping ponged position between Travis County and lcra. We need to work with lcra to get one answer, but we would have the right to inspect, we have the right to get it on the right tract. The developers also agreed to enter a deed restriction, or do a deed restriction and enter it in the clerk's office to bring the number of residential units in section 2 down by 100 lots to state that the 40 acres that were added to the revised section one were going to stay open space or park, some kind of a park usage with the exception of the wastewater treatment plant and prohibit the commercial site, prohibit that from being any kind of a service station or car wash. With regards to the wastewater utilities, the developer is agreeing that there will be no occupancy of any home until the earlier either of September 1, 2007 or the date that a waste -- that wastewater from the homes will be disposed through wastewater lines -- I’m -- let me -- through a wastewater line connected to a completed operating tceq approved wastewater treatment plant. And then the last -- the last genre of conditions in this exhibit b have to do with the highway improvements and there are two -- two items here. The first is that construction of homes for occupancy shall not be begin until the earlier either January 1, 2007, or until completion of construction of the center left turn lane on highway 71 at pedernales parkway as required in this agreement and then the second thing has to do with the temporary striping and if before July 12006 txdot approves the temporary restriping of a left turn lane at the intersection of pedernales summit parkway and highway 71. Travis County may require such a restriping of a condition of the final plat approved for recording. So those were the things that were agreed to.
>> some of the wastewater utilities items there on b, how did we arrive at the September 12007 date?
>> well, we wanted to -- we wanted to give them plenty of time to try to get through this system at tceq and in the event that their permit is contested hopefully get through all of that and without having to deal with any kind of pump and haul, because I know that that is a problematic condition for, you know, for the community. So originally when we started talking about this, I think the first date that we were talking about was I want to say June, and, you know, we asked them to push that back to October, and then I think we compromised with September, so I mean, we were mindful of -- we didn't want a lot of houses out there being occupied. We wanted to -- we wanted to limit the amount of houses that could be occupied, that is what we were thinking and that's why we pushed that date back that far.
>> so we hope that b 1 will do what to pump and haul?
>> we hope that it makes it unnecessary. That is certainly what we're hoping for.
>> okay, but if the permanent system has not been conducted and permitted by September 1, 2007, is a pump and haul approved? That would be up to tceq. We're not the approving authorities.
>> I did get a couple of e-mails ability -- well, several e-mails about pump and haul and the county's role. I mean have we ever approved a pump and haul approach? And is it our intention to start doing so?
>> no.
>> but if the state does it... If the state has done it in the past, I assume the state can do it meaning we don't have the ability to control that.
>> I understand the state does it only under certain circumstances so it's not a form of disposal.
>> we don't have to go there if we conduct a -- a real good conversation between Travis County and the developer in order to avoid that kind of situation, right? I mean it's up to us to converse completely and so that we don't have to rely on pump and haul. Right?
>> that's one of the reasons why we put this clause in here was to push back the date of occupied homes to, you know, I wanted to know where you were with -- or where you were -- where they were with the permitting process and in the event that -- that their permit gets contested how long -- you know, I mean and you can't foresee the future, but how long -- what -- give me a date that you think that you could have this done even in a contested situation and not need pump and haul, and then we added on some more time, more months to that to try to be sure that we wouldn't be there. And that was the difference between June and September.
>> it's been brought to my attention, I don't know if I’m correct in this, if I can recollect correctly, tceq in my understanding do not even go through any type of permit process for any type of pump and haul operation, but they end up doing, from what I understand, and I may be wrong, but to my understanding is that they just allow for the operations that are overseeing the pump and haul to just -- to register but as far as permitting that operation I don't think they do that, so I don't know if that comes into play or not, but there appears to be no regulations per se with the pump and haul operation per se if permitting is concerned by tceq. If I’m -- if I’m -- if my interpretation of what I’ve been told, if that is incorrect, then I need to be corrected, but thus far I don't think it is. So do we have any inkling of that statement as far as permitting versus regulations as far as just registering them to say these are the pump and halloperations that are going to take place and they just need to just register? Is that correct or am I incorrect on that? As far as tceq is concerned?
>> (one moment, please, for change in captioners...)
>> what's the layman's explanation of two? It's the immense authority we're giving our manager. So two means what?
>> two means that I have the authority to require additional best management practices above and beyond what's already been done if I feel that those are necessary, but that I’m somewhat con strained to do only from within those set out in the lcra technical manual. So the developer has some assurance that I’m not making up practices, that they are known practices already adopted in the manual which is a published manual, but I feel if there are additional measures that are needed, I can require them to be done.
>> and this is basically something that is in the interim rules with regards to water quality. I’d say the addition of where the bmp's come from, that they're coming from the lcra technical manual has been added, but this is something that the developer is agreeing to that is part of the interim rules. We've also added language I want to say in three that speaks to our coordination with lcra that we will coordinate with them. This is something that we would have done anyways to help avoid any future west cypress type incidents. We do coordinate with lcra, but this memorializes it.
>> anything new and different in these two pages than we have been discussing? Over the last for you months? Over the last few months, if anything?
>> well, in writing that we'll coordinate with the lcra. That's new. You know, it's something that I’ve spoken to before, but we're commit to go it in writing.
>> the other thing, I want to make sure that all of this is new to the court. I’m not sure that this has been entered into the official record. I think this was still something that was being negotiated and discussed, but in terms of newness to the court, I would say this exhibit b is new and I want to make sure that it's a public record, it's probably new today and we're discussing it in court, so perhaps all of this is new, but it was under discussion back in February. But in term of now being an official transmittal, I think it's -- we probably should look at the entire set of conditions as being new conditions.
>> who has this besides the court? Pretty much everybody?
>> and there are some extra copies on the table for anybody who doesn't have it that would like one.
>> and this is also a response to some of the questions that court members had asked about. For instance, the wastewater utilities and the highway 71 improvements. So this is kind of also --
>> it has evolved.
>> [ inaudible ].
>> and I want to make the point that with the exception of the permanent improvements on 71, everything in here is beyond what would be required under chapter 82. The permanent improvements on highway 71, that would have been required under the regular chapter 82. The rest of this is totally negotiated and beyond the regular what we call the green book, our regular chapter 82. And like I said, .2 here, you know, that is almost verbatim out of the interim rules. I just want to make that point.
>> let me make sure I understand. Have we asked lcra to sign off on the fact that we have full authority to stop -- we, the county, there's something wrong here and we have the ability to stop it? Is that something we have signed off on?
>> I haven't asked them that question exactly. I have talked to them about the fact that we want to be an equal team member on this, and I got a positive response.
>> I’d sure going to want that from lcra because that will get into the ping ponging and I think lcra needs to know that if this goes forward we're going to watch it like a hawk and we want to have the ability to do that and we don't want lcra to say, well, that's not part of our rules. I would like to get a definitive on that.
