Travis County Commissioners Court
June 5, 2007
Item 1
Number one is a public hearing to receive comments on a plat for recording and construction agreement in precinct three: the vistas at pedernales canyon trail, a revised plat of lot 13 pedernales canyon ranch phase 2 (11 total lots)
>> move to open the public hearing.
>> second.
>> all in favor? Passes unanimously.
>> good morning, joe gieselman with the transportation natural resources department. This subdivision is out in southwest Travis County, pedernales canyon trail. The lot is a large lot and it's being subdivided into 11 smaller lots, but still mainly over an acre in size. And it is served by a private street. It is -- it meets the county's requirements for -- for resubdivision and I am aware of some -- some residents in the area that are -- wish to comment to the Commissioners court on this proposal.
>> have we received any objections?
>> we have. They are here today to speak to the issue.
>> okay.
>> would anyone like to give testimony during this public hearing? If so, please come forward at this time. And give us your full name and we would be happy to get your comments. And there are seats for five. Only two here on this item?
>> several others.
>> three, four, there's room for one more. This helps us move along speedily.
>> I'm expecting some others, but traffic is a bear today.
>> it is.
>> good morning, judges, judge and Commissioners. I'm really not here to protest this subdivision.
>> name, please.
>> providing the plat is --
>> name.
>> I'm sorry of. My name is cybill autrye, I'm a resident of pedernales canyon trail subdivision area. And as I said I'm not here to protest the subdivision per se, providing the plat is the same one that mr. Cathman and turnquist realtors have been selling from for the last few months. By the way, I am just really curious to know how come mr. Cathman could be so certain that this plat would be approved by t.n.r. And the court in this specific configuration before his application was even filed. When mr. Cath man and shannon smith of turnquist announced their March 29th cowboy luncheon for prospective buyers and real estate agents, several of us contacted persons such as theresa caulkin of t.n.r. Engineering and bob Moore from Commissioner Daugherty's office and asked them how this sale could be taking place before the application was even filed. They couldn't come up with any real answer. I am sure that the court knows that to sell from a subdivision not approved by the appropriate entity and filed with the county clerk is a violation of county regulations as well as section 12002 c of the property code. At this time I was assured by ms. Caulkin and t.n.r. That no formal application was on file, only a preliminary from last August. Bob Moore told ms. Pepper morris essentially the same thing. Last August ms. Caulkin contacted me for permission to give my phone number to mr. Cathman so that he could talk to me about the deed restrictions and his plans. At that time he told me that he was going to squeeze 12 lots out of this 26 acres by using a flag lot design. And I told him that in my opinion a flag lot would be non-compliant. I am very pleased to see that the plat he is currently selling from is 11 lots, no flag lot. But last August, mr. Cathman said that he was mindful about water problems of the neighbors and that his solution was that he intended to drill one deep well into the secondary about 600 feet deep and create a private water company just for those 11 lots. Mrs. Caulkin had already told me about this, I said to her as I did to mr. Cathman that one well water company would consume exactly as much water as 11 individual wells. Mr. Cathman further stated to me personally that he would mitigate water use by having all homes built with water collection systems. He thought about that for a minute and he corrected himself and said that he would guarantee that half of the homes would have water collection systems. And he also said that he would guarantee that he personally would be the builder of all of the homes and that they would be in the $600,000 range, thus improving the neighborhood. Now, considering that john mccall's home was on the market for 6.9 million, the montgomery home for 1.9 million, the
>> [indiscernible] was stolen by somebody for only 5 million, the dixie chick natalie maines fairly recently purchased the former zager home, listed for 6.95 million. Therefore I seriously doubt that mr. Cathman's property is going to upgrade the neighborhood very much. Mr. Cathman did not keep a single promise that he made to me except that he would obey the deed restrictions. And for that I am very grateful. I told him in August that I would not oppose his subdivision if he would solve the water problem. He has not done that and under current circumstances he cannot do that. When he put out his literature for his so-called cowboy breakfast on March the 29th, it stated that he had drilled two wells on lots one and two of this plat and that he had found water at approximately a 200-foot level, which is what all of the rest of the wells in that immediate vicinity are. Obviously his intention -- there is no water company, that's all gone, that theory is completely flown away. It's going to be 11 individual wells, if the purchasers of these little two acre lots are lucky enough to find some water. Because we have nothing but horror stories about people with small lots in that -- in that immediate location within the width of the road from his property. The