Travis County Commissioners Court
May 23, 2006
Item 6
Number 6, consider and take appropriate action on the following: a, a phasing agreement between Travis County and the developer, forest city sweetwater, lp. B, revised sweetwater ranch section 1, preliminary plan in precinct 3, 561 total lots, 544 residential, 16 m.u.d. And homeowners association lots and one commercial lot, 311.4 acres, state highway 71 west. No fiscal is required for this preliminary plan. Sewage service to be provided by lazy nine mud. No e.t.j. 6-c, sweetwater ranch section 2, preliminary plan in precinct 3, 1298 lots, 1263 residential, 38 m.u.d. And homeowner association lots. 735.5 acres, state highway 71 west. No miskel is required for this preliminary plan. Sewage service to be provided by lazy nine m.u.d. No e.t.j. 6-d, sweetwater section 1 village a, long platform in precinct 3, long form plat, 27 lots, 9.657 acres, state highway 71 west. Fiscal posted with Travis County sewage service to be provided by lazy nine m.u.d. No e.t.j. In precinct 3. 6-e, construction agreement for sweetwater section 1, village a subdivision. 6-f, indemnification agreement with forest city sweetwater lp to fund the permanent traffic improvements on state highway 71 west at pedernales summit parkway in precinct 3. 6-g, advanced funding agreement for voluntary transportation improvement projects with the state of Texas and Travis County for the permanent traffic improvements, including shoulders and a turn lane, on state highway 71 west at pedernales summit parkway in precinct 3. 6-h, pedernales summit parkway roadway dedication, long form plat in precinct 3. Long form plat, one lot, .57 acres, state highway 71 west. Fiscal posted with Travis County. No sewage service, no e.t.j. 6-i, sweetwater section two, pedernales summit parkway phase a, long form plat in precinct 3, long form plat, one lot, .186 acres, state highway 71 west, pedernales summit parkway, fiscal posted with Travis County. No sewage sird, no I t.j. 6-j, construction agreement for pedernales summit parkway roadway dedication and sweetwater section two pedernales summit parkway phase a, subdivision and 6-k, sweetwater section one, block b, lot 17-a, short form plat in precinct 3, short form plat, one lot, 12.21 acres, pedernales summit parkway. No fiscal required. No sewage required, no e.t.j. And for my staff, I知 pretty sure we will have some legal questions before we take action on this item. Today. So if they would set up the executive conference area, I知 sure we'll have a legal question. Joe, my first question, I guess, is why do we have so many subparts to this one item?
>> this is the mother of all agenda items. I think we set a record here. But this is the entire ranch. There are two preliminary plans. There are final plats attached to those plans. There are standard documents such as the construction agreements that come standard with the final plats. And finally there's special agreements between the applicant and Travis County, in between Travis County and the state of Texas for improving state highway 71, which are conditions necessary for the platting of the subdivision. So it is a very lengthy agenda item. It is comprehensive, it's final. This item basically takes sweetwater from a to z. That's the reason for the length of the agenda.
>> it's your plan to cover each item?
>> the first item, any time Travis County gets a development proposal on a parent tract, we expect that the applicant will want to phase the construction over a period of years. Very seldom when you have a large piece of land will the market conditions be so favorable that they're able to develop everything in one year. So the county will want to know how the development will progress orderly during a period of time. And what type of infrastructure is needed to support that development. That gives birth to the phasing agreement. It is an agreement between the applicant and Travis County. In order to guarantee that the development will proceed orderly. The applicant has also submitted preliminary plans. In this case two separate preliminary plans give us a view to the development of the entire tract. These are discretionary. It could have gone directly to final, but in this case again a very large piece of property where we expect that the developer would plat in the final form only a piece of it and sell off so many homes and come back and finally plat another piece. So in order for us, the county, to understand how all the pieces fit together, it's good for us to see a preliminary plan. So we see it all in one shot. Even though we know that the applicant will only finally plat a piece of it. In this case Travis County has already approved a preliminary plan, one preliminary plan on a piece of the ranch, the sweetwater ranch. The applicant is coming back and revising that preliminary plan. He is also submitting a preliminary plan for the remainder of the ranch. So these two preliminary plans in the submittal for the second piece, you now have before you for approval preliminary plans that cover the entire ranch. And then finally, the applicant is bringing in the final plat on both -- final plats on both of those preliminary plans. So he's telling us he's ready to actually go to construction on pieces of both the preliminary plans. So those are also subject to court approval. The construction agreement really is a standard form document that go with those final plats that just specifies the fiscal and all the things that we have to have for final platting. Probably the most important piece that you have today -- they're all important, but I think in terms of policy, you have imbedded in the phasing agreement certain conditions that staff is recommending that the court approve as a condition for the approval of the preliminary plans. And I want to go through those. These plans also, I will preface, the preliminary plans were submitted to the county prior to the court's adoption of what we call the interim rules. As you're aware, we had a fairly lengthy process called the southwest growth dialogue and it was brought about because a lot of changes are taking place in the southwest quadrant of Travis County. It's a fairly undeveloped piece of the county, the hill country. There are extending water lines to this area, so we're beginning to see development for the first time and development that is probably more dense than what exists today. And that is probably enabled by organized water and wastewater systems. So there is a change in process. That brought about a discussion among all the various stakeholders about what the future for this area should be. After that process was completed, we started to develop a new set of subdivision regulations. We call them the interim rules. And the court adopted those rules. These were submitted to the county prior to the court's adoption, so they were reviewed under what we call chapter 82. That was the rule in place at the time the applications were submitted.
>> so joe, do you have specific dates?
>> I do. She is probablymore in tune wits than I am.
>> does anna have specific dates to support the conclusion?
>> yes, sir. The preliminary plan was filed November 22, 2004 and deemed complete March 14th, 2005. The revised section 1 came in as a master development plan, and that came in to us June 9th, 2005.
>> okay. I was looking for two dates. I was looking for adoption of interim rules.
>> the interim rules --
>> July twikth, 2005. 26th.
>> July 31st, 2005 I believe is the date.
>> July 26th, 2005. So between November 2004 and July 2005 is for section 1, the preliminary plan?
>> section 2 was -- it was complete March 14th, 2005, and the section 1 revised preliminary plan came in June 9th, 2005.
>> okay. Thanks.
>> what we are telling the court is that these preliminary plans do comport with the chapter 82. With that said, we have gone through at least five separate agendas with the court because of various issues that were raised in the process. And what this tries to do is boil those down to essential issues relating to health welfare and safety. The developer has agreed to abide by these conditions. The first condition deals with water quality. The statement in what we call exhibit b to the phasing agreement states, issuance of an lcra, lower colorado river authority, type 1 permit for each phase of the subdivision is required before Travis County approval of the subdivision construction plans and county development permits for that phase. These by and large are adopted non-point source water quality rules that the lcra has adopted for this area of the county, and what we're saying is we will not approve construction plans until that permit is secured by the applicant with the lcra.
>> on wastewater utilities in the area, there can be no occupancy of homes until wastewater from the homes will be disposed of through wastewater lines connected to a completed tceq permitted wastewater treatment plant. There was the issue of pump and haul at one time the applicant was asking the county to be able to -- in the event this wastewater treatment plant was not completed, that they be able to haul the treated effluent away from the site with trucks. And we said that we would not permit that. That he had to have connections either to the treatment plant that he is seeking permits from through the state agency, tceq, or pump to another already approved treatment plant. It didn't matter to us as long as there was an organized system in place before the homes were occupied. The next provision deals with traffic safety on state highway 71. Because 71 is a fairly busy highway, it's got -- it goes through a lot of hilly terrain. Sight distance challenges. We made the following provision as part of the contract. Construction of homes for occupancy shall not begin until the Texas department of transportation completes the construction of the center left turn lane on highway 71 at the pedernales summit parkway as required by this amendment. Understand we have part of this agenda are two separate contracts, one between -- an indemnification agreement between Travis County and the applicant that will provide the funding for that improvement to state highway 71. We turn around in an advanced funding agreement with txdot and pass through those developer funds to the state and they initiate the construction of the roadway. Only the state constructs state highways. But they will do that construction with funds provided by the developer. We know that these improvements have already been designed. They are actually on schedule. Txdot has put it out on schedule for may. They have postponed the bid writing until these agreements are in place. We're under the understanding that they're on the next month's bid letting schedule, so they're pending as soon as we adopt these agreements, they will put it on the bid letting schedule and proceed on to construction. So we believe that txdot will be able to meet their deadlines for this development. In addition to requiring the improvements, we also put restrictions on the construction traffic. We will allow the developer to proceed with the infrastructure in the tr subdivision, we state that they may begin construction on sweetwater section 1 upon approval by the tnr executive manager, which is myself, of a traffic control plan that adequately addresses construction traffic to the subdivision site. Which plan shall include the following elements as a minimum. Number one, the entrance and departure of heavy equipment to the site shall be controlled by a law enforcement official and shall not enter or depart between the hours of 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. Or 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. During weekdays. Number 2, non-heavy equipment construction traffic, such as construction crews and personal vehicles, shall not enter the site -- shall enter the site only from the eastbound lane of 71, right-in only turns.
>> how do they do that?
>> they will go down to bee creek, which is a signalized intersection, they'll end up having to go in -- take a right on bee creek, turn around, come back to the light and then enter back on to 71 so that they are going eastbound to the site. There won't be any turning across traffic to get into the site. So they'll have to do a turnaround at the light to be able to come back around.