>> let me clarify that. Permission from lcra is not legalry required for that. If you want to do it as a matter of policy, that's one thing.
>> I realize that. No, tom, I realize that. But I think it's real big for us to have the ability to -- because let's face it, whether we were supposed to have done something with west cypress hills or whatever, I mean, people look at us and say use the power that you've got and if something is wrong, what you don't want to do is you don't want to get into a situation where they said it's okay and we don't. If we're going to go forward with this thing, let's find out from lcra if we're going to be in the driver's seat on this thing, let's be in the driver's seat and I think we need to get a definitive answer on that. I realize it's not something you've got to do, but I certainly would --
>> that part of the agreement does not grant the county authority. It's the applicant's agreement to cease work simply because we were questioned to. So it's not adding to authority the county doesn't already have. I just want to make that clear.
>> it doesn't make any difference to me. If we get something in writing from the applicant that, hey, if we say you need to stop, what we don't want to hear is we'll go forward. I want to get the okay if the county thinks something is right, then we need to have the ability to do that, so I’d like to get the okay on that. Let's go to highway 71 because I’m not thinking that this is what I have been supportive of because I don't really care about the dates, about the July first or this or that. It is my thought and my intentions all along because this talks more to, you know, completion and occupancy and all of these things. I think that what we need is that we need the restriping on this road if that is something that we're going to go forward with, and I think that it is not the best as I’ve said, but it is certainly better than it is right now. But I think that needs to be in place before you start anything, the construction of the road. Because I understand that the construction of the road -- that's the thing we're trying to get around is not have cement trucks and dump trucks and whatever pulling in -- we need that striped before we have a construction vehicle out there starting a road. And I think that txdot has told us that we're okay with that and you've got to get the applicant to say okay, whatever it takes to do that, but I think that that needs to be in place.
>> all it takes under this provision is for txdot to formally agree to that. I think we're still on the same page here, but because we don't have anything yet formal from txdot that said that they will restripe it, what this provision allows for is that if we get something from txdot before July first, then it becomes a condition as approval of final platting, which precedes the construction.
>> I just want it understood that I think that that is really necessary before anything starts that this restriping has to be done.
>> let me ask a question or clarification. If txdot refuses to restripe 71, would you not approve the plat?
>> I’m going to feel a lot -- joe, I’m going to feel a lot differently about that, but I have been told by txdot that that is not an issue. That if the applicant is willing to pay for the restriping, that they're willing to do it, but yeah, I would have -- it would make me very nervous if all of a sudden they said no, don't want to do the restriping, we just want to do the road because then I think we're into a year, and that would not make me happy either, but I think that I can work with txdot on this deal about give us the okay to get out there and do what we need to get done before -- so that we can move forward if that's something we're going to do. But I just want that really laid out and explicitly stated.
>> so has the developer agreed to do these things?
>> yes. He can speak for himself.
>> has the developer agreed to do these things?
>> judge, how are you?
>> I’m fine. How you doing?
>> Commissioner Daugherty, Commissioner Gomez, Commissioner Davis. Yes, sir, of course we're willing to put up the money to restripe the road. What we would ask, Commissioner, is that you not make it our responsibility or txdot to do any act. We'd appreciate it if the county and txdot, after taking our money, would go coordinate one with the other and get it done as soon as possible. But to hold us up aweighting whether or not a third-party jurisdiction is going to do something I don't think is appropriate, sir. But like I say, we will cheerfully give the money and we'll make it part of this agreement and we're happy to do so.
>> well, I have been told by txdot that that is something that they're not going to have a problem with, so I would think that we could start that, you know, immediately. And that would be my intentions.
>> you certainly have our agreement and our funds, just as soon as you tell us how much, we'll write a check.
>> do we have the agreement on the other items addressed in this exhibit, exhibit b?
>> everything in exhibit b, if you would like we can go down them one at a time, but yes, sir, I have agreed with the county attorney on each and every item going down these. Of course, some of them we just saw a few minutes ago, but yes, I haven't seen anything on here that we have not discussed and we're not willing to do. One comment about wastewater utilities and the continued concern about pump and haul on your part, judge. I think there's been a misunderstanding that a developer can call tceq and request pump and haul. We are not -- the developers are not the service provider here. The service provider is a public subdivision created by the state of Texas that interfaces with the tceq, another agency of the state of Texas, and their responsibility is for the health, safety and welfare of the residents in the boundaries of that district. And they are the ones who will or will not request a pump and haul service. That is not something that I can request or that I can negotiate away for a municipalutility district. But it is not our intention to go to that municipal utility district and ask them to get in a pump and haul business so that we can be earlier in our subdivision activity. And we are agreeing to these dates as what we can do, and that has to do with occupancy of homes. And that's within our power.
>> any other questions of the developer. Why don't you hear questions or comments of other residents and see if we can get you to move to the end there.