home that is there harry seaman, back in the days when he had 600 acres, anyplace they wanted. They would have to try three different places along pedernales canyon trail before they found any water. The idea that he was going to be lucky enough to find 11 wells on two acre lots in that area is really remote. The most important point to me, being selfish, is that there are only 15 homes, if I have counted correctly, in that entire phase 2 of the pedernales canyon ranch subdivision. This is going to be another 11. So these 11 wells, which are on less than 10% of the property, are going to be commanding 50% of the water and that might result in one or two wells being compromised, might result in all of the existing wells being compromised. It might result in the fact that they don't get their own water. But the point is that the law requires them to have a reliable source of water, that's the exact terminology that's necessary and they don't have a reliable source of water. I told these things, went over these things with mr. Cathman last August, that was when why he came up with the idea of the water company, blah, blah, it was his opinion that there were no wells down in our area, down in that secondary. But there are. Last summer of course was a drought period. As I said, we have already had trouble with the wells when there's not a drought period. During last summer's drought period all but one of the homes in pedernales canyon ranch subdivision phase 2 that are to the north of where this property is because this property is on the property line of lick creek canyon, so everything in the direction of the rest of the subdivision had well problems. They either had completely drill another well or they had to have their pump pulled up and then lowered because traditional when you drill a well you drill it a whole lot deeper than where you drop your pump, for just such an occasion, when the water table goes down you can adjust the pump downward. Now there's no one left down there who has enough room to drop the pump again. So we are already in a very critical water situation. Another problem that we see coming is an overall problem out in western travis county.
>> the lcra water is on the way, the pipeline appears to me to be in front of sweetwater, looks like they have stopped work on the width there where they have been -- that huge pipeline, the next commitment is to go to west cypress hills, temperature paralegal they have six wells down into the trinity, which is already everyone fears, including jack holt our resident fwee I don't physical engineer, has said if they stay with those six wells, it's not a question of whether those wells will take our water. But when those wells will take our water. But we know that they have made a commitment that lcra water is coming to west cypress hills. I told mr. Cathman last summer that I did not believe that anyone would protest his subdivision if he would wait for lcra water. Obviously he's chosen not to do that. But -- but that's the type of problem that we have facing us. This is exacerbated by the fact that -- that the Commissioners court has not been helpful in getting a -- getting a -- priority ground water management district created. And this priority of ground water management district should have been created almost 10 years ago. Back when -- when tnrcc, train wreck, before it was tceq declared the western portion of Travis County basically precinct 3 south of the colorado as a priority ground water management area. That -- their definition of that as they surveyed the entire state was that it would be an area that would have critical ground water issues within 10 years. Well the 10 years has already passed. And we have already had the critical ground water issues. We don't have the management district. This has, as I said, contributed to the problem. It might not have any effect the way things have been typically set up in our area for other priority ground water areas such as for blanco, hays county, so on. Might not have any effect on this subdivision. But would have had an effect on west cypress hills, what they did with those wells. Those large commercial systems or any commercial system is the thing that these ground water management districts could manage. But that's a little bit off the point. I just want to make one further point. This is a very personal problem, my problem, probably doesn't affect anybody but me. When the county paid fossil trail for which we are internally grateful, they chose to turn the storm water running down pedernales canyon trail away from the course that the original subdivider had created. Which would have had water running through a culvert for fossil trail, butts up against pedernales canyon trail, going parallel down to the river. Down to the pedernales. They chose to make it a short 90-degree angle, which of course is impossible if the storm water is really running. And turn it to go down the first ravine that it comes to. That's me. And since that has happened, since all of the clearing has been done, as of last summer, on -- on what is now cathman's property, the runoff has increased tremendously and it's reached the point that I cannot repair my own personal driveway, which is about 900 feet long. I just gave up and bought a four wheel drive. Every time it rains, no more than it rained a couple of days ago, it's an absolute flood and the area is impassable for passing of cars on my open property. The law says your own regs say that he has to manage storm