>> obviously the likely place is that little real estate office there. Have we run that by them? About how, get ready to have --
>> there are other places down bee creek road, but that probably is the most likely place. Also -- let me also finish the conditions and get an understanding of the order of magnitude here. There shall not be more than 50 construction related trips to the site per day. By the applicant's estimate, he expects during the peak time of his construction of the infrastructure to have about 25 trips to the site per day. We actually doubled the allowance to provide for more, but we're -- and this is at his peak operations, so we're not talking about a great number of private vehicles coming in to the site for construction. Now, there is a provision because we are relying on txdot to complete these improvements, so the third party, neither the county nor the applicant have any control over txdot. We do allow the county additional provision that should txdot fail to complete -- the county may approve the construction of homes for occupancy. Such approval should not be unreasonably denied. And this is just a safety valve that says after a year, if txdot has not performed, we could reconsider without to allow the applicant to occupy the homes. There's a final consideration that basically tries to address a myriad of various issues, quite a few issues, not necessarily code issues, but issues that have been raised by the community. We have added this, regarding subdivision approval, the developer shall pay the county the sum of $500,000. The county shall use the county bcp acquisition funds as we call them to acquire open space land that can be credited towards the county's obligation on the federal fish and wildlife permit, prt 78841 to acquire balcones canyon land preserve acreage. The developer's payment of the county's acquisition fund shall be separate from and in addition to the payment of $1,032,500, that the developer is otherwise required to make to obtain bcp participation certificates for the subdivision. What we're saying is because there is -- the developer is obligated under our permit to pay a little over a million dollars in certificates, participation certificates for the take of the endangered species habitat. As you know, we have been acquiring property over a series of years. We're very close to being completed with the balcones and our intent is to use this 500,000 to further the acquisition and complete the acreage that's required by our joint permit with the city on the bcp. The $500,000 will be made in three and equal installments on December 31st, 2006, December 31st, 2007 and December 31st, 2008. If a payment is not made by the date due, it will bear interest at the highest rate allowed by law and the county may withhold final plat and subsequent approvals for development of the property. So there's some levers to make sure that those payments are made. Those are the basic requirements that we have put forward. It is staff's recommendation to the Commissioners court as preconditions to the approval of the preliminary plans that are before you today.
>> joe? I had a chance to go and visit this particular area that's being considered this morning for development. From my observation -- you know, just the traffic going at a pretty rapid -- over the speed limit. Have there been any indication or suggestion from txdot that would suggest that they have proper signage to reduce speed even from the light, traffic coming in from that traffic light. It's pretty horrendous. And I知 thinking about safety concerns in that area during that time of construction about the necessary signage to really slow traffic down. Have there been any consideration that that will be implemented accordingly as far as slowing down that traffic coming through that area.
>> I do not know if txdot has done any speed study that would warrant a change in the speed limit from what is currently posted. I think the intent of your question is not so much signage per se, but a lower posted speed limit. And much like the county does, they have to go out and do a speed study prior to changing the regulatory speed of that stretch of highway. I don't know that they've done that study or have even considered doing that.
>> and then I guess the feeder being bee croak road itself at that traffic light. I知 kind of concerned with the increased volume with traffic. The traffic that it normally has to handle, and then the traffic that will be used during this time frame, even though we say 50 vehicles per day, which was on the far end, but then actually hearing that 25 vehicles may be the only thing that's needed, but it's competing with the normal flow of traffic that is at that traffic light intersection at bee creek. So just allow a mixture of components and elements that I知 trying to percolate up where we can take a better look at it as they come up. But anyway, that's just something that just jumped out at me and I didn't see any indication here. You can pull over on the side of the road and the traffic is going so fast -- it's kind of scary just to pull off on the side of the road. It really is. So I知 just concerned about a lot of the stuff that may have been presented here today, but I think it still poses a safety concern. But anyway, that's something that I think probably txdot needs to look at or somebody. All right. Thank you.
>> are you done?
>> I知 finished.
>> so how do we document the terms of the agreement?
>> by the -- there are legal documents that support every one of these agenda items here. (indiscernible). The preliminary plans which are separate documents, the final plats which are separate documents. You have two legal agreements, indemnification agreement and then an advanced funding agreement, both legal documents. And then a construction agreements. So in every one of these cases, there's either a legal document -- all legal documents. Some come in the form of contracts, some come in the form of plans and sheets that are filed with the county clerk's office.
>> okay. Any questions for staff?
>> yes. What about the wastewater permit with tceq? Is that in the process of getting approved? Is there any indication on when that will come through?
>> yes, there is. There's also an item on our court agenda in executive session. We've been asked by the community to participate in a review of that. As it goes through the tceq. And I believe we have some further discussion with the court in executive session on our role in that permit application.
>> is it being protested right now?
>> I believe it is.
>> and what we've heard in the past is that when the permit goes through and it's not protested by the public, it takes a little less to approve it, but when it does get protested, it's going to be prolonged. And so do we know by approximately how long? What kind of time are we talking about?
>> I don't know. I don't know how long. Maybe someone in the audience might.
>> judge Biscoe, Commissioner Gomez, Daugherty, Sonleitner, Davis. My name is (indiscernible), one of the representatives of the developer's. We have recently received the draft permit from the tceq. The first process when we were here before was that we were to receive a draft permit without comment. The next step is of course that the draft permit then be printed, posted and available to the public for observation. They have done so. On their first agenda after that they had requested what is called a direct referral. A direct referral means that the tceq chief examiner on staff will make themselves available probably mr. Daugherty in your precinct office out this to make it available to the neighborhood groups. But the hearing examiner and their staff will make themselves available to the neighborhood without selection. There is a process, as you all know, that if someone is not abstaining, then they are excluded from the hearings, but under the direct referral method, you don't have to qualify yourself for standing. Hopefully people from galveston won't come up or something, but anyone is available to come and voice their opinion to the hearing examiner. And that process has already been started. To answer your question on time, that process usually adds about a year, so between a year and 18 months we should see the permit being issued.
>> so the agreement provides what while the application for permit is pending, joe?
>> they start work on the infrastructure, roads, drainage, sewer treatment plant, and they can start moving toward, they just cannot occupy the units.
>> anna, could you walk through for us related to -- you didn't really cover the revision that's being made to the original preliminary plan in section 1 that has to do with the roadway. It's my understanding that this is codifying the elimination of about a mile's worth of impervious cover out there and the relocation of the road to not only a safer intersection with highway 71, but to avoid a large stand of trees. Is that still the case? Can we get that into the record as to what the revision is? Because we didn't really go through the revision to the preliminary.
>> this revised preliminary is the same revised preliminary that has been proposed in the past. It does reduce linear footage of the roadway and it does save a stand of trees. It is what we would consider, and I think txdot also considers a more desirable location on 71 for the more western intersection on pedernales summit parkway with 71. I believe it reduces impervious cover somewhat, but the linear footage of the roadway is reduced with these two -- this combination of these preliminary plans as opposed to the original section 1 preliminary plan.
>> back to my question. The -- part of the agreement that deals with wastewater utilities provides no matter how many homes you have, you cannot occupy them until there is a tceq permitted wastewater treatment plant.
>> that's correct.
>> so if you build, you risk not being able to occupy them until you get the wastewater plant permitted.
>> yes, sir, judge. What we'll do undoubtedly as the permit hearing goes along, we're able to determine exactly how long its going to take to have the permit issued. There are two sewer providers in the area and we have discussed with both of them the possibilities. One of those sewer providers has made available some of their capacity to us if we decide to use it. (indiscernible). Of course, it would constitute what I call a full -- (indiscernible). We would have to force the sewer to that plant and it would be a waste of money. So if it appears that we will have to drag the process out through the hearing process, then we will -- (indiscernible).
>> the lcra's utility project is tceq approved?
>> yes, sir. It currently serves lakeline, falcon head, some of the other subdivisions in the area.
>> Commissioners, let me just add that in the regular chapter 82, prior to any renewals, the requirement is that the plat has to include a plat note prohibiting occupancy to any lot until connection is played maid to an approved public sewer system or approved private individual sewage disposal system. So it wouldn't be a free for all. They would have to -- they would have to have an approved system before occupancy. Even under our old rules.
>> but the lcra system is an approved system?
>> yes, it is.
>> so that would qualify.
>> and you're effectively taking pump and haul off the table altogether.
>> with the exhibit b to the phasing agreement.
>> so there is agreement on that, pump and haul is out.
>> yeah.
>> okay.
>> and I think some of the issues have been addressed. The -- I was out there with -- wasn't a very busy day the first day I went and cars were moving along at quite a clip. And so I guess my concern is over the safety of people moving in and out of there. If we're concerned about the safety of construction crews and trying to control the entrance, is that really going to apply to the residents who live there, to people who buy homes there? Is there going to have to be a controlled traffic flow there? In the morning and in the evening so that they can -- (indiscernible).
>> we have limited the amount of (indiscernible) that we can disturb, so that limits the number of lots, so that's why we set at maximum even during the most optimistic experience out there, we can only have about 25 cars, pickups a day. And we've already talked to the folks at hill country realty. They're fine with them coming into their driveway and making a turnaround. I would anticipate that we probably will get two of the 25, 26 in our present subdivisions. We don't know -- we've only seen about 10 pickup trucks on the construction crews a day. That is pretty typical in the lots over there.
>> I think what she's talking about, bill, is once you get the project done and just the regular traffic that's coming out of the subdivision, address that and how you see that in a systematic, you know, way happening.
>> the tia says that there will be one signalized intersection on 71. So I think that in combination with the improvements that the advanced funding agreement would allow at txdot, at first this intersection to the east of pedernales summit parkway and then after 600 homes are constructed to the west. Because at some point when a final plat hits where 601 lots is included, then there would be another traffic impact a-- advanced funding agreement and another indemnification agreement, and there would be more improvements to that western intersection at pedernales summit parkway because that will be required too. But they're not going to be building and coming in off of that way until they have to, and that's one of the provisions of the phasing agreement.
>> is there a light at the pedernales summit parkway? That's how you would control it.
>> what's tia?
>> traffic impact analysis.
>> txdot has plans, of course, for a left turn lane in their long-term plans all the way to the pedernales river, which is a whole length of road. They will, of course, do it in stages. We are -- in our need to get this phase approved is so we don't miss that (indiscernible) that txdot would like to lay ground on the left turn lane that they they want to build in the area of bee creek road. And we are simply adding to that and extending it. So there won't be two time frames of construction, there will just be one and txdot is out there doing theirs plus ours. I would imagine over time if traffic starts and continues -- and we're seeing it all over town. If traffic continues to escalate, we're going to have to move their plans forward. Bee creek road is in dire need of the sheriff's department. I don't know of any faster way to slow those folks down than to start issuing tickets, but I am not exaggerating on these homes. When they tell you people use that has a raceway, they do.