>> good morning, Commissioners. Colin clark with save our springs. These seem like new chairs qulowf got here. I do want to thank y'all for listening to concerns of residents on the previous item and hearing them out and moving forward with an alternative. The members of the public were just handed, as this item was called, the revised exhibit b. And I think because it was just handed to the public, that's reason enough not to approve it, as mr. Gieselman mentioned, this is all new for both the court and the public, so we would request that you not approve it considering that we just got it five, 10 minutes ago. Looking at this, though, in the few minutes we had, there are some things of concern regarding the bmp's, the executive manager of tnr may require construction best management practices if such and such happens. It doesn't say will require, shall require, must require. It looks like you're getting into a situation where you're saying, well, if they go out there and they screw it up, we have the authority to tell them to fix it. Why not say you don't get to screw it up on the front end and put stricter restrictions up front, so you don't end up with the type of did he back he will that we've seen on lick creek. Looking at the phasing agreement, there are some things that jump out, basically on page 3, item 2. The developer is not required to revise the preliminary plan prior to final platting to incorporate the provisions of exhibit b. That sounds to me like you approve this, they're grandfathered, they don't have to come back to you with changes. And what we've seen throughout this whole project is they'll approve something and they come back and want to change it and want you to approve it again without imposing perhaps newer, stricter regulations. Regarding the pump and haul, ms. Bowen mentioned that this exhibit b, she said we hope makes it unnecessary. But that's just a hope, that's not concrete, it's not a promise. And regarding exhibit b's statement there may be no occupancy of homes until the earlier of either September 1st, 2007 or the date that wastewater from the homes will be disposed of through wastewater lines completed and operating through a wastewater treatment plant. So what could happen is September 1st rolls around, lazy nine mud doesn't have a permit from tceq or that maybe they have a permit, but they don't have their plant up and running, and these guys start building and selling homes. This agreement would -- the county would allow the occupancy of homes without a functioning treatment plant. So if that were the case, the m.u.d., as mr. Gunn pointed out, the m.u.d. Will go to tceq and say we've got an emergency. We've got homes, people have tielts, they need to flush them, got to go somewhere, let us do this temporary thing. And that could get drug out and who knows how long they're hauling raw sewage on highway 71 across Barton Creek watershed, bee creek watershed. So it seems the best interest of the county could be served by using your authority to say you guys can't start building and selling homes until you have a wastewater treatment plant. That seems fair. The folks who bought this land speculated on it. And part of their speculation is that they're going to have an ability to manage and treat and dispose of their wastewater. There's a process for that with tceq that they're going through. Let them go through it before you all lock in additional grandfathering that they seem to be requesting with this phasing agreement. I believe you have received a letter from stewart henry on behalf of hill country alliance stating that according to section 82.203 b 18 of Travis County subdivision regular layings for preliminary plans, if a district is to provide wastewater services, the district must indicate that sufficient wastewater capacity is available for the development. Now, lazy nine m.u.d. Is saying there will be capacity. That's once tceq approves it, once they put the plan on the ground. That's when the capacity is there, not when the application is being reviewed. Tceq might say the soils out here are too thin or there could be other problems. And tceq says you guys can't actually put 1800 homes on these hills and properly dispose of that wastewater on your properties. So it just seems in the best interest of the county residents to require that until they have a plant approved, up and running, you don't approve these further revisions and the further grandfathering that they're seeking. And I do want to thank all of y'all for being as considerate as you are for concerns across the whole county, and I don't think anyone would want to put any county resident in the situation where the county's oblige is itself to a scenario where we're going to be hauling raw sewage across the county. And mr. Gunn did mention his inability to have the m.u.d. Do something, but the m.u.d. Is controlled by the developer, they actually have their meetings in mr. Gunn's office. And I would think that they would have some influence with what the m.u.d. Does. I just thought I would bring that to your attention, but thank you for your consideration.
>> questions? Thank you.
>> I’m jean lowenall. Good morning. Colin pretty much stole my thunder. I was going to focus on the wastewater issue. I think he put it very well. I just don't see the sense, the logic of the county giving a green light to pump and haul or allowing the developer to go that route because he hasn't got his infrastructure in place yet. So I don't see the sense of having the earlier of September 1 or having infrastructure in place. If the infrastructure isn't in place, don't allow home to be occupied because that will create an emergency. I have -- I don't see the logic of having -- in the wording of this, earlier of September 1 or when a wastewater treatment plant is in place. What's going to happen, as colin pointed out, if September 1 rolls around and there isn't infrastructure in place? It will be pump and haul even though it doesn't say that here. It's the only method that has been proposed. And you don't want to get there. That's a place you don't want to go. One reason you don't want to go there is because it creates a precedent. What happens to the next developer who wants to go to market early in advance of having infrastructure in place? They'll say, 83 gee, mr. Gunn was age to do that. I want to get to market early. In fact, I haven't even made my application yet.
>> but would it help if we add sort of a best efforts, good faith, due diligence language?
>> why not just say, no point in having homes occupied if there's no place for the crap to go? Except pump and haul. It's a non-starter to me. I don't know, I’m not an expert, but I think it's pretty much common sense.
>> do you have a response? Mr. Gunn, make yourself at home. Get comfortable.
>> do you want to sit down?
>> yes, sir.
>> there's a real easy solution to his suggestion. We have a draft permit in our possession from the tceq on the cover letter of that draft permit I think you have in your file, it says, tceq has approved our permit. And if these folks don't go object to our permit and delay us a year to nine months minimum, then there won't be any need for any of this argument. We won't end up with anything other than a plant out there. We can build a plant easy in that time. But what these folks want to do is say we want to object and we want you to pay the price.
>> here's the thinking there. This is about 18 months from now. We've been told that in 12 months you can kind of get it done. Even less under the right circumstances. So with 18 months you should be able to get it done even if you have unexpected developments. At some point things may well be beyond the developer's control, but we were trying to put in a fudge factor of a few months to say even if there are other developments beyond the developer's control, then there's a little extra time here. But if six months out the permanent facility has been constructed, then do we all agree you've got a permanent wastewater facility there, therefore this goes away. Do you see what I’m saying? That's the rationale behind it.
>> yeah, but it's speculating because if in fact -- if we fast forward now to September and if there's no wastewater treatment plant in place, either because tceq hasn't granted a permit or because construction is behind, there's a strike, who knows? You just don't want to be in a situation where for an indefinite period of time you will have nothing but pump and haul as the only way to deal with wastewater.
>> who will approve the pump and haul you're talking about?
>> well, there is no approval process, right? Tceq cannot formally approve pump and haul. It will be a decision made by the lazy nine m.u.d. I mean, what confined of approval process is there? Tceq doesn't do that. And in fact, it's likely that it's illegal to approve it. So there wouldn't be a formal approval process -- I’m not an expert here, but I don't even think we should get ourselves in that corner.
>> well, we think pump and haul is not used in that manner, but used in an emergency.
>> it should only be used in an emergency, and not an emergency of our own creation, right, where we've set ourselves up by saying you cannot occupy houses even if there's no wastewater treatment plant. Why even program that condition?
>> but you're reading into that authorization for pump and haul. I’m not --
>> there's no alternative. If there are occupied houses and there's no wastewater treatment system, it's pump and haul or what? There is no alternative that I’m aware of.
>> but without this language if a developer goes out and builds a home and sells it, then the right to occupy comes into play automatically.
>> so you need to have the provision that you don't occupy houses until it's done.
>> this is a restriction that's agreed to without our having the authority to impose it. That's what I’m saying. I don't know that we have the authority to impose this without an agreeent.
>> I thought that's what the letter from stewart henry referred to. The county has the opportunity or the authority to protect health and welfare of the residents. And this is a manifestation of that, this kind of restriction. Again, I’m not a lawyer, but that's what I’ve been told.
>> make a note of that, tom. Tom is a lawyer. But now here I am thinking we have never knowingly approved a pump and haul, and staff has said we haven't done it, and I don't know anybody on this court that wants to get into that business. Do you see what I’m saying? It happens without us.
>> so the way to fa finesse that is no occupancy of homes until there's a waste wastewater treatment plant in place. Get your entitlements in order, go sell houses.
>> I’ll agree with that if there's no protest, judge.
>> mr. Gunn is saying he'll agree to that if you agree not to oppose the permit.
>> if our permit is not protested, I agree.
>> you know --
>> any closing statements?
>> there are act of god. If a bunch of warblers ended up on the property, perhaps mr. Gunn couldn't develop this property either. What would he do, it's September first, 2007, I get to do what I want? Sometimes you don't get to do what you want because of legitimate reasons and this is one of them. There's a reason there.