water in such a way that no more will leave his property than already came off of it before they did all of that clearing. Well, since they can't do any kind of abatement process, they didn't even put up any hay bales, when they did all of that clearing. I'm saying they because I don't think that mr. Cathman was the one who did that clearing. I think it was the owner of the 26 acres who sold it to mr. Cathman. But the problem is there. There's nothing out in front of the subdivision as he's selling from it now that -- that in any way abates the storm flow or erosion or whatever, none of those little wire dams with the tar paper, no hay bales, nothing in wire, it just roars down there, runs down says hey go get cybill, they do. So that's my personal problem with this property. I think that he should have the county should require him to have some very extensive storm water control because this property is extremely steep property. The upper portion of the property is almost a butte. It has a high, straight wall, you know, and then a buildable area up on top of that about halfway up the property. So water can really come down with great force from these higher areas of the property. It is a beautiful piece of property. The way they have it designed, I don't see how they can design it in the way they solve that particular problem. Water collects now that we have a great deal more of impenetrable base than we have now. Already we have a problem. The water is going to come coursing down the driveways into the one little street that he has, which is a little street with a cul de sac at the top. That little street with the cul de sac is going to be a giant storm drain. Storm water abatement, in addition as I said the water problem is very, very critical. If he can solve both of those issues, I have no more problem with the subdivision. I'm not complaining about anything else about the subdivision because I'm fully aware that perhaps not within my lifetime, because I'm pretty old, but within the lifetime of some of the people in this room, all of that property out there in our subdivision in the harry seaman subdivision, subject to the same deed restrictions is going to be subdivided. When lcra water becomes available, that will hasten it. One reason why it sold for 5 million instead of 20 million is because mr. Ramp who built a really fabulous home with solid gold faucets in his lavatories that sort of thing, mr. Rimp could not get water for even his millions for his new home. They drilled five wells before they could find enough water on his more than 200 acres to provide for his fancy home. This is the kind of territory that we are going to be subdividing out there and similar territory that mr. Cathman is subdividing. And like I said again, the fact that he might or might not get water right now on each one of those lots doesn't mean that he will have water in August and it doesn't mean that I will have water in August. That concludes my -- my objections.
>> thank you ms. Autry.
>> my name is pepper morris. And I live off of pedernales canyon trail. I just want to ditto everything that sib bell said. -- cybill said. I have nothing more to add. I would hope that the court would ask mr. Cathman to wait until lcra brings the water out there, which like cybill I can see it coming our way, thank you.
>> water and storm water management basically.
>> absolutely.
>> yes.
>> good morning.
>> hi. Good morning. Judge, Commissioners. My name is Karen huber, I live at 23020 pedernales canyon trail. I am here not because I personally have a concern about the water on this subdivision. But because I've been active in the neighborhood for the last dozen years and have watched the continued water problems over in this particular area and in 2004 I actually started soliciting information during that drought of wells in that area that were having problems and got with minimum effort at least half a dozen responses to my initial solicitation. And I would like to mention just briefly because -- well, let me say one thing, too, I'm not always on the same side with cybill on the issues, this particular one I agree with everything that she said. The topography where this subdivision it, goes up to where it's pretty close to the crest of the hill that dominates that entire area falling off down to lick creek and down to the pedernales river. The house that's have been having like cybill is saying, the ones that are having well problems on the flanks of this hillside. So we are talking about putting in 11 houses in the area of the center of that, it really doesn't matter quite how deep that well is because -- because as anybody who has been the least bit involved with the trinity aquifer, you know how fickle it is. There can be a ton of water in one place and no water for miles in another. But what we have here is a circular history.
>> [indiscernible] recent time that we are aware of, 2004 and 2006. Another thing that happens when a developer comes in, puts in a powerful well if that becomes the case for this particular area, he will put in a stronger pump to pull more water out to hold in a holding tank for these -- for these homes and what the stronger pump does, there's a phenomenon, I forget the technical term for it, dome something. It will pull the water out from under the existing weaker wells. So this is where I have a real concern about this subdivision. I don't -- I don't have a problem with the 11 homes coming in. We have gotten new nice neighbors out there in recent years.