>> there is agreement on that? [ laughter ] any other questions for staff or mr. Gunn? Any other comments, mr. Gunn, since you have the microphone there?
>> no, sir, except thank you for your time. We're doing everything that we can to make this a quality development. I need to emphasize that the bcp funds that we are contributing are -- we're happy to do it. At a later time we are also going to do our own internal park facilities, and we hope that the open space will make up for some of the objections of those who don't like clustered projects. Thank you.
>> thank you. Now, some residents have come down to address the court on this matter. So if you would like to give comments on this item, please come forward at this time and give us your full name and we'd be happy to get your comments. Morning.
>> morning. My name is christie miews. I知 speaking today by myself as a resident in western Travis County and also on behalf of the hill country alliance. A nonprofit that was formed because of these type of issues in the hill country. And before I forget, I want to mention just previously about the wastewater treatment plant in lake point that they're referring to that could be the developed wastewater facility. I think that's worth checking out. My understanding is that facility doesn't have the capacity to meet the needs that it has right now, and I don't know this for sure, but I question if they have capacity to help out the lazy nine m.u.d. Judge Biscoe, Commissioners, you're the only elected officials with the specific authority to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Travis County. The lcra, txdot, the tceq are political entities. They do not consider the best interests of the citizens. I just wanted to go through some of the items that mr. Gieselman brought up today. He pointed out that the lcra commitment for centralized water and wastewater has changed things in western Travis County and it's true. It made it possible for smaller, denser development. Smaller lots and denser development. But if you look at the situation from a different perspective, one could also say that this dense development, sweetwater, is what has made the highway 71 water line possible. The deals agreed to by lcra and the lazy nine m.u.d. In November of 2003 read that the (indiscernible). I知 just bringing this up to refined mooind you that back in 2004 you were under a tremendous amount of pressure to approve that plan, and the pressure was coming from this deal between the lcra and the lazy nine m.u.d. That would get the development grandfathered and thet the water line funded. This is the exact same pressure that they have today. We tried to communicate that with you in June of 2004, but you chose to take a risk and try something new that was never done before. Instead of refusing to grant preliminary approval back then, you asked bill gunn to waive his right to grandfather the project. My impression was that a commitment was made to the community that day, and to quote the transcript, y'all said there was a new game in town. New rules would apply to anything beyond section 1. Some of you have demonstrated that you truly believe the rest of this project will comply with new rules. Commissioner Sonleitner, you've made that very clear that that was your understanding. It appears that Commissioner Daugherty and staff instead entered into a game of beat the clock with these developers, and I question if there was ever any intention of winning that game.
>> excuse me. If you are accusing me of manipulating what has taken place in this process, I take great exception to that. That is absolutely not the truth, and I will not sit here and tolerate that, christie. I have not done that. I will not sit here and I will not listen to those kind of accusations.
>> I apologize, Commissioner. I don't mean to accuse you personally. I知 making observations about how this thing has laid out, and I don't understand. Let me continue, please. The developer submitted the application for the sweetwater ranch section 2 and was deemed complete -- I apologize. I did not mean to accuse him personally. What I said was that it appears that the game, maybe there was never any chance of winning that game. That was my thought. When section 2 was deemed complete on March 14th, it was one day ahead of a moratorium on preliminary plans. But it important to remember that the county had an opportunity to approve it on March first and on March eighth. Commissioner Davis, you were ready to vote on the interim rules on March eighth, and I appreciate that. We thank you for that. If everyone would have joined on that those dates, we wouldn't be here today. But no action was taken for two weeks while sweetwater developers completed their work to become administratively complete. And I find it concerning that the Commissioners who expressed so much concern about the project were informed of that situation. Commissioner Sonleitner, you brought this point up and I appreciate that. Regarding senate bill 848, which is the fair notice statute that was talked about, this is the cocktail napkin bill. I want everyone to understand that there is a provision in that statute that stated that a cocktail napkin or called the cocktail napkin plan to expire if it was not administratively complete within 45 days. The staff was to give notice to the developer within 10 days of receiving the master plan. As to what needed to be done to become administratively complete. And then if the developer didn't respond within 45 days, the plan would have expired, that master plan. Travis County staff didn't send a 10-day notice. The 45-day limit was not met, but the plan didn't expire because there was no notice sent. Okay. The phasing agreement. The first part of the phasing agreement deals with the water quality elements, the issuance of an lcra type 1 permit. My understanding is that this is the requirement anyway. So adding this to the phasing agreement I知 not sure that this accomplishes anything except to make it appear like the developer is doing something extra, but they're really not. Regarding the wastewater utilities, you're stating that there was no occupancy of homes to the wastewater from the homes to be -- until the wastewater treatment center is complete. Attorney stewart henry -- it is his opinion that if you have the authority to deny this plan until a wastewater permit is granted. The wastewater permit being submitted to tceq is being proposed. Comments have been submitted by downstream neighbors, the lcra, city of Austin, david van highs en, raymond slade, several engineers in the hill country, the hill country alliance, save Barton Creek association and the s.o.s. Alliance. I have technical comments here that have been filed on that permit. I hope you make a decision on today's agenda and file comments yourself on that. But in forcing the proposal outline, there may be no occupancy until a wastewater treatment plant is constructed could be difficult. The company issue has been handled. Thank you, judge Biscoe, for that. Briefly --
>> and the rest of the court.
>> and the rest of the court. Regarding highway 71, please do not allow construction until the roadwork is complete. This is the second deadliest road in Travis County. How has this been studied? Where is the traffic control plan? How does the tia address safety issues? Where are the numbers that we've been asking for related to accidents and deaths on this stretch of road? Is this enforceable? These are questions that we still have. The tnr staff states that putting up construction of homes for occupancy until txdot completed aproovments and requiring the safety control plan will address the safety concerns that have been raised. I just would like to see a demonstration of on what basis tnr has come to this conclusion, that the plan addresses the safety concerns of the community. Regarding the bcp offer, this part of the county is outside the boundaries of the bcp. Communicate destruction of the bee creek valley with preservation of this area is absolutely wrong. Chapter 82 as I read it says that there must be proof of sufficient waste and/or wastewater capacity. Where is that proof? How can the lazy nine m.u.d. Provide a written statement authorizing capacity when they don't have a permit? Lastly, the location of the treatment plant has been dismissed as a non-issue. I still believe that is an issue. The location was chosen because it's the lowest part of the subdivision and it has good access to highway 71. The developer concluded there's no environmental features on that site; however, the site itself is on the banks of bee creek. So if the wastewater treatment facility fails, which some day it's likely that it will, any spill will go into bee creek and Travis County. These residents have spent time, energy and money for two years, studying, taking, talking, meeting, sitting here with you, expressing concerns. Now is the time to vote now. And lastly, I apologize again for upsetting Commissioner Daugherty. It was not intended to be a personal accusation, it just appears like we've never had a chance in these two years. Too many incidents one after another, too many technicalities. Thank you very much.
>> any questions?
>> thank you. Yes, sir?
>> judge and Commissioners, my name is brad rock well on behalf of save our springs alliance. I have what's before you here frankly is kind of a confusing mess. And I think it's a confusing mess primarily because the developer has, as christie mentioned, tried to gain the system and figure out ways to evade by simply complying with current Travis County regulations. And I think that's a lot of what this is all about. I have attempted to sort through this mess, not necessarily having access to all the documentation and prepared a memo that should have been distributed to you this morning. And in this memo I outline several reasons why what's before you does not satisfy Travis County regulations. And on that basis should not be approved. Before I go through my brief, memorandum, I壇 like to make one response. There's been discussion about traffic problems which I have not really addressed in the memo. And I think it's universally agreed there's traffic problems on 71 that this development will exacerbate. Mr. Gunn earlier this morning proposed that his development and other developments will make traffic so bad that txdot will just have to do something. In fact, txdot presumebly being asked to solve the problem that his and other developments are causing. The reality is, as many of you know from being on campo, txdot is very short of money, very short of funds, can't fund all the projects that it would like to fund. I don't think this project is particularly at the top of the list. And I believe the most -- I just received an e-mail last week talking about a potential 10 billion-dollar shortfall that txdot is facing. And we all know that they're desperately considering toll roads and other means to raise revenue because they can't afford to build the projects. So I think it's a little bit of a pipe dream to just assume that txdot is going to come in and solve the transportation problems here. Let me go back to the memo. Let's look at the preliminary plan, revised preliminary plan for section 1 that's before you. One reason why that should not be approved today is because it does not satisfy the interim rules. It does not comply with the interim rules. Now, the preliminary plan was submitted on August 10th, 2005. This was after the interim rules adopted. So under normal circumstances it would have to comply with the interim rules. And it is a different project. It is a different set of development plans than the previous preliminary plans. We already missed being proffered as to why the interim rules should not apply, and govern this revised preliminary plat is that there is a master development plan filed on June 9th, 2005 while there is a moratorium on the preliminary plans to be filed. And this is typical of the kind of gamesmanship being played by the developer and I think caused christie to make some of her comments about wondering why they've been allowed to get away with this or why this happens. But if you look at the phasing agreement that y'all entered into with the developer, it is based entirely on the original preliminary plan. It has a very precise identification of the various lots, roadways, and authorizes the developer to file certain development applications pursuant to that agreement in a certain phase, in a certain sequence. The master development plan is not part of that scheme. It's not something that's authorized in the phasing agreement, and in fact the terms of the master development plan contradict the phasing agreement. And the bottom line is the developer through the phasing agreement has contracted away his ability to file and make effective a master development plan that covers this development in the form it is filed. So as a legal matter, the master development plan is not authorized, should not be given any kind of legal effect at all, and it does not have the effect of creating some sort of grandfathering that freeze the developer from complying with the interim rules. So on that basis alone, the preliminary -- the revised preliminary plan should be rejected today. I致e also in going through the documentation seen some references to a need for bike lane variances. That there are certain requirements in our grandfathered regulations that require certain block lengths. I do not know for sure whether there's a variance that was required or the one that's before you today or one that was administratively granted, but I ask you to look at it and consider that your regulations do not really specifically allow for variance for this. There's not even a delegation with standards that I could see in there. And I may have missed something that allows the staff to on its own make this kind of variance. And the phasing agreement, and that's a phasing agreement, unconditionally requires the developer to meet Travis County standards for construction of streets and drainage and subdivisions. So any kind of variance should not even be allowed under the phasing agreement. Another issue is -- this is a (indiscernible) that the master development -- this is assuming that the master development plan is valid. Assuming it's grandfathered, still the preliminary plat revised preliminary plan should be rejected because there's been a failure to demonstrate wastewater capacity. That's the present tense word, is available for development. It doesn't say it will be available for development. Clearly the developer is a long ways away and the lazy nine mud is a long ways away from providing wastewater services to this development. Not only is there this process that was referred to earlier that should last at least a year, there's always a chance with so many parties making comments that christie just identified that there will be an appeal to district court, various appeals from that. So this is providing -- providing wastewater is potentially a very long prees. Today mr. Gunn mentioned that lcra was a potential alternative to this process if this process drags out. I知 not sure whether that development agreement is directly applicable here, but certainly there's no reason why a similar law would not be applicable here that would require certain development standards to be met before receiving lcra utilities. As far as I can tell, this development does not meet the standards set forth by fish and wildlife for the utility extensions by lcra. So I知 not sure the lcra is a realistic alternative. Again, there's been discussion by staff that there's really not a need to show wastewater capacity actually being available at this point, that that's something that you can worry about later. But in truth it's very logical for this to be something that y'all should consider at the outset and get resolved at the outset rather than waiting for it to be resolved potentially sometime in the future. [one moment, please, for change in captioners] if the preliminary plan is not valid, you have no authority to grant the final plats.