>> (indiscernible).
>> if they won't protest it, I’ll agree.
>> thank you.
>> you know, since the very first day that we all saw this, we have taken it to every water quality expert or hydrologist that we can find veabl to comment on this, and we have heard nothing but over and over and over, this money homes, this dense on this terrain is going to pollute the creek. You did the right thing in June of '04 when you gave him the first section. You made it very clear with him there was a public agreement. Anything beyond that first section was going to comply with new rules. There's a real ethical problem here when you have a developer and his engineer participating in the process with the mps provisions and the Travis County provisions and yet all the while having no intent of meeting these new requirements. I have a real ethical problem with staff bringing interim rules to you all, having them put off for two weeks and then the day before your moratorium went into place seeing this administratively complete status appear. There's discrepancies. I don't like it. There's a lot of ethical problems. It's very risky subdivision and a very sensitive area. And because of that you have to hold this developer to the highest possible standard. You have to do everything in your power to protect the community. No one else has the responsibility to protect the health and welfare of the citizens in this area. The lcra doesn't, the tceq doesn't. You do. Because of that I want to look at the specifics in these recommendations one more time real quick. I have a few comments to make. Under the updated summary you have been informed that he's received approval from lcra for the master plan. In the letter from the lcra approving the master plan they're approving the use of a retention irrigation system. I got a call from lcra first thing this morning and they have started receiving the first set of construction plans for this project. They have already gone away from this master plan that was approved. They've changed the plan again. They're not using bio retention anymore, they're doing something else. They have just started this two-week public comment process. No engineer that we have been working with has had a time to look at it yet, but it's another example of they rush through -- they got this master plan approved, but now they're not using this master plan, they're doing a different system. It's a pattern. Bill gunn was saying he has his drafl approval through the tceq. He did not. There is a letter with a proposed draft in the comment phase. Staff hasn't finished working that up yet. Doesn't have a draft approval yet.
>> repeat just what you said.
>> he does not have a draft permit from the tceq as heat a time staited. It's a proposed draft permit that's been issued for comment. Staff is commenting on it, the developer is commenting on it. We haven't seen it yet.
>> bottom line is that the developer publicly agreed to comply with new rules. Commissioner Sonleitner, I wish she was here. It's not a coincidence that we're looking at it without her here. She's been a leader in this issue. But the developer has again not honored his word to the community. Okay. Under the water quality he elements here, that first paragraph, this is something that he's offering, the issuance of an lcra type permit. That's required by the lcra, so that's not anything new or different or anything he's doing for you, that is a requirement from the lcra that first paragraph. Where the tnr staff is saying they have the ability during the permitting process to require additional bmp's. How is this going to work. The very first thing that he's going to do is construct a bridge to begin the work on the roadway going into the development. Well, that slope is greater than 10 percent right there. Does that mean that from the very minute he starts construction these additional bmp's are going to be required? Just curious of how that's going to actually be implemented. And then it says that after construction starts, if water quality falls below established baseline conditions we'll have these new bmp's. There's no water in the creek right now. So we don't -- I’d like to know what are the established baseline conditions that you're going to be using and measuring, who is going to be doing this and how often? All thf is kind of a gray area. There's been automatic about this environmental assessment that the developer put together. We've asked to see this and we've looked at open records. We've never seen this. I’m curious to have this available to the public, this environmental assessment of this area. We've never seen it. It may not be required, but we would really like to see that. The commercial tract again is still on here. In the section that you approved in '04, there was no commercial development there. Now he's got this -- he's trying to get this grandfathered in. This would be the last commercial site to be grandfathered in under the old rules all along highway 71. That piece of land has extremely steep slopes. I don't see why that's something that he is getting as a gift. Again regarding the wastewater utilities. Colin is right. We can approve this on the hope that there will be a wastewater treatment plant in time. What if it's not? I mean, there will be pump and haul in use if the waste wastewater treatment plant is not in commission by September 1. Commissioner Daugherty, we've been asking for some type of safety assessment. We've been trying to get numbers from e.m.s., we've been trying to get numbers from the sheriff's department. There have been accidents just since our last February court appearance. I was told there were two fatalities. I don't have facts about that. We've been talking to the community out there and reducing that stretch of road to one lane and restriping I’m very concerned about that. I do not think that it is going to help public safety. I’m concerned it's going to make that stretch of road even more dangerous. So again, we asked for the full turn lane be there before construction begins. Judge, I was just going to remind you a little bit from chapter 82, you have been granted authority in the local government code and you asked about this a minute ago, to provide for the safety and well-being of the general public by requiring roadway, streets, structures and drainage facilities consistent with good practice and established standards of construction for subdivision development. There should be assurance that public facilities will be completed prior to public need and within a reasonable time. I don't think it's time to approve this project. I hope you all will vote no. Thank you.
>> questions? Thank you. Yes, sir.
>> good morning. My name is steven nash. In my profession I’m a tax attorney, so I’m pretty busy this time of year, but this shows you how important this item is to me to be here. In a previous life I was also a planning commission for the city of ukipa in california. When they would bring projects like this before us, we would say they thought we were on the railroad commission because they were trying to railroad this thing through. You guys told them before don't come back until you have all the answers answered, all the items answered, and yet they're back. And what are they back with? Let's look at exhibit b. I’ll reiterate the point that was made before. A-2 says, if these items happen, then you may require construction best practices management. If it's the opinion of this commission that these practices be implemented when certain items happened, then don't say that he may do it because by definition he may not do it. Tell him he shall do this. Item b, this falls under the old it's easier to get forgiveness than it is per permission statute. Because by putting a date in here, what we're really saying is we're going to try, but if we don't get it done by then, then we're going to go ahead and start. Again, if you want there to be wastewater management before home are occupied, you've given him a window of time. Why have a window of time? You think it can be done in 12 months. It's a moot point if it gets done in 12 months or 18 months in this item. Let it get done before occupancy exists. Item c item c, again, get rid of the dating. No occupation until completion or construction of the center left turn lane. Not the restriping. The restriping takes away a lane. Don't take away a lane. Have him make a new left turn lane. Again, you've heard from a lot of people. You have a lot more people to hear from. I really do want to keep the comments to three minutes because that gets way out of hand. I appreciate your time. I urge you to vote no. Thank you.
>> thank you, mr. Nash. Any questions. Welcome to Texas.
>> I’m actually from here. You can't tell from the accent.
>> welcome back then.