>> I do have a problem with the historic well failures, quite frankly what happens when there's less water like this, those who have been out there the longest, in many ways the least able to afford dealing with their wells are hit with the problem. It just doesn't seem fair. Granted life is not fair. It looks like it could -- maybe there should be alternatives. Rather than just sit here and complain about a particular subdivision, we tried very hard to get a ground water district through this legislature and it was chosen not to be supported by people who could help make it happen. This is a good example. Of why we need a ground water district out there. Since where he don't have a ground water district, since the county doesn't have the land use authorities it needs to be most specific about everything, I would like to just pose some suggestions for consideration by the court and t.n.r. And I know that joe and staff work really, really hard to try to do the best they can on these things, to a certain extent their hands are tied. What I would like to suggest is first of all when subdivision or a developer comes in, they drill wells, they -- the well drillers frequently and I have been told this by tom haggermeyer from lcra. When the well first comes in the area that it hits is usually under pressure. The cubic feet per minute that comes off that well head when it's drilled is generally much higher than what the average flow is going to turn out to be. I'm not saying every well that's drilled is calculated on that burst flow but many are. If a developer is using his own hydro geologist and his own well company to produce these facts, I think that the possibility exists that they are not as straightforward always. I'm not pointing any fingers at anybody in particular, but they are not always straightforward. So I think that -- that first of all on the availability of water it would be a good idea if the county and t.n.r. Could somehow do their own testing once the well is in place. To see if the cubic feet per minute really does indeed turn out to be what it would be a reliable water source for that area. Secondly, I think that ans sense a ground water district or anything else, because the county is going to have to continue to look at these types of situations in western Travis County, more small developments come out, our neighborhood is prime for that, that they began accumulating data on well failures. Given the fickle innocence of the trinity aquifer, it's very easy to document. Then you have criteria for assessing the availability of the -- or the reliability of well water in the area for future subdivisions. Thirdly, I personally have a rainwater catchment system. We have a well on our property. I'm across the creek from this area, I have not had -- four years ago my well was slightly stressed, we had to be careful. We don't use it for household, just other uses, but I have a rainwater catchment system, we actually decided not to move into town about four years ago when we had an opportunity to buy a home we really liked because we couldn't put a rainwater system on it. We love our rainwater. Rainwater is a viable alternative but to people who have never used it before, they may not be comfortable with it. Developers are the perfect opportunity to start introducing people to rainwater systems. So to the extent that the county can encourage that as a reliable water source, particularly in small subdivisions with 10, 15 homes going in, I would like to throw that out for consideration because we are working in tough times where we don't have a lot of latitude with what the county can do. But if you can capitalize on some of these opportunities to make it work for everybody, the more the better. But in this particular situation, I do not believe this subdivision has reliable water and I do believe that it threatens the reliability of those in its immediate area. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> Commissioners, my name is phil connor. I -- excuse me. I live in pedernales canyon ranch, in the perimeter of this hill next door to cybill. I have the honor of following both Karen and cybill speaking before, and I would just read from her notes except she was freehanding, that we are in an area with a known water short -- shortage. This subdivision using independent wells does not have a reliable source of water. It is very frustrating voting because we elect people to serve the public interest. And we find repeatedly that the people that we elect do not fulfill the ideals of the potential of what the voters are asking for. We live in an exceptionally aware community that is very much cognizant of our water shortage, our water supplies, and we have had a need for a ground water management district in western Travis County for -- for more than a decade for basically from the time that -- that the county has been settled. It is very imperative that a ground water conservation district be established and that the ground water management district be implemented. And so it's -- it's exceedingly frustrating to both vote for people who do not fulfill or do not even show much initiative towards -- towards leadership and you are in a position of the leadership. And it is also very frustrating to speak at a hearing like this, one