>> the preliminary plan does not comply with the phasing agreement, based on the original preliminary plan. The phase in agreement obligates the developer to file four specifically end new mexicoated -- end new enumerated phases of final plats. I do not believe it complies with the phase in agreement and the term that it sets forth there. Also when you get to the final platting stage, requires a letter from the wastewater utility indicating whether and when service will be available to all lots in the subdivision. Again there's no way for lazy nine m.u.d. Or lcra to send a letter that can say whether and when service will be available to all lots in the subdivision. This is something that's completely up in the air right now. This section cannot be complied with. Now going on to the preliminary plan for section 2, the -- the -- it would appear that the preliminary -- the preliminary plan for section 2 has some of the similar wastewater and block way [indiscernible] preliminary plan for section 1 have that I have already talked about. In addition there's a particular grandfathering issue with respect to -- excuse me, section 2, that has to do with the comments that christie was referring to that were made when -- when you all -- immediately before you all approved the phase-in agreement. Before the phase-in agreement was approved, twoer bill gunn appeared on behalf of the developer and promised that -- that if -- if this phase-in agreement was approved then he would go forward, that the grandfathering would only apply to section 1 and that section 2 would be subject to -- to the new interim rules that everybody thought would be done much earlier than they actually were done. I believe judge Biscoe ask if this would be agreeable with you then judge Biscoe replied yes it is. After this exchange they voted to approve the phasing agreement. Under law of promissory estoppel, the developer is now esstopped from arguing that it is grandfather and not subject to the rules. Finally before you is the amendment to the phase in agreement. I must say that I have had not had a chance to necessarily review all of the terms of these amendments. I have looked at some draft versions, I知 not sure exactly what's before you here today. As you may have gleaned from my presentation, a lot of the authority that you currently have to prevent this bad development from being grandfathered and to prevent it from being approved in -- in violation of your current regulations, is based on the existing phasing agreement. If you today approve an amended phase in agreement, which you are under no obligation to do, if you decide to do that, you are potentially cutting out your own foundation of being able to resist some of the gamesmanship that is being proposed here by the development. On that basis I would also urge you not to approve the amendment to the phasing agreement. Thank you.
>> what would you say would be the -- the two or three most important that a develop would have to meet under interim rule that's do not exist before -- before adoption of the interim rules.
>> well, as you know, judge, save our springs alliance urge very strongly that the interim rules be made much more stronger than they are. And we are very disappear pointed that they aren't -- disappointed that they aren't more stronger than they are. But given what they are, I think the various kinds of setbacks that are contained in the interim rules are -- are sort of the bare minimum that would be -- that should be necessary to protect some of the natural features in this area.
>> setbacks would be the most important ones?
>> right.
>> okay. Any other questions for mr. Rockwell? By the way we will discuss.
>> I have one, judge.
>> we will discuss this with mr. Nichols when we go into executive session on this item.
>> thank you, judge. I just want to make sure that -- we are going to go and explore, look at the interim rules before we of course change them and hopefully support permanent rules and I think it would be good for -- for your input and others input to be -- to be placed on the table as we go into that phase because right now, the question that we are dealing with interim rules at this point. However there's going to be a time in the future, hopefully real soon that we will finalize, these rules will become permanent. I hear what your concerns are as far as setbacks and a whole bunch of things that we mention on the current interim rules, but these things can be modified as we go through the process, I知 just hoping and encouraging you to be a part of this process as lead to our permanent rules. Really would.
>> I think help if we know what's on the table or know what's before us, before we end up adopting permanent rules. I appreciate that.
>> thank you Commissioner, thank you for your individual support in the past for your efforts to strengthen some of these regulations.
>> I have got to ask this question. Great deal has been made of -- of whether somebody beat the block, didn't beat the clock. The adoption of the interim rules that should have done quicker, you are now saying it should have been stronger. I have to ask you this. Why did you call me at my home and encourage the Travis County Commissioners court to delay the adoption of the interim water quality rules? You can't have it both ways. You are here saying you should have acted sooner, there was a problem in terms of the adoption, then why did you call me, something I have never brought up, but now it is beyond relevant. You called me as we were fixing to do the adoption of the interim water quality rules and you urged us to slow down. And not adopt them. And I told you, nope, we are ready to move forward. Which is it?
>> Commissioner I personally don't remember calling you at home. I don't dispute if you say that I did that --
>> I have the tape.
>> okay, I知 fine. And -- I think what we were talking about is a delay of a matter of weeks. What would have -- solved a lot of these problems is if the moratorium that you all adopted while the interim rules were being considered would have been brought into expand and include things like the -- the municipal development plan that now is being argued was -- was a basis for grandfathering. I think the -- a few weeks of extension was not really what the problem was, it was the failure to -- to have a moratorium be broad enough to include everything that the developer could have filed and which this was initially before you in March, when christie was saying that it would have been good for you all to have approved the interim rules immediately, neither I nor s.o.s. Alliance at that point was asking you to postpone consideration of the rules. I believe that it was only after the moratorium had been imposed and there was an extensive discussions over the details of the rules.
>> let us be really clear about what happened. We were in the midst of a special session, not only did you leave me a voice message on my home recorder, which I have saved, but you and I had a personal conversation about this. It had to do with the concerns by s.o.s. That we were in the midst of a special session with the legislature and that any action by the Commissioners court could trigger some kind of reaction over at the state legislature. It was not about we need to broaden the rules. When I asked you are you willing to go public and say that s.o.s. Wants us to slow down come Tuesday, the day after you and I had this conversation, you said oh, no, I -- no, I知 not publicly going to say that. So you can't have it both ways.
>> well, I do not remember asking you to slow down in that matter.
>> you did.
>> any other questions? Thank you.
>> yes, sir?
>> my name is dr. John [indiscernible] ecker, I知 here as a citizen that lives on bee creek, also as a trauma surgeon. I live on bee creek just downstream of this proposed development, in terms of the development and Lake Travis and -- and I go down to bee creek regularly, we have a swimming hole right there that borders my property and the homeowners association park across the creek and it's routinely used by myself, my family and all -- many of the neighbors. I share a lot of the concerns for the quality of water in the creek. I知 not a wastewater specialist, but I have spoken with the geologist, hydrologist, engineer that has analyzed this development. At least the individuals that I have spoken to have said that the -- that the planned dispersion of the waste and so forth is inadequate. I think it's fair to say that most of the neighbors are concerned that we don't want to have another fiasco that occurred in lick creek, which I知 sure you all are aware of. But lick creek is just west of bee creek and the development there -- developer there had especially destroyed that creek with excessive sediment and other issues that -- that turned a much clearer creek into kind of a mud pit now. I知 one of six trauma surgeons that work at brackenridge hospital, that tears care of all of the severely traumatized people in Travis County and 12 other surrounding counties. The other five are my partners so I知 very familiar with car accidents and taking care of these people. I also drive every day down this stretch of 71 going to work at brackenridge. And as you know, the volume of traffic is increasing, the number of accidents are increasing, the severity of those accidents are -- are frequently intense, due to the speed of traffic which has been mentioned earlier here today. I think it's imperative to that before you say yes to any development, that concessions have to be made with the -- with the traffic situation in terms of turning lanes and expanding the road and so forth. This idea of having people go down to bee creek reality and make a u-turn is ludicrous. That is completely inadequate and the idea of -- if we build it, they will come -- type of attitude is think is inadequate as well. We need to be proactive and have the -- have the essential changes made in the roadways prior to the development. My child, who just got her kindergarten diploma yesterday makes the trip every day to school. As do many children in the neighborhood. School buses loaded with children going to bee creek and other schools and we need to make some concessions and some changes in the roadways prior to this development. As I understand it, there is no good plan in place that addresses these issues. As I致e said, I have -- I take care of these people that are in accidents there, we see them. It's real, it happens, we've had -- we've had deaths in the area. And those numbers are increasing. So I really do encourage you and immore you to -- to -- implore you to ensure that there is some adequate changes to the road before any development goes on in this place. I would ask you to vote no for this proposal. Thank you.