>> many of our residents were wanting to be here today, but due to the spring break timing it's difficult for them to leave their jobs or families. Again I just want to say this is an opportunity and it's really an obligation for the for county to ensure public safety. There has been accidents since we met last time. I have been a neighbor who is an er surgeon at brackenridge and he would have liked to have been here today, but he's in surgery this morning. I feel that with what's going on on 71, to take a lane before summer when we're having lots of out of town tourists, a lot of people coming who don't drive that road normally it's going to be a nightmare. I think human life needs to come before the interests of this particular developer. It's a scene with the developer to make changes, put one thing in, get that completed and we're changing it. Now we have commercial on here. You should not approve this and allow him to use the commercial development that was not part of the original agreement in '04. There's so many things that have already been covered. I won't go back through it. But no commercial. I think it was not part of the preliminary agreement. You must have the road improvements made. Snatching a lane is not an option. Yes, it might be better than doing nothing, but I honestly think with the amount of tourism we have in Austin, on that road it's going to be a problem. And I just wouldn't want to have that be the consequence for pushing this through. I agree with what mr. Nash just said. It's been pushed through since the beginning and we're overlooking some of the most important things that affect public safety. Wastewater treatment plant, tceq, people I’ve spoken to have huge concerns about the positioning of it to start with in a creek bed. That's not been done very often in Travis County, especially a creek that flows into Lake Travis. I just read today that Williamson county wants to get with the lcra and buy water from I guess Lake Travis and I’m just concerned that tceq is going to be secondary in deciding things with regard to public safety. I think the county has the authority to make some decisions on this and it's to vote no. I don't think we've come any further from where we've been a month ago. Nothing has changed. I just got this exhibit b today which I’m trying to look at, but I know the concern is water quality. We don't have any water in the creek right now unfortunately. I’m an lcra creek monitor for bee creek and we've been testing water for over a year, but we haven't had water in that creek since last summer. The issue is when we do have water who will be taking the samples? How is that going to be a neutral party? I’ve a couple of times suggested that Texas state university, there's some professors down there interested in partnering with us, but we don't really have cooperation from the developer. He's taking his own samples, which we don't know anything about, who is doing that, where those are stored, how they're being stored. That's a scientific procedure which needs to be done in regard to refrigeration of samples. I don't believe that's happening at lcra to my knowledge or whatever situation the developer has been using. I think we need to nail down what we'll be doing to monitor the quality of the water. What are we going to do trafficwise. These things are huge issues and they need to be considered by the court again today because I don't feel like much has changed on this except just time. We've got to get this done, it's got to get through and it's start to go get tire some coming down here and having to say the same things over and over and not having it feel like it's being heard. Please hear me today. Wastewater has to happen first, infrastructure first. Makes sense. It's just good planning. Thanks again for your ongoing consideration of these issues.
>> questions?
>> laura, so are you speaking for your board?
>> I am.
>> okay. And your board would say do not paint the lanes and narrow them?
>> I mean, they've already done that further down 71, which this is our neighborhood, we drive it. Throor people who accelerate 80, 90 miles an hour to get past cars to get into that lane. Once you start that -- it's a dangerous section, so doing that, grabbing a lane is going to make it more dangerous.
>> if the thing is approved, your rengs is still do nothing with it, just leave it?
>> no, full left turn lane. Make the changes in the infrastructure before beginning. This is an unprecedented size of a neighborhood in this part of the county. You're setting a precedent if you pushed it through and you approve it, I think it will be a huge liability for you. Not just with human life, but in future --
>> I think in the e-mail you sebt sent me, y'all have 250 homes?
>> 250 current residents.
>> how soon would you anticipate, bill, having 250 home in sweetwater? How many would it be?
>> three years.
>> three years. Pulling into --
>> there's several entrances.
>> the main entrance is haystack code. The way the subdivision is laid out, it's a lot of long cul-de-sacs. So there's hidden creek, creek meadow, haystack cove. People can enter on bash wire. These are all four potential and protected lefts, but the section that's really dangerous is between the entrance, the first entrance of sweetwater and say haystack cove because it's curving. There's been a dozen accidents there.
>> most of the parks, the way to enter travis settlement, they do have fifth lanes?
>> no.
>> most of the traffic is probably going west into your neighborhood. That's probably not an issue having the separated part, it's just if you're coming east, then you don't have a fifth lane, you do have to turn and cross the two lanes.
>> you have to sit in a lane of traffic.
>> you have to sit in a lane of traffic.
>> with high speed.
>> thank you.
>> but your point is not to worry about the temporary striping, focus instead on the permanent improvement.
>> I think you should not approve it unless the permanent improvements occur before construction. I think taking a lane in the middle of summer is not a solution, not al all. If the developer is willing to pay for restriping, why not work with txdot and do it. He says he can't do it, but a lot has done to move it through already. So why don't we use those connections to get the full left turn completed before we start the construction. There's too many loosens. S ends.
>> I’m chris heartman and I live on crawford road. I came to the first meeting with environmental concerns, but as I drove home I became more concerned about traffic. As I drove past that area starting at bash wire I started looking at the highway and look at all the skid marks. You just have to drive that and look at the skid marks and you can see how many near misses it has been. Let me describe my accident that's happened in March. It happened on a day when there had been a light rain. It wasn't raining at the time the accident happened, but the road was wet. And as I observed the last time I was here, that area seems to be getting an abnormal amount of rain anyway for any stretch of highway. I’ve asked my neighbors to confirm it that I’m not crazy, that there's something environmental that seems to get rain. There was a kid coming down going -- he was going east, he was coming down the hill. I was coming west in the right hand right-hand lane going up the hill. He went into a skid, the young kid didn't know how to control the skid because even if he had done nothing he would not have come into me, but he apparently hit the brake real hard, came slamming into me. There was an accident specialist who looked at my pictures who told me you're lucky you were in the kind of car you were in, that it did a good job of protecting the passenger compartment. He said in many other cars you would have had at least a broken leg. This was an accident, you know -- that just came out of the blue. There was nothing I could have done to avoid it in that hilly section. You look at the section of barbed wire and you see all those skid marks and you wonder what would happen if those skid marks were in an area in the hills of bee creek. What I’m saying is I’m very concerned about first of all taking the road down to one lane. That's just going to aggravate the problem. The left turn lane, maybe it will help, but as we just observe the majority of the traffic is going to be turning left there, unlike travis settlements where the majority of traffic is turning right. And I think it's something we better not take lightly. When I moved to Austin, 2222 was being called death highway. That was about 10 years ago or so. I think 71 is starting to get that name. And we really need to be very concerned about the traffic and it just scares me to get in my car these days.