>> [indiscernible] cybill or Karen, you too, pepper. Because it is to some degree talking to a wall. I realize that you are real people, constrained by certain laws of Texas as to what the county can do. But you also have the opportunity through the ground water conservation district of giving yourself more power. You also have the opportunity through the example and through your own comments and preferences of if not mandating, suggesting and strongly encouraging that any -- any new subdivision encouraged rainwater collection. It is something that is fundamental and that we have to do. The subdivision does not have a known -- we have a known water shortage. We do not have a reliable water supply. We also have ground water issues. We have been through problems with lick creek recently. I have to say that west cypress hills, in my opinion, has been exceedingly responsive to the needs of the community. That they have gone to great efforts to -- to mitigate their runoff. They have gone to great efforts to mitigate the damage that was done to lick creek and that while there is still degradation going on in lick creek, it is from other developments in the area. So -- so what we are faced with is the need to do a comprehensive plan. As neighbors it's very frustrating to talk to because we are basically faced with the subdivision that is compliant with the rules and regulations of our own subdivision. It is not compliant with the law in the fact that it does not have a reliable water supply. That issue needs to be addressed before this subdivision is approved. We are faced with fighting little battles in which there isn't that much that can be done because the county Commissioners court has chosen not to implement a ground water management district. Because he have not taken upon your mantel the full powers that are available to you. So I would like to encourage you to -- to deal with these issues in a more comprehensive manner. It's not just the storm water, cybill is very, very valid in saying that she's being washed away. I have seen her driveway washed away. I have the privilege of being next to her. We do share a little ravine. The quality of that ravine is changing. The quality of water in that ravine has changed just since they have cleared the property. Forcing the citizens that speak to you to deal with each individual little 26 ear tract or 11-acre tract or even two acre tracts is a very frustrating and ineffective way of dealing with it. I strongly encourage you to be more active in establishing a ground water management district, ground water conservation district. We have known water shortages at present, we also have very serious runoff issues already from the development, even before any of its -- any of its treated with impervious cover. So thank you for your time and I encourage you to deal with our county issues in a more comprehensive matter, we have serious water issues. I'm not sure that having the lcra promise water is a viable alternative. It's great to see the lake level up so high. I have a rope swing, I use it now. In the 15 years that I have been out there I have seen the pedernales flood twice that has been before -- before, you know, the growth rates are so intense that the water supply is really something that you have to think about seriously. Thank you very much.
>> joe, what have we been told about the availability of water. I'm theresa -- I'll let theresa caulkin address that issue.
>> the water vainlt from the consultant -- availability from the consultant, steven bond a registered geologist in the state of Texas, he indicates after conforming aquifer tests at the property that there is sufficient water available in the lower trinity aquifer. For this development.
>> could I ask a question on when the water study was done?
>> the date on the study is December 2006. So it would have been last fall.
>> I would like to comments that the water table has been very high since last fall.
>> when we receive that sort of information, how does the consultant back up the finding?
>> he provides the data from the water wells that he's drilled as long as the pump test data and his own calculations. And he provides his -- his summary of his analysis with his findings along with his certification that -- that based on -- on his analysis and his expertise that there is sufficient water available.
>> does the study take into account at all, does it even look at all -- at the effects on surrounding water supplies and the ability to -- to -- to outsuck the -- the --
>> this particular study I believe just dealt with the information based on what he found at this particular site. He did actually make calculations based on what he would expect to see certain distances away from the well after five years, after 10 years of pumping. So he did make certain analyses and conclusions.
>> certain analyses and conclusions regarding, what was the radius that we are looking at, five mile radius or --
>> I believe that the largest radius that he was actually looking at was one mile away from the site. He did explain other wells in the area were in the middle trinity aquifer, he was actually expecting to provide service to this development from the lower trinity aquifer.
>> does the law require developers when pursuing a permit to look at effects on the surrounding area's well water supply.
>> the actual requirements for providing water availability analysis are found in chapter 230 of the state regs, actually tceq regulations. And so in particular those regulations require that -- that aquifer characteristics be determined, the availability be determined, I don't recall specifically that they actually asked for the effect on other nearby wells. However in this particular case he did indicate that there was no communication between the lower trinity wells and middle trinity wells, I think in his own conclusion that he indicated that he didn't see there would be any effect on wells that were completed in upper aquifers that were above the lower trinity.
>> is there a higher obligation, would there be a higher obligation under a
>> [indiscernible] designation regarding analysis of the effects on vowngdz wells and the water supply generally?
>> I'm sorry, under a --
>> a primary ground water management area?
>> quite likely there would be additional requirements that are not currently required under the chapter 230 requirements.
>> this area doesn't fall in pigma.
>> no, no, that's correct.