>> thank you, dr. , we appreciate you coming out. Any questions? Yes?
>> my name is christine hartman, and I live five miles down the road from bee creek at crawford road. My neighbor trey angley asked me to speak for him as well today. His one comment to me on the phone, which I will pass on, is he's a realtor, he says -- he said to me, he said, entrances should be hospitable, not hospital. I知 an analyst, you probably don't know what I do, I知 a telecom analyst, I致e been speaking from the other side of my brain, my emotional side. This time I would like to speak as an analyst. As an analyst I have learned sometimes as a matter of asking the right questions. And I -- do -- you guys can tell me if it's not appropriate here, but I would like to ask one question. I would like to ask that the -- that txdot or the developer take that map and explain to me exactly where those entrances are. As I drive -- ever since I came to the first sweetwater hearing, as I have driven by that spot I have said where are those entrances going to be. I have looked at the map but I can't figure it out. To the question of speed that came up here, I知 not a person from -- prone to speeding, but I have found myself going down that hill getting my -- my speed getting up to what I don't consider safe and having to slow myself down. It's very easy for anyone, even if they are not prone to speeding, to start going fast down that hill as you approach bee creek. So anyway, is that appropriate and can I ask a couple of questions?
>> can we -- the first question is to take the map and show you where the intersections would be. Can we do that?
>> what I would like to know is where the intersections are, what the terrain is like in those areas, what thinking has gone into saying those are the best places and what concerns are there with where they are being located today and how are those concerns being addressed.
>> hi, ana bowlin, t.n.r. This is the western most intersection. Here's -- eastern.
>> I知 sorry, eastern, this is the western one that's proposed in the future. Here's bee creek road. This is along with village a, so this is the -- this is -- do you have your bearings.
>> how far is that from bee creek? I知 trying to get a feel for what the drain is like there.
>> okay, let's --
>> [indiscernible] let's see if we have a scale, one to 300.
>> okay. Do -- can we have the top for graphic map.
>> okay. Topo graphic map.
>> four inches is a quarter of a mile.
>> I know they had to cut back on the other side so people could see the light.
>> I know there would be a proposed bridge immediately coming on to the property. Over here there would not be a bridge immediately when you come on, but I know there would be a bridge right here, so the highway drops off.
>> right. After you get on to the property, there would be a bridge. And then would come this village a. So ... We don't have a topographic map here.
>> highway 71 there. Yeah. I do have a map that shows the 71 improvements.
>> okay.
>> I don't know if that provides you any of your answers.
>> thanks. Here's bee creek road, here's the proposed pedernales summit parkway, this shows that -- it extending, this is -- this part of it would be subject to the advanced funding agreement and this is the txdot portion of the project. So -- so -- where would it go to one lane? On the eastbound side? That's -- that's -- I知 trying to figure out -- I知 trying to picture it in light of what the terrain looks like in that area. Having driven by it quite frequently, wondered where it would go to one lane, where the turn would be and where -- where --
>> well, I don't -- I know that we are talking about a center turn lane. I know that we are talking about improved shoulders. They are no longer calling them left turn lanes. But it looks like, I believe this is approximately a half a mile. And then -- then, you know, that would get you into -- give you a safe bay into pedernales summit parkway. So that's what -- that's what's being proposed right now.
>> object. Somehow that doesn't make -- okay. Somehow that doesn't make me feel better. I would have liked to have heard more suggestion, what's the terrain like in this area, why did we pick this spot that there was thought into where this spot was, what the lines of sight were in both directions, people turning out, people turning in, what the line of sight would be for the cars coming down that way. What the -- what the terrain was like in terms of the speed of those cars, either going to be going downhill as they hit that spot or going uphill. Makes a big difference to me as to how safe that intersection would be.
>> what the state plans to do is provide a middle turn lane that is not there now. And the purpose of the middle turn lane hopefully is to get regular traffic out of the traffic lanes.
>> yes, sir.
>> so the question is whether the traffic -- whether the traffic, the through traffic can see that the car has -- has moved over into the turn lane.
>> out of the travel lane. When this -- when these intersection locations were selected, they were selected with intersection stopping sight distance in mind. I don't have the specific calculations about how far that was, but it wasn't as per driveway stopping distance, it was intersection stopping distance with the travel speed, you know, because it's different that stopping sight distance is different depending on what the speed limit is that you are intellecting with, with -- interjecting with, intersecting with, with the road that you are intersecting with. I don't have the calculations here, but that's what txdot would look at whenever they are looking at what the appropriate site distance is. That's what -- sight distance, that's what we look at also here in Travis County. I don't have those calculations with me.
>> [indiscernible] I think those are the kinds of things that we would like to see, the fact that there has been a lot of thought put into where those intersections are, that there's been thought put into the terrain, thought put into the kind of traffic that you are getting there that's -- thought was put into. How many cars would be there. I did a quick calculation, figured out if you are going to put in let's say 1500 homes, I know it's a little more than that, most people are going to be going turning left, two cars per family, most people turning left, four, five, six times a week. That's nearly three-quarters of a million cars a year turning left there. That's three quarters of a million more times our trauma surgeon is going to have to -- I think he's left, to do his work. It very much concerns me. It concerns me as someone who lives beyond our -- where they have done the same thing, just yesterday I saw fortunately an incident that didn't turn into an accident of a car going slowly into that spot and somebody speeding past them. No accident in that case, but it happens more frequency. I知 one of those people if somebody is following a little closer behind me, at that intersection, than I think they should be, I slow down long before I get to that intersection to force them to pass me where there's two lanes instead of one because it's so often that somebody is in a hurry and wants to get past you at that point. So -- so I don't know that my concerns have been alleviated, but I appreciate the more information. I will drive by there with renewed interest on exactly where they are.
>> judge?
>> can I just say one last thing? I know that one of the things between the -- the -- on the east -- I知 sorry, on the western -- I知 looking at this backwards and subpoena side down for me. Upside-down for me. But on the western side where pedernales summit comes back around, that intersection txdot I think was very or I know we were, I believe txdot also liked the new location of that intersection, they preferred that over the -- where it was in the original preliminary plan just for some of the reasons that you've stated. Even though it was acceptable, I think it's preferable where it is now being contemplated just for some of those very, reasons. Because it has been a better line of sight.
>> Commissioner Davis?
>> yes, judge. I just wanted to -- is it any way in the time line that -- before us today as far as dealing with this particular development project and as we have heard a lot of comments being made on volumes of traffic, even of traffic impact analysis, which is not a part of this, but is there any possible way that traffic impact analysis can be reviewed and looked at as far as the volume and dealing with the projection of such density as far as residents that's being looked at in this particular subdivision. It appears that there would definitely be a traffic volume increase. I知 just wondering during this process is there any way possible to throw that type of projection into what's already currently being used, that way you can maybe get a better look at what's actually coming forth in -- and add some of the concerns, especially the safety concerns that I continue to hear from -- from testimony even here today. So if there's any way possible to get a look and a peek see about how that can be done as far as analyzing that type of encroachment as far as increase in traffic volume? Would the state consider that in --
>> the state highway, have they already designed the intersection, they would have considered all of those factors now. They make that available upon request, don't they? I guess it's just a matter of knowing to request it.
>> judge --
>> I would like to know that it was based on -- on future traffic as well, with a million square feet going in at bee cave, I know the world market they asked, they are constantly asking people zip codes when you go to the world market. I ask them, well, where do you get the zip codes from: the one told me further out, from marble falls and llano, you have also got those people adding to the load of traffic as they get the million square feet out, but you have to realize that you are going to be drawing from -- from further out 71, so the traffic patterns as they are today may not be a good thing to base everything on, but rather on the traffic patterns as they will be tomorrow. I have got a famous [indiscernible] quote which we used to use in the telecom industry, don't skate to where the puck is now, you skate to where the puck is going to be.
>> joe?
>> number one, I think probably the plans for the improvement are available. I can put you in touch with the engineer at txdot who designed it. But I would also state that they are probably trying to optimize what they have. You have got the terrain, the way it exists, they are trying to fit the best solution to the terrain that they have. And it would also probably look at this as an interim improvement as opposed to an improvement that would satisfy the situation 15, 20 years from now. Ultimately, I would think txdot would upgrade 71 to a freeway. Where it would have frontage roads, all of the conflicting traffic would be on the frontage road, not on the main lanes. Because of funding I think that's probably years away. I think your point is well made in terms of you would like to be able to go where the puck is in the future, that's not always possible because the funding constraints.
>> I知 not talking 15 to 20 years of now, I知 talking summer of 2007 that when that mall opens up. Even the mall that opens up --
>> we are clearly behind the 8 ball behind the entire county on reading the traffic needs in this county.
>> thank you. We are looking at lunch, looks like to my staff I -- somebody should get the tape recorder. We lost one a while back.
>> I won't be --
>> it will be this afternoon before executive session apparently. Okay?
>> hello. My name is margie [indiscernible], my husband and I own property along 71. I was glad that the map came up actually, because I can show you very easily where I live. And -- this is our property right here.