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> they're hiding behind environmental concerns. They're all rabid environmentalists. I’ve been in both worlds. And these are phrases that are commonly used. I won't say by all developers, but they're commonly used to try to get public officials to push their projects through. Credibility is important. Mr. Gunn's comments about the m.u.d. A minute ago I think were addressed by several people here. I’d like to add a comment because mr. Gunn himself told me -- I don't know if this is true or not, but he told me that that m.u.d. Was pushed through the legislature, through the critical committee either -- I don't know if it was by his origination or just his involvement, but it was pushed through the committee while the opposition was in oklahoma protesting the redistricting. Much of development, at least from what I have been exposed to, many developers see it as a game. It's a game of many little battles that have to be won. It's a game of strategy. They sit and talk about strategy. One of the things that I think -- and I want to say that I’m very appreciative of this court, the Commissioners, the staff, all of the efts that have gone forward in trying to deal with the rapid growth in Travis County. This is the more dploab al point that I would like for you to consider in this because I worked in california and I worked in hawaii. Like I said, their environmental controls many years ago were much more stringent than what we have anywhere here in Texas now. I’m a native texan. Those places experienced more rapid growth early. And they had to get their rules and regulations and ordinances in place. And they were in place in 1987 when we did this project. Developers are still making money in those two marketplaces. The environmental restrictions have not slowed down their efforts. We're at the point in Texas where we have been experiencing rapid growth in the last 10 to 15 years and we've got developers, not mr. Gunn, but we have developers and money coming into Texas to enjoy the wide margins that they can make in these projects because we don't have very much control in the urbanizing counties, unincorporated areas. You as Commissioners are limited in what you can do. In california and hawaii, when these projects come up, you don't -- like mr. Nash was saying, you don't hear, I hope or my intent is. It is, we have this approval, we have this final commitment from txdot or california department of transportation. We have everything in order. Now prove it. This is where we in Texas now need to head because of the growth because we're going to lose what makes Texas appealing for economic development and sustained growth. I applaud Commissioner Daugherty for the efforts and the commission as a whole, the court as a whole for the efforts in the southwest Travis County growth program. A program which mr. Gunn promised he would participate in, but didn't. It takes all of the good minds. It takes the good minds from the development community, it takes the good minds from staff, it takes the good minds from the court, and we need to move this forward. This is about sweetwater, but it is also about the rest of Travis County and the state of Texas. And I encourage you to look at the most liberal interpretations you have of your capacity here and hold this project to those so that we can continue to move Texas forward in managing growth, which they're very far behind in doing. And you can do this for the county, you can do this for the community, you can do this for the state by not approving this project until it meets everything that should be required of it. Thank you very much. [ applause ]
>> Karen, let me ask you. Before I even took office I remember coming out and working with you and leonard on pedernales canyon trails. Has that stretch of road been enhanced by what has taken place with giving you a protected left-hand turn on to your road as you're going west?
>> the answer is yes with a caveat, Gerald. And I feel like I need to explain that because we have not had to my knowledge another death, which we have had a number of, turning into pedernales canyon trail. The way it's currently restriped, there is a huge, horrible accident waiting to happen. Where they mentioned about people accelerating to get around cars because it's on the down side of the hill where it splits and you can't see the oncoming traffic. The other thing that I would have to say is that the traffic counts closer into town, the traffic is much higher than it is out our way. And I think that would have an impact on the single lane striping. The other thing I’d like to add about -- and you mentioned this earlier is that construction traffic is probably some of the most hazardous, and just last week at 8:00 there was an overturned dump truck between 6:20 and Bee Caves on highway 71. We actually -- we made it through there minutes before that happened coming into town. At 10:30 going home, the traffic was still backed up past hamilton pool road, the incoming traffic. That's two and a half hours later. And that's the only route to town. I don't know what the traffic counts are. We had to do traffic counts. We had to do all kinds of traffic mitigation plans just to get the approval through the environmental status in hawaii. We did really need to micro scope those things. I think a study like -- I think your insistence was done for pedernales canyon trail, a study like that would prove some very interesting information for closer into town and I think it would be different from the pedernales canyon trail area restriping.
>> thanks.
>> my name is mitch man. And while I’m not nearly as informed as everybody I’ve heard speak here this morning, I felt it was time for me to get out and at least get some ground level feedback on what I see. And this is going to reiterate a lot of what you already heard, but it's very true that the highway, in my opinion, is the first problem in all this development, but the creek being the second one. I mean, we're victims -- me and my family, my two little children are victims already of what wch did to lick creek. And what I want to say about the death that somebody mentioned is our new neighbors who live just over the hill from us I happened to meet yesterday for other reasons, and we got to talking. This lady's mother died on highway 71 -- it was one of the two accidents that just happened in the last two weeks. She was not at fault, and I forget exactly where, but it was somewhere there in the area of 71 I think in between the planned sweetwater area and between that and Bee Caves. But anyway, I can't see going down to a single lane helping. I can't see anything but a full turn lane from Bee Caves all the way to pedernales river. That's got to be the only answer because there's so much development going on out there, there's so much more development going on out past the river that I pass by and see all the time, that's going to increase the traffic. The one turn lane that they created there where we live has made it safer for people turning left. It's very true. My wife was scared to death to make that turn, and most of the time went all the way down to the chevron and turned around at the light to get home from work back when she used to drive to work everyday. I have to reiterate because I see it, maybe not daily, but every two or three days I have to drive through that little bottleneck where it goes down to one lane and it's absolutely true that people will -- most of the people will get to the side and you've got all these other people who want to go very fast and get around you to get ahead of you before it bottles down to one lane: and yes, there will be a big accident there very soon. Also the problem with that one lane is you have people that overcompensate and are very careful and slow down to 40 and 45 miles per hour where you've got 65 miles per hour speed limits, so you end up with a problem of people who want to drive the speed limit backed up behind people who want to drive slow, and you know how people get with road rage. It drives people crazy. I’ve seen them go drive around people in the turn lane just to get around, so there is so much to think about before approving any more subdivisions out there that are going to increase the traffic and the likelihood for more deaths and also increase the likelihood of more environmental pollution. Thanks for hearing me.
>> mitch, let me ask you, if you would, everybody in this community, and you've been here seven years, you say or lived out there seven years. Traffic all over this community is just an abomb nation. We know that. Have you ever come to one of the campo meetings?
>> this is my first appearance at any of these.