>> may I ask a question. Are you still talking now about the water company when you say that you are going down into the second gary or tertiary?
>> well, I'm talking about the information that was provided in the water availability analysis.
>> is mr. Cathman going to go down into that area?
>> that would be what --
>> except the two test wells that they drilled didn't go down into that area. They only went to 200 feet or a little less than 200 feet. That's what their literature says. Those two wells, if they are the test wells, that were drilled by this consultant or for this consultant are on the very lowest portion of this entire property. And they are being marketed as if all of these lots are going to drill their own wells because they didn't cap those wells, they are wells to be used. That study, talking about their availability of water in a different portion of the aquifer than what they already are marketing over there. Is ridiculous, you can get a consultant to say anything that you want them to. We can present anything that is necessary. Jack holt to tell you exactly opposite of that. He is going to take tell you just what I said earlier. If where cypress hills builds itself out to full its full size, continues to use those six wells, they will have trouble, so will we. So you find one consultant, then another.
>> [indiscernible] 194 on their literature, lots one and two. If you have a copy of this, this was a piece of
>> [indiscernible] lot, one and two right here, this is well the wells are drawn down at the very bottom. This being the road. Has nothing whatsoever to do with his prediction of what's in the different level of the trinity. It's the area of where all of our residential wells of two are, two are down into the lower level around 600 feet. The same level where -- where west cypress hills wells are.
>> my information in the report would be that he did drill his well down into the lower trinity. As a matter of fact I did recommend to the applicant that they have their geologists available this morning. Approximate if he's present here, defer questions to the applicant's consultant, to have him explain his study of the results.
>> we can only go by what they have in their literature that they are handing out. They say there are wells already available, if you could use them on lots one and two, that they are drilled a little less than 200 feet deep.
>> is the question how far down do they plan to go or did they drill to determine the availability of the water.
>> are you asking me? Most of the residential wells in this area, all but two that I know of, are in the area of about 190 to 200 feet. That's where the wells on lot one and two are drilled to based on the man's own literature that he's handing out. I don't know anything else.
>> can you just explain to us steps you took to determine the availability of water?
>> yes, sir, I'm vincent
>> [indiscernible] with
>> [indiscernible] construction
>> [indiscernible] those wells were drilled 260 feet, which is in the lower trinity. Joe vickers is here, he did the testing. He can answer any questions that you may have with regards to that. Chris mccombs is our engineer, he's here, he can answer any questions. There's a couple of issues that I would like to go over if you would like to go over them now or just wait.
>> I would like to -- I would like to ask a couple of questions. Number one, hearing the testimony coming from the community. It appears that their fears are in their area of water shortage and not having enough water to supply their needs when it gets -- competitive out there and you have a drought. My question to you is -- is what kind of guarantees since that -- since there's going to be competition for water, just -- in this new development being suggested here, what kind of guarantees can you make that these persons that are being served now with their wells will still be continued to be served the same quantity of water, same amount, stuff like that where they are -- their fears may be calmed. Can you -- can you guarantee what you are doing as far as -- as far as bringing on you on you on your I think cling, your -- inkling, suggestions as far as adequate water for all. I think what I am hearing is that there will not be adequate water for all with the increased development in this area. Can somebody talk to me, give me an answer on that.
>> yes, sir, chaifs. I think first and foremost we are not going to put a single well in. There will be either individual wells or rainwater collection. As a construction company we have built several homes with rainwater collection. I fully understand the benefits of it. We will address the -- the -- I will let joe address the well issues in the water draw down issues. His tested meted out that there is adequate water. There will be a couple of homes in this subdivision that will have rainwater collection. I guarantee 90% of the homes are going to be no. I guarantee 50%. 50% of the homes have rainwater collection.
>> developers or engineers.