>> the development is going to surround me on two sides actually, so I have a couple of different concerns maybe than some of the other people here do. In my personal opinion after living there for 16 years, I think the places where the roads are coming in and out are probably the best possible for the landscape out there. I know it very well, I have hiked it forever. We have been there 16 years, I know it well. I知 concerned about being land locked by the development. As I said where the outgoing road is shown, that's on my property line basically. All of the traffic kemps that we are discussing everybody is aware, it's definitely something to be concerned about. I have spent years before, before the cell phone, with a land line, then a cell phone, last year with a fire extinguisher worrying about fire out there, which is another one of my big concerns. Mr. Gunn and I have had a discussion. He offered to do some things to help us out. I don't want my driveway to compete with a major entrance or exit. My driveway is literally right next to where this road is going to be. That's one of my concerns. I知 concerned about fire, the water treatment plant. I realize that it's in the best place for the development. One of the reasons that it's in the best place, it's not immediately near any of the residences for the development. It's very near my home. I can literally throw a rock probably from the corner of my property and hit the treatment plant. So I知 a little bit concerned about that and the danger of my well water. On the back of this map it shows the plans for 71. All -- I have gone back and read through the court records, the records here and I have seen a lot of discussion over the first entrance, the eastern entrance into the development, but nothing about the -- about this one. The one that is along my property line. I知 interested in knowing one thing and I致e heard a traffic light brought up a few times, supposedly a traffic light at one entrance, I知 assuming it's at the one at my property. I would like to see if I can find that out also. Once again my concerns are -- my land being locked in by the highway on one side, development on two sides, danger to my well water. And not having access to be -- it's hard enough getting in and out of on that -- on that highway right now without having to tie to fight another traffic flow as well. Just a personal comment also is that the turn around thing, I don't see how that serves to help anyone whatsoever as far as the turn around for construction people going into that development except for the people that have the taco stand down next to the reality office. I知 sure that they would be very, very happy to have a bunch of construction people in there. But otherwise if they miss that one, the next best place to turn around is going to be in my driveway. For 20 or 30 or whatever cars coming in and out once or twice a day, I -- why should they add to other people's traffic problems by going in, slowing around, trying to find a place to turn around to jump back in to go back down and turn around again. Just I知 sure that the idea came up trying to make things better but living there I just don't personally think that it does.
>> joe, is the signal near the red or the green on the map? She's down near the red, right?
>> uh-huh, that's the red is the water treatment plant.
>> that's about all that I can see.
>> is the signal down near the red up near the green on the opposite end.
>> green.
>> there's not definitely a traffic light plan.
>> not decided at which entryway the signal will be put.
>> that's why I couldn't figure it out I guess.
>> you are voting for it to be up near the green?
>> huh? I知 voting for somehow or another me being and the to have access to that road so I can leave any property and go with the traffic flow, whichever way it is, as opposed to having to drive my driveway and try to fight the traffic flow of that road.
>> okay.
>> if I questions? Any questions?
>> yes, sir.
>> I知 gene lowenthal, president of the scenic road corridor. In my view nothing substantial has changed since the last Commissioners court hearing on sweetwater on April 11th. There have been minor tweaks, certainly the -- I understand that there's a proposal to contribute $500,000 to the bcp. That's very generous. But unfortunately has nothing to do with the public health and safety issues that have been raised again and again and again. It would seem to me therefore that whatever reasons that you had for denying approval for this project in April would still apply today. In fact I値l give you one more reason for we holding approval today. The dwoarp has amply -- the developer has amply demonstrated he is not interested in working with the community. I get the impression that he just views us as an obstacle to be overcome. The Commissioners first withheld approval back in January. Has mr. Gun reached out to represent the community. I believe the answer is no. He's talked to -- to the public officials, he's talked to staff, but he has not sat down with us. Commissioner Daugherty, you taught me a useful phrase. A seat at the table. Quote unquote. This process was the seat of the table for the community, where is the seat at the table? I have seen none. In summary, mr. Gun doesn't keep us informed, not interested in a dialogue, most important not interested in seriously addressing legitimate concerns raised by the public, he just keeps coming back with the same resolution again and again and again. And we are asking you to withhold approval once again. Even better, ask him not to come back until he actually does something, until he has substantially dealt with the real issues, thank you.
>> thank you. Any questions for mr. Lowenthal? Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> yes?
>> I have a little more information on the traffic safety issues that I would like to address.
>> your name, please.
>> I知 sorry, Karen huber, I live on pedernales canyon trail in precinct 3. Thank you, Commissioners, judge, for taking our testimony today. We keep talking about traffic impact analysis, but what I知 seeing missing here is a traffic safety study. I took a look at -- we had an experience at pedernales canyon trail several years ago with serious, serious accidents. We discovered at that time and then much has been made about txdot's role and approval on this. I -- my sympathy is with txdot, overburdened, underfunded, way behind as it's been said in addressing issues with traffic at the state. But in our pedernales canyon trail incidents where we had a lot of mainly, serious accidents turning left, we discovered in reviewing that process that the accidents report -- accident reports to txdot were running three years behind time. I called txdot recently, asked, they are still running several years behind in posting the information on accidents. At the time we did the -- addressed the pedernales canyon trail problem, we -- we went over to -- to the -- to the -- to the pedernales emergency services district and worked with fire chief to -- to hand transcribe the number of accidents that they had responded to. We talked with Commissioner Daugherty about that, he was very helpful in raising the attention of txdot, a study was funded. They actually come out and did not just counts, but visual observations. On the safety issues there. My husband and Commissioner Daugherty actually sat in the vehicle and talked with these fellas while they were doing some of this. One of the things that came to light were the driving patterns were significantly ly different and did not show up on traffic counts and accidents, that was a safety issue just likes some people here are saying some people slow down a long way, force other cars to pass them because the residents know that the rear end collisions were dangerous. I知 using that as an example to say that the situation at sweetwater is not that different. In fact it may be worse, I don't know, the hills are steeper over there on both sides. What I have done is try to get enough information to raise the level of concern to see the need to do a traffic safety analysis on this before it -- before it is approved. We will be adding two more entrances to a small stretch of land which has a very, very high accident rate already. One of the things that I wanted to point out, which I did, it's not to scale, but to graphically represent if there's an accident on highway 71, the people going to town to work and -- and of course the biggest concern is the deaths and serious injuries. Most accidents are serious because of the speed. But if there's an accident, anywhere before hamilton pool road or even sometimes hamilton pool road, traffic is stopped on highway 71, there are no alternate routes into town. You are talking almost 2,000 cars by the old count in '04, they are coming down 71, between 6:30 and 8:30, the other other routes through marble falls and johnson city. Between 84 and 79 miles. I did marble falls for someone going to work in Lakeway, could have been downtown. I did these with map quest online. The oak hill route just to oak hill is 79 miles. We have a significant economic impact with increasing accident rates on highway 71 here. Then I got information from the pedernales esd 8, the second page of the handout here, these numbers look small, what I was trying to show here was there's a significant exponential increase annually. These numbers represent the major accounts between bee creek road and just ever so slightly west, the top of the hill, past the sweetwater project. The fire chief who worked with these on numbers said that these numbers are very, very low for several reasons, first of all, hudson bend sometimes responds to accidents in this area. In the middle of last year, these -- their territory was switched from the creek to the middle of bee creek road and pedernales now services that. But prior to that, some of the time last year hudson bend responded to accidents there. I didn't get the hudson bend number because what they sent me was in a format that I cannot apply to this. The fire department says there's a tremendous amount of accidents on the east side, they hadn't responded to a few because they are in hudson bend jurisdiction. These numbers are extremely low. Yet these are accidents that are occurring, also I would like to point out that the -- that the light at bee creek has been there almost a year now and it has not seemed to have had an impact in reducing the number of accidents. So -- so I知 just trying to show these numbers to say I think that it's imperative that we take a look at the safety factor that are going to be generated here and one of the things that's not -- I have not seen any reference to is that -- is that people who drive -- those of us who drive that road all the time, there are a tremendous number of construction vehicles, the long gravel trucks, the concrete trucks, that are already utilizing that highway in a high degree. They frequently are the cause, may not be involved in but are the cause of the accidents because of their speed. Those kinds of vehicles should be factored into the safety analysis. Then we get additional, when we are talking about the sweetwater project and not having the turn lane finished, until -- until the -- the holes are started, we are talking about a period where they are going to be using concrete trucks and gravel trucks and I kind of doubt that's going to be done in the middle of the night. If it can be that's wonderful, I would like to point out on the traffic study in '04 which I believe warrants, I tried to get the most recent txdot traffic count, there was one done, I understand in may, but was told that it would not be available to the public until July. But the traffic counts in '04 they look at a peak period, but if you have looked at the tia, their tia appendices there are 15 minute intervals in here, all day long there are significant, in the neighborhood of 400 cars or 500 some cases going both directions. And -- and so you have got a high volume count just take take -- juxtaposed to each other. I don't see how we can start construction on another project that's going to bring another intersection into the high risk accident area because there's any kind of dealing with -- with the traffic safety factor there. So that was my traffic part --
>> so we deal with traffic safety by -- by doing what?
>> well, I think that we need to have the -- to commission an independent traffic safety study. That -- that because I don't believe the txdot, you know, it's sort of relative like the -- like the lady was saying here, that -- that that's the best possible location, well that's the best possible location of -- of five bad locations. How is that going to be dealt with effectively? You know, the cars you know her place are coming at 65 and trucks, because they can't slow down, are coming at 65 miles per hour over the top of that hill, it's steep. They may have a line of sight vision to stop, but because of their weight load and speed they can't. So -- so I mean that's just even someone turning and -- it's -- it just warrants, it begs for more analysis. And I can't see how we can start it until we have that -- that full information. We will end up having know are know are more deaths, more accidents, the increase in traffic accidents that are going out the ceiling up there.
>> okay.