>> mitch, let me ask you. And I mean, everybody in this room. --
>> by the way, we feel honored, mitch. [ laughter ]
>> mitch, what we are crying out for as elected officials, and I say this to everybody in this room, it doesn't make any difference whether you're a developer or somebody who lives out there. We have got to come up with a way to build a road system. We have got to find the revenue source. Txdot knows what to do with 71. Every one of us know what to do with 71. It is a matter of upgrading 71. It is a matter of putting a fifth lane in there, minimum, so that you can do these things. But I really need for people in this room to understand we are crying out. We sat three and a half hours last night and I mean, we were called everything but human beings because people are upset about the toll roads. Well, I mean, let me tell you something, we're not for the toll roads just because we want to ding people. We're trying desperately to try to find a way to come up with a revenue source that will allow us to come and take to txdot and say, do you know what, this is a road that needs fixing. It can't just happen when people get exercised about a subdivision. It can't just happen when people are personally affected by something because they have a neighbor whose parents were killed or something. None of us want that. But I hope that people understand that we need help. We need people like you all that really get involved and say, tell us where to go and how to help you. Because -- I wish that I just had the magic wand to say we're just going to fix this road. But let me tell you something, mitch. We are scrambling in this community because we are so far behind to build an adequate road system in this community and there are some rods rhodes that need it more than others and I would say that 71 is probably one of them because everybody thinks that it is the indy race track on 71 because you've got lots of views and everybody just goes full out. But hopefully you won't leave today. And I’m glad that you got involved because I promote everybody to get involved whenever you really know that there's an issue. This community needs to go forward and we need people willing to come to the table and say let us help you. Tell us where we can go and what we can do to ensure that we have the resources that we need to take on the problems that you've got. I don't disagree. 71 is horrible. I go out there all the time to see friends.
>> there was one more comment that I had that I forgot to make because mrs. Huber talked on it, but the problem with one way in and one way out is very bad because a perfect example is I think it was two Sundays ago there was some kind of a failghtty accident -- fatality accident over near Barton Creek. And they completely and totally shut down the highway, no way in and out unless you lived down there, I guess, so somewhere around five to six hours. And that's just one example. There was no passing through. If you wanted to go to oak hill, you had to go all the way to town and back again. So it's just another good reason. And thanks for hearing me. I would have liked to have been here earlier and before, but it's hard to get down here and take off from all I’ve got going on, but I want to be a part.
>> thank you.
>> yes, sir?
>> good morning, judge Biscoe, Commissioner Daugherty, Commissioner Davis. Thank you for letting me speak. My name is leonard huber. I live in western Travis County and I’m retired after 40 something years in banking, so I don't do anything for pay anymore, but I seem to have more to do than I can get done. I had the privilege of serving on the county's citizen bond advisory committee and worked with joe at length. And Commissioner Daugherty nominated me to be a Commissioner of esd number #- and this court approved it. And he's familiar with some of the things I’ve done out there. To double the revenue and quut the expense -- cut the expense in half. So I’m not here as anything other than an interested party and a desire to work for the county. But I do have to speak in opposition to this proposed development today. Commissioner Daugherty, I would urge you to think long and hard because I think if the majority of your constituents were here today and knew all the facts surrounding this request that you would vote strongly in opposition to it. I remind you of the results of yielding to another developer in west cypress hills and the disaster that occurred in the watershed below that area. We heard you and I and a number of the people in this room heard this developer promise to do things last June in another room in this building, and all those things seem to have changed. Nothing -- very little has happened that was agreed to at that time and now we're being asked to do even more deviations from the original approval. I think this approval of this request would sacrifice one of the most pristine areas in precinct 3 if not in Travis County. It's an area that ought to be preserved, and to simply ignore the necessities that have been presented here today in order to permit a developer to make his profits and sacrifice the environmental part of our western Travis County would be a huge error in judgment. I respectfully submit that if we permit the environmental rape of this area we're going to incur the anger of many constituents for a long time in the future. Thank you for opportunity to be here. I think the answer is simple, just say no. Thank you very much.
>> joe, what is leonard talking about with yielding to the west cypress hills development? What did we -- I think that was before me, but what yield did we have to give to west cypress that -- what that? If somebody forcefully did something, what happened in west cypress hills is what happened is you had a perfect storm and you had regulations that weren't in place and that a 37-acre hillside got scraped off like a crew cut. And if I thought it would destroy this area -- you know where I live. I live in Barton Creek. And in Barton Creek we probably have more home than what we're talking about. I don't know how many acres there are there, but this is not a decision that comes easy. You know that. And I just -- I want to make sure that before you and Karen leave that you know that this is gut wrenching. You can go out to people and ask them things and probably get -- I won't disagree with you. There are probably a number of people that say I don't think you ought to do that. I found that out with the toll plan. We thought we were doing the right thing and people have let us know --
>> and you are.
>> and that is, it's just -- it's just tough decisions that we make. And I don't take them lightly. I just wanted you to know that.
>> let me respond, Gerald, that rusty parker in west cypress hills violated the u.s. Army corps of engineers, the lcra, Texas fish and wildlife and I don't know what all else, but they did everything wrong that could have been done I don't think because of an inexperienced developer who built apartments on flat dirt, went out on steep hills and tried to do something he didn't know how to do. Sweetwater is no different. If you look at that subdivision plat, it doesn't look like Barton Creek where you live. It's a difference in day and night. We've got 60-foot lots and it just doesn't make any sense. I’m not suggesting that we stop requirements, I’m suggesting we require developers to meet all the standards that exist today before we let them proceed.
>> if you plan to give comments this morning you should be in one of those three chairs, otherwise this is our last speaker. Then I will lay out for you how I see this afternoon unfolding. Yes, ma'am.
>> I’m amy jones. I’m a mom that has to drive up and down 71. I want to say it's a good idea what he's talking about with roads and I did read your article the other day, mr. Daugherty, about the toll roads and it is a real situation and I think that one of the remedies is not only with this development, but I know there will be further developments along 71. While I was sitting in traffic the other day when the jump truck had dumped over in the sand. I got stuck in that one for twice. And Sunday during the fatality I had to try to get out, I also got stuck in that one. And it's crazy when the roads do shut down. And I was sitting on 71 and I could look over and see falcon head, a subdivision that's on 620 that comes all the way out to 71 and almost touches it, but it doesn't, and you can't get through to 620. It was one of those things like why didn't they just push through. And I guess it's an infrastructure thing of looking at down the road we not only have sweetwater, but we have all these other subdivisions and you're talking about the road situation with what are we going to do. When we look at these developments going in, we need to say down the road is this going to be a cut-through to hamilton pool or whatnot. And it's ng something that we also need to be looking at when you're lining up all of these subdivisions that are going to be coming in is what is this going to do for infrastructure or the road? Maybe they can actually bring something and to alleviate the traffic problem rather than adding five thousand more cars on to one road. I wanted to throw that out. Thank you very much.
>> thank you. Now, we normally have lunch until 1:30, so today we will do that. By the way, we don't spend all that time eating. We transact county business. We'll come back at 1:30. We'll do the housing finance corporation, that will take 15 minutes and then go into executive session preferably unless there's objection from the court for 30 minutes. And so in my view if you come back at 2:15 we should be ready to act on this item before we finish the rest of our business today. So my recommendation is that if you come back at 2:15 you will catch us coming out of executive session and ready to discuss this matter in open court again. With that I move that we recess until 1:30. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote of those there with Commissioner Gomez having to run to another commitment.
prior to the noon recess we were -- we had discussed item number 11. And the applicant, mr. Gun, gunn, would like to make a statement, by the way, county attorney's office, my intention is for us to convene in executive session shortly after this statement so that should be within a few minutes, yes, sir?