>> a couple of other comments that I would like to make. First I would like to speak to the bcp donation and the last week in April, I wanted the court to know that the Commissioner Daugherty, pam reese and myself were having discussions at that point in time about getting large landowners and developers together to help fund additional open space in Travis County. At that time Commissioner Daugherty told both of us that bill gun was prepared to make a half million donation to that effort that we were discussing. Pam and I both refused to be a part of that process because we believed that he was trying to avert -- to buy approval for his project. And we believe he is still attempting to buy approval through this donation to the county. And pam asked me that I include her name in my testimony because she is out of town and could not be here. Such a donation sets an awful example for both real estate community and the county. I just hope the court will recognize the intent behind his offer and not be swayed by such a blatant effort to influence favorable votes. The other thing that I would like to speak to is county authority. Sweet -- I -- I would like to call this the sweetwater colonia. Sb 873 was created to prevent problems caused by the colonias. Those were the unregulated generally below poverty line developments that started popping up, especially in south Texas, but all over Texas, where counties had no use -- no ability for land use regulation and they were built and subdivided with no water, no sewer, no road, no nothing. And -- and the results of this became such a huge health and safety factor in this state that the -- that they passed sb 873 to give counties more control. This is where we are talking about our authority to control the health, safety and welfare of -- of the communities. The cost to retrofit these problems have been huge to taxpayers, here we are again at a different level. Sort of the opposite end of the economic spectrum. We have a sweetwater colonia who slipped in, he knew that these water quality regulations were coming in, the interim water quality ordinance because it has been demonstrated that they were needed. He slipped in, he's going to be able to develop this project not complying with what is known to be needed and we are going to be -- if this is approved and allowed to go forward, we will have another colonia on the other end, we will have water, wastewater and other health and safety issues allowed to be in place that -- that the taxpayers will have to deal with. So -- so please, please, exercise your authority and pre-- in preventing this from happening. The -- unless there's a change in tceq's traditional way of approving wastewater permits, so the sweetwater permanently get approved. Tceq and lcra are both agencies vested with protecting our water quality but unfortunately the efforts of the quality employees of this agencies are undermined by political appreciates exerlted by the governor and other political leadership influenced by big money contributors. These agencies are virtually powerless to enforce rules that are already in effect. Generally treating serious violations are a mere slap on the hand if there's any penalty at all. The lcra I might add has a huge conflict of interest in this particular project because sweetwater would be paying for a large part of the water line. That bear line will estimate -- that water line will stimulate more growth, the growth will continue to increase the traffic on highway 71, an already deadly road. If bill gun and forest city succeed in getting approval for this project as it is currently proposed, they will have made a mockery of this court and I don't want to see that happen. I encourage you as our local elected officials to stand firm in support of the community in its concerns about health and safety. It has to start here where we have the local level to deal with our health and safety issues because it could -- if it gets out of this court's capacity for jurisdiction, then it becomes a pawn in the system of the tceqs and the lcra when it relates to the health, safety and welfare. Please represent the majority of your constituents and see that these issues are resolved before approving this project.
>> loam ask you something. Let's say the 1800 homes that eventually will come in sweetwater over five, eight, 10 years, eight to 10 years. Do you think that we need to send a message to western Travis County that we do not need single homes, I don't care whether you are a home in our own -- and our own three acres or five acres, because you and I both know there are going to be 1800 homes built in western Travis County, not in clustered developments. Not in -- would you -- is the message that you all want sent is that we don't want any more development, we don't want another car on the road because we have got the statistics that show that we don't -- is that what we are really saying Karen. Because that is what we are -- that's effectively, I mean, I知 not talking about the [indiscernible] I知 talking about if you say this is 1800 homes and I don't think that we need 1800 homes in western Travis County, I don't care if they are on one for every five acres. Because you know as well as I do, I can't do that. This court can't do that. We can't as I have often asked do you just wants to draw a circle around western Travis County with a line through it. That says you effectively cannot do anything in western Travis County. That's not the practical thing to do. We all know that 71 is I mean unbelievably dangerous. As is 290. I mean in eastern Travis County, we have got roads that have traffic, we have got roads that have more cuts than what they need, we have got roads that have more subdivisions than they need to have. But I知 confused about -- just get away from the sweetwater. We don't want any more homes. We don't want another automobile on 71. Because that's effectively I mean part of what's being said here, is that right?
>> I知 afraid that I disagree with you.
>> okay.
>> well I think it's how one wants to package it when they look at it quite frankly. But there are other subdivisions going on out there that I do not hear this kind of opposition to. I don't care if they have got clustered apartments and quite frankly would like to see some low income housing out there. Which may not be realistic with the land prices, but I don't care about the 1500, 1800 homes, what I care about is as these developments go in, particularly one like this subdivision, that is located on -- on one of the most if not the most deadly stretch on highway 71, that they are allowed to go forward before their additional impact is allowed to happen. They are allowed to go forward without dealing with the highway first. I mean, if mr. Gun would like to pay for the center turn lane and two lanes in both direction, all of the lights well over the tops of both hills before he convinces -- he commences his initial construction, I知 -- I would be happy about that. But --
>> part of what we -- what we are looking at today is -- is -- are the improvements on 71 before construction of the homes begins.
>> yes, sir. But there's the infrastructure construction utilizes as much or more heavy coming and going traffic with gravel trucks, concrete trucks, things like that. That's --
>> 25 to 50 vehicles a day that matter.
>> 25 to 50 vehicles a day, it -- it translates into somewhere between six and eight an hour or -- well, I don't know, 25 -- 25 or -- 4 to 8 an hour, and with the volume of traffic that already exists, which is much greater than what I believe these tia's currently show because of the outdated numbers.
>> I understand these are workers coming to the -- to the site, where the infrastructure is being constructed. Going against the flow of traffic in the morning and going against the flow of traffic in the evening. We are assuming most of the traffic in the morning is coming toward Austin and workers will be going in opposite direction. In the evening most of the traffic will be going away from Austin whereas these workers, we are assuming, will be coming toward Austin. That's why it seems to make sense to me the -- the number of vehicles then the flow against the regular traffic and the limit on construction of infrastructure and the -- the restriction of home construction until the improvement on 71 have been completed. Those working together left me with the impression that they were making progress.
>> well, perhaps making some progress in requiring that the highway be completed before home construction. The point that I知 trying to make is that the infrastructure is generating a significant amount of traffic. I知 not just talking about workers, I知 talking about like I said the gravel and concrete trucks, the steel trucks carrying rebar. If it can all be done in the middle of the night, that would be very beneficial. Then you are talking, mentioned something about the -- about the traffic flow in opposite directions. There -- phase 1 tia, their traffic counts just for example at 8:00, the eastbound traffic count for the hour of 8:00 to 9:00 is 735. The westbound is 435. That's not an insignificant amount of westbound traffic. You know? So there's -- there's significant on -- traffic both directions all day long is what I知 trying to say.
>> okay. Any more questions for ms. Huber? Thank you. Ms. [indiscernible]
>> I would just like to echo everything that I have heard today. Thus far especially with what Karen just mentioned. Just when you had mentioned about just eastbound coming from the east in the morning. Well, they are going to have to turn into the westbound traffic lanes. And I just really I just feel that is a real dangerous thing. We are just adding a different spot for accidents to happen. I really don't think that it's safe and it's just -- it's -- it's insufficient to say the least. I have -- everybody has really [indiscernible] saying it all.
>> if they said it already, we have took good notes and we will remember.
>> okay. I知 just going to leave you with a -- with an e-mail quote, I know that you have read this before, but I think it's important. And it's from raymond slade, a hydrologist retired from the army corps of engineers, he's a specialist in hydrology in western Travis County. And he has stated with regard to sweetwater: the level of development is unprecedented in the hill country. And no precedent exists to show that level of development could occur without serious pollution. Also the developer has presented no details to demonstrate, they can obtain the water quality removal they claim. Lick creek and dead man's hole present examples of how minimal development causes water quality disasters in hill country streams. With that, I really hope that you would really -- there are so many unanswered questions here. There's so many things that -- that are just if's that are safety valves for the developer if this doesn't happen and there really are no safety valves here for us. There's no protection here at all for the community. And I just really hope that you take that to heart. And thank you very much.
>> thank u. New and different.
>> preferably.
>> judge Biscoe, thank you, Commissioners, my name is phil connard, I have a residence off of pedernales canyon trail, but I actually am in Commissioner Sonleitner's district. And I would like to start with just a personal comment to Commissioner Sonleitner, I knew her when she was a reporter. She was also very innovative in getting the breadth and perspective on her stories, I have taken great comfort in seeing that trait continue during her term, I have taken great confidence in her decisions and never felt the need to call her at home. I have always been able to trust that she would take a good perspective and take -- evaluate the different views. I will try to be brief. I have [indiscernible] land surveyor, grew up in colorado springs, neighbor who parents were kil kil k k k k oror a andndin I icococacaofrawensns nnewew wiwi t ttata take -- evaluate the different views. I will try to bebebe t tll s. Ifif tal - - apepe ououususbllwlw n ansnsec decisions and never felt the need to call her at home. I have always been able to trust that she would take a good perspective and take -- evaluate the differentntifififif -rsrs good perspective and take -- evaluate the different views. I will try to be brief. I have [indiscernible] land surveyor, grew up in colorado springs, colorado. The line of demarcation in colorado springs is i-35. If you look east great plains, west of I 35 or 25 is the rocky mountains, you can look at a single line plat and as a surveyor's son I learned to read those. East of i-35 a plat of 1,000 acres will easily support 2,000 homes. West of i-25 where the rocky mountains are, a plat of 1,000 single line plat may appear that it would support 2,000 homes or 1800 holes, but the reality is that it won't. I appreciate the concern that mr. Gun and his associates purchased their properties while certain rules were in effect. That it's unfair to change the rules during the game. But it's not a game, it's a process of governing. The rules are not rule 82 which does require that you have wastewater in place. Or senate bill 873, which will prevent a colonial in western Travis County. The rule that really applies is the rule of reality. And I don't know honestly if 1800 homes would fit on that tract. I look at a single line plat and I can see how they can easily fit 1800 homes with lots of green space. I look at the corner of bee creek and look up into those canyons and I do not see how that can be done. The rules of reality include the political reality, the political readily is that the preliminary approval is given in phase 1. The Commissioners court has worked with the developer. The Commissioners court has done -- has helped facilitate the developer in his response to growth in western Travis County. However the reality is also that the developer has certain responsibilities, whether it be under rule 82, unthe interim rules or the senate bill, the reality is that he has to provide water which is more or less being addressed and wastewater and you have to respect the quality of the land. And I think that it's premature for the Commissioners court to be granting any additional approval of this project until the developer fulfills his responsibilities to provide for wastewater to -- to validate that he can in fact prevent degradation of the water quality in bee creek and it is an -- and address the traffic concerns. So thank for you your time.
>> thank you.
>> thank you. We will need to go to lunch after these two speakers.
>> aim alicia [indiscernible] I live on bee creek road, just really close to the creek there. Then I have heard lots of number, I have read lots of numbers, done a lot of research on this project. I知 going to give you a personal perspective of how I feel this may affect my quality of life. My families as well. I am speaking [indiscernible] who comoount communicate regularly via meetings, e-mails, so forth. You guys are elected to represent the people in these districts that are going to be affected by the rules that you make. I wanted to ask that you could just consider, you know, our quality of life and our safety that -- much both -- of both myself, husband, children, my family, our children who will be affected by some of the things that might happen here. The first thing was the water. The runoff of the water is -- is a great concern for me just because we like to play at this -- there's a neighborhood creek that someone talked about before, this is a picture of the children sitting inside the creek in December of 2005. For their -- for their inside the water hole totally over their head. It's an empty creek right here. This picture here it shows them last year, 2004, and they are looking at -- on the top of the creek, the water is totally full. It did not rain that day or a couple of days before. The creek was completely full. And to construct things, you know, the buildings up, homes, driveways, roadways, on the hills above bee creek, the runoff in that water is going to be tremendous. Not only will it flow into our creek and overflow the creek, the creek zoo overflow, last year two days, six feet under water, bee creek the direct way to my house. Also close to reaching the bridge line on highway 71. The increased water capacity that's going to flow down from the driveways and roadways is going to, you know, directly impact bee creek road, it's imts to impact going to impact highway 71. That's the first concern is the water runoff. The second concern would be of course the -- the damaging of the creek because it's going to go through yards that have pesticides and auto waste and garbage and stuff, going to flow down into the creek area, which could also damage our property from the well perspective and other people that live along the creek that's going to be damaged there, the way the area looks. And then the third way -- the second thing that I wanted to address is the safety once again. On Friday, I had a near collision, I was sitting at the traffic signal at highway 71 at bee creek I was, you know, saw the light turn green and I turned, you have to look left, look right, look left again. And a car ran the light and was like right beside me, I was just terrified. I had my children in the car, one of those perspectives that okay there are angels around me right now. That was going through the traffic signal when the light was green. So the light is plenty long, yellow, red, before it turns green coming from bee creek. And then additionally we've had several delays over the past six years we lived there, fatal accidents on 71, we cannot get into town, we can't go right or left, since it's a nightmare when -- in the highways typically close for four hours while they do the cornerrers report. The say the concern, the water quality and the creek quality are my two biggest concerns. And I thank you for hearing this, I do hope that you will vote from the heart and know how it's going to affect people in Travis County. I知 not representing just myself. There are plenty of people that could not make it here today that would have liked to have spoken up as well. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> yes?
>> my name is jan patton. Bee creek flows through my back yard. I thought that I would -- in travis settlement. I thought that I would show up today so that there would be a face behind all of the letters and e-mails that I have sent you all. And to know that I also represent many of the neighbors who work and have a hard time getting down to the Commissioners court. Not only do I have a concern -- do I have the concerns about bee creek, which is -- which is literally on our property because our property linings across the creek at some point, and the issues that were brought here I won't repeat because I feel exactly the same water about the quality of water in the creek that do have water in it. I do have to have -- we have silt build up when the rains come, water, nothing but sludge and environmental unsafe objects in that water that does come down. My second point also addresses the -- the traffic safety issue. We moved here from corpus christi where I was a real estate broker and by the way, I do like development as a real estate broker and I don't have a problem with it as long as it is the development that is in sync with the public safety and environmental issues being addressed in a sane and complete manner. That can -- the two can come inside. Co-inside, you all know that, we know that. While I was in corpus christi I was appointed by the mayor and city council to serve on the traffic and transportation board. I did serve for a number of years, I have had an opportunity to know the concerns that public officials such as you all have -- have in -- in dealing with this juxtaposition of development and safety. Notwithstanding the environmental quality issues. But I know that it can be done and you all can see to it that -- that this development does have the -- the built-in requirements to address these safety issues, such as having the -- the highway development in place, the one turn lane with the two lanes going both ways on either side, in place and beginning to be there before any type of development at all really of a large extent is developed on that south side of -- of that highway 71. So I encourage you to please delay your approval on this development, vote no today so that -- so that everyone can be satisfied that your wishes, which I know you have those wishes, you have already indicated those today, for our safety are addressed. Thank you.
>> any questions of ms. Patton? Thank you very much. Now, we have judges coming over at 1:30 and a paid consultant also from -- one from chicago. Another item scheduled for 1:45. We will need to convene in executive session to discuss this item. And one scheduled for this afternoon. My guess is that it will be 4:30, that we are able to call this item back up again. 4:30 this afternoon. You get here at 4:30, I can almost assure you that you will be here early enough. Thank you for your input. Recess to 1:30. All in favor? Passes unanimously.
now, speaking of number 6, let's call up item number 6. We did discuss 6, got legal advice on various matters that we discussed this morning, including the letter that we got from mr. Rock well. Travis County has entertained this item with similar wording numerous times in the past. One of the questions I asked was about the interim rules and the time associated with that, and really had forgotten that we started on those in January. But implemented a moratorium sort of in the middle with the legislature in town. And in July is when we finally put the interim rules in place, so it did take us awhile to get those. And we had a hard time understanding it. In my view, exhibit b, while not perfect, does make progress on the requirements that I thought mattered to the concerned residents, and specifically dealing with the wastewater plant and also the improvements on 71. The other question that we discussed and staff has told us in terms of the setbacks is that we come close to meeting or we meet some of the set back requirements in the interim rules, notwithstanding that it's staff's filings that the filings preceded the interim rules. That as to setbacks from the streams, the answer is yes. Setbacks are there. Environmental features, probably not. But we think the setbacks are there on the commercial tract and on the wastewater plant. For example. The other big question I think is about density and what is clear is that because we did not have on-site sewage, then the county cannot regulate density. Is that true, mr. Knuckles?
>> under the current regulations, that's true.
>> okay.
>> any other comments?
>> judge, I would like to say that mr. Gunn, you certainly know how controversial your development is, and I am going to move approval of a through k, but I do want us to have one very, very clear understanding, and that is, if at any time during the development that there are any issues with regards to any of the bmp's or any of the things that may happen where we have another incident like we've had at lick creek or at west cypress hills, that is the thing that we have got to have the understanding that any and everything that you're doing at that project has got to stop immediately until all of that is fixed. I can't fix 71. I wish that I could fix 71. I certainly can move towards trying to expedite everything that I can possibly do with 71, and I will work and I hope that the neighbors will do that. But with that I move approval of a through k.
>> I second the motion. And mainly because a month ago I thought that if we could keep -- if we can prevent occupancy of homes until the wastewater treatment plant were constructed, and construction of homes before improvements on 71 were made, and I may have added to that motion construction of the infrastructure. And the change that -- that exhibit b represents today that did not exist back then was that today we do allow construction of the infrastructure, but we have tried to take appropriate safeguards to really limit the traffic that would have to access the development in order to build the infrastructure. And at the same time try to reduce as much as possible adverse impact on 71. And the other thing is that whenever you start building homes and start occupying them, then you have other issues, but if this development takes place over an eight to 10 year period, we do have a little time to deal with some of these issues at the surface, but I think the most important ones are the wastewater treatment plant and also the improvements on highway 71. Any other comments from court members?
>> the last time this was before me, because I did miss one rather interesting meeting that occurred when I was off, I was very clear in articulating why I was voting against a revised preliminary plan, very specific in terms of the issues related to pump and haul, the not understanding where the location of the wastewater plant was going to be. Serious concerns about safety improvements to highway 71. This is not perfection, but everything that I said I need more information, to me it does not meet county standards, I知 there. The pump and haul is gone. The location of the plant is part of the final plats that we have before us today. The traffic controls are in place as the judge has said. We are eliminating about a mile of impervious cover through a road that I didn't hear anybody disagree that that was not a good thing. It saves a grove of trees. It is certainly better than the original preliminary plan that was originally approved. And in relation to the bcp, what's going to happen here is not insignificant. There is about a million dollars to be paid in in terms of participation certificates. The pc's are divided equally between the city of Austin and Travis County. In addition to that, there will be another $500,000 that mr. Gunn is voluntarily paying. You can do a lot with a million dollars in terms of with the bcp. And we are moving towards completion. I致e run out of reasons, legitimate reasons, to be able to say it does not meet county standards. I have now gotten to the point where it meets county standards, and I don't know whether I知 proud of this or not, but the reality is in the nearly 12 years I致e been on this court, I have never had a district judge tell me to do my job. Doing this job means sometimes you have to make very difficult decisions, very unpopular decisions. This is not a popularity contest about whether they meet county standards. It is my finding they meet county standards and I will be joining a yes vote on 6-a through k.
>> anything further from the court? All in favor of the motion? Show Commissioners Sonleitner, Daugherty, yours truly voting in favor. Commissioner Davis voting against.
>> judge, I oppose this I guess basically because of a lot of things that residents have brought up. I know the interim rules I think is very, very precious. I know we need to lean toward forming permanent rules, and I have asked everybody and encowrnld everybody to help us get there on permanent rules. I think when we get there a lot of subdivisions will be able to -- the proposed subdivisions will be able to look at this as far as what the county is trying to do with the limited powers that we do have. And I致e heard the community speak on a lot of issues, traffic and a whole bunch of other things, and I知 not there on this particular deal with the preliminary plans for this particular item, 6-a and 6-b and c, which is all connected to everything else here. We talk about over 1807 homes residential lots that will be in this particular area. So again, I do applaud everyone for participating in the process. This is what it's all about. And we're not going to all agree on the same thing at times, but again at least we're able to echo and state how we vote and the way we vote. And so again, I would just like to oppose it based on that. Thank y'all.
>> thank you. Any other business today?
>> move adjourn.
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, May 23, 2006 1:12 PM