>> judge Biscoe, Commissioner Gomez, Commissioner Daugherty, Commissioner Davis, there have been several references earlier made to the 2004 testimony. I want to take one minute for a little feel good for you, the Commissioners, and me the developer. I deeply regret some misunderstanding on the part of some of the neighbors, but I did want to remind everybody of the motion, and all the questions the Commissioners gave are in this exact context, in fact this statement that I’m about to read you that was made as a motion was made to me several times, and this is exactly what replied to, so we have returned from an executive session where we discussed items 21 (a) and (b), now, this exact verbatim testimony on June 29th 2004. As a result of that conversation announce the intentions of the Commissioner's court to commence the regional plans that we have referenced today and that turned into an interim ordinance as well as take a good look at sb 873 and see what actions the Commissioner's court can take, my motion is for us to approve the preliminary plan before us as phase i, conditioned upon the developers agreement to apply to subsequent phases that would be 2, 3, et cetera, any new standards that the Commissioner's court adopts between now and when phase ii and subsequent phases are filed. We discussed today that there's some question about the applicability of 1704. And the developer's indicated his agreement to apply new standards adopted by the Commissioner's court to phases after phase I when filed. Now, all in favor, that passes by unanimous vote. So, again, I regret that we have various folks who did not understand or hear but that is our intention and that is what we did. Now, I would like to read you some dates real quickly. That was June 29th, 2004. We submitted the section 2 preliminary plat on September 14th, 2004, and the interim rules were add dopts -- adopted on July 6th, 2005, so this wasn't some shotgun marriage we did. There was lots of time, we're talking 13 months. So, again, I just wanted to read those time lines to you so that you -- you could see that everyone here has had their good intentions and not as stated and accused. One other item that I would like to ensure as clarified and that is about our efforts to put in a center turn lane and I would like for velma from our city to explain that to you quickly.
>> as bill stated my name is viramasu with the forest city land group. I have a copy of two documents, one of them is in indemification agreement that we're required to execute with the county. That agreement has been signed by the forest city limited partnership. In addition to that, that includes exhibit 5. Exhibit a is the advanced funding agreement that is a contract between Travis County and txdot. That calls out what the improvements are and the total cost of the improvements. In addition to that, I would like to pass out a copy of a check. This is a check that is specifically made out to Travis County for those improvements. Just so that you all know, I know lots of the issues and lots of the discussion this morning dealt with traffic issues along 71. We are certainly prepared to move forward with that pending txdot's schedule. Nonetheless we have all of the funding in place to be able to move forward. And I am going to get up and hand those out.
>> and while she's handing those out, I also would like to point out that our -- our phasing agreement that we negotiated this morning brings section one as we are amending it into that phasing agreement so the water quality issues that we are proposing, we are giving up our grandfather in section one on those items if the amended plat is approved. Also in that phasing agreement is the 100 lots that we agreed to give up as our effort on bringing some of the interim rules to bear, and the two deed restrictions on the small commercial tract are also included in -- as part of that phasing agreement, and those items of course if we don't have approval of the mended phase i, they all go away, and we're back to our old phase I as approved as all we have approved to go forward. I can't tell you how much we appreciate your staff. Your staff has been under all kinds of pressure and has dealt with us in a most straightforward manner and we are highly appreciative. Thank you very much.
>> thank y'all.
>> thank you.
>> any county -- counter points? Then we will convene in executive session to discuss item number 11 under consultation with attorney. I have 5 or 6 legal questions I would like to ask our esteemed legal counsel. In addition, item number 3 is to consider and take appropriate action on a memorandum of understanding from the Texas department of criminal justice regarding a proposed visitation center at the Travis County community justice center. We will need james connelly here for that item. That is consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act also. And my thinking is there are four items posted for executive session discussion, we may as well take those while we're in there, they should be pretty straightforward. 27, consider and take appropriate action on the sale of county owned property located at 9207 johnny morris road located in precinct 1. That is the consultation with attorney and real property exceptions to the open meetings act. 28 receive briefing from county attorney regarding settlement negotiations and take appropriate action involving land owners thomas dshaffer and debra vshaffer. Partial number 3. Consultation with attorney and real property exceptions to the open meetings act. 29, consider and take appropriate action regarding the purchase of an office building located at 5555 airport boulevard, Austin, Texas. Consultation with attorney and real property exceptions to the open meetings act. 30 we announced earlier was postponed until next week. It will be back on on March 21. 31, discuss and take appropriate action regarding lease agreement between city of jones town and Travis County for space located at 18649 highway 31. Consultation with attorney and real property exceptions to the open meetings act. 32, receive legal briefing and take requests for agreement on hewlett packard corporation regarding financial incentives under programs policy, consultation with attorney. A-1, the final item is receive briefing from county attorney and take appropriation action regarding entertainment by j and j, inc. Et al, that is the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetlings act.
good afternoon, we have returned from executive session where we discussed the following item... Number 11, the sweetwater matter. We do appreciate those who came down to give testimony on this issue. Not only for the input but also for their patients. Again, the county county judge demonstrated his outstanding ability to project how long this court would take in executive session and to discuss different mearts. Commissioner Daugherty, is there a matter?
>> yes, judge, I’m going to make a motion for the approval -- staff approval of 11 (a), (b) and (c), with attachment (b) that we discussed this morning with the change in number 2 where it says may and use whichever legal-ease we want between will and shall and that would be my motion.
>> is there a second? Then that motion dies for lack of second. Let me try another one and that is to approve the phasing agreement with the following three conditions as to highway 71 improvements, construction of streets and drainage in the subdivision shall not begin until completion of construction of the center left turn lane on highway 71 at pedernales summit parkway as required by this agreement and we have referred to those as the permanent 71 improvements. The second condition would be involving wastewater utilities. There may be no occupancy of homes until wastewater from the homes will be disposed of through wastewater lines connected to a completed and operating tceq approved wastewater treatment plant and the third condition involving storm water treatment and commercial tract, issuance of an lcra type one permit for each phase of the subdivision is required before Travis County approval of the subdivision approval plans slash county development permit for that phase, so basically it's approval subject to these conditions being met.
>> second.
>> seconded by Commissioner Gomez. Any discussion of that motion? All in favor, show Commissioners Gomez, yours truly voting in favor. Voting against, Commissioner Commissioner Daugherty and Commissioner Davis, that dies for a lack of a second also. Is there another motion?
>> thank you for your input and participation today. So the equivalent is no action taken on this matter today because no action secured the approval of a majority of the Commissioner's court.
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:
Tuesday, March 15, 2006 10:38 AM