>> > we are going to put some of the homes on rainwater collection yes, absolutely. Right in the middle of the drought, indicated that there was plenty of water for the area. We know that some of the homes up on the bluff will have rainwater collection. At this point in time we don't know how many. We are very cognizant of the fact that there may be water out there, we are going to add it. My name is joe vicker son, joe vaughan couldn't be here today because of scheduling conflict. He's the one would actually sealed this report. I was involved in it so where I'm involved with -- I'm aware of all of the facts and figures, stand behind the data that he presented. Starting off, I have heard the comments and the concerns of the citizens and -- and they are very well taken, everyone has recognized the fact that -- that water issues are critical and everyone is concerned about what goes on. Our stake in this situation is nothing more than science. We are here to show that there is or isn't ample water. Chapter 230 rules pointed out by county staff. That's how the reports and the tests were done the report was prepared was under these rules. They were compliant as I understand it. The county staff has approved the report. So -- so if you would like, I could take it back off and -- we could go into a lengthy discussion of exactly how the tests were performed, calculations made, report was written, maybe by doing that that would help to explain to everyone how these things come about. We run into this situation all of the time at various counties when we do these studies, it's not a real pleasant task. To have to sit here and defend something like this. Because intuitively we all know that we have ground water problems. Everyone is in agreement with that. We complaint disagree with that. We all know that. Comments have been made about the ground water conservation district being needed in that area is well taken. I support that myself. I think that it's a good idea. And there are some definite advantages to be -- to be honest there are disadvantages, too, that's what the current discussion is centered around. But going ahead, if this is what the Commissioners would like, I would just go ahead and start talking about how it was done, what we did and why. There were two wells drilled on--
>> let me ask you this question. Would that be a better use of our time or should we encourage that you all go to the fifth floor conference room and -- and have that discussion, the -- the residents who gave testimony during the public hearing, the purpose of the public hearing is for us to receive testimony. We have done that. Let them ask questions, we will have county staff there with you all. We may need a written summary of the points in support of a finding of available water. I think that I understand what's been said so far. But it could take -- if it takes a few hours, so be it. I don't know that it should take a few hours in this public hearing, though. So my recommendation would be that the residents and the developer and his -- and his group and the county staff find an appropriate conference room at this time and discuss this matter. It's residents that -- that want to be put at ease as to the availability of the water is what I have heard. And Sam pellets were taken of when the work was done to support that finding is important. Whether it was done after the heaviest of rains or whether it was done during the drought season, exactly where the water would come from. I'm sure there will be a lot more specific questions than that. So -- so if we can facilitate an in person discussion, right now, my guess is that probably is better than doing during this public hearing. There is an action item that accompanies the public hearing, which we can postpone. Unless you all come back later and say in fact now we understand and our issues have gone away. If the issues are not gone away, I think county probably ought to do a bit more due diligence, for the court summarize the specifics that support the availability of water. And it may be that during this discussion additional facts surface to help us in our determination, also.
>> judge, I was under the impression that the county had already done that. We have submitted everything that was required for approval. We have met all of the deed restrictions. Our report indicates reliable source of water. We had indicated that --
>> but the relight of the report is what's been called into question by residents. What I'm saying is it could be that they have a lot more specific questions to which you can provide satisfactory answers. If not I think that today's public hearing if nothing else puts on the county the responsibility to do additional due diligence in support of the finding. Now the purpose of the public hearing is for us to learn whether there are complaints, concerns, et cetera. And four residents from the nearby community who will be affected if anybody have come in and said basically we have got some issues, we have got some questions, we have looked at their literature and based on that information we have got even more questions. And so I don't see us basically simply approving the application based on the work that we have done to date. I think if nothing else they have put on us an additional responsibility to confirm what we think the facts are.
>> I understand. I think that I need to make it clear from our point of view that these people are not being totally truthful. They are accusing us of selling lots on March 29th. We were not selling lots. We were having a luncheon of potential builders and real estate agents that may be interesting in buying the lots once they become available for purchase.
>> I think that a whole lot of that testimony follows good background may -- while it's good background may not be directly relevant. Two issue, one is availability of water, two is storm water management. And if I lived out there and if I was unclear as to exactly what was being provided in both of those areas, I would want a further explanation. So the cowboy luncheon or reception whatever it was, I'm not sure it matters a whole lot. What does matter in fact is whether or not water is available and what the plan is for storm water management. What residents want to be sure of is that the water does not flow from these new projects in such a way that their property will be damaged and their lives will be adversely affected, which to me is reasonable. But I'm also assuming there are good answers to those concerns and questions that you can provide.
>> we can. And -- with regards to the storm water management, we would like to let the court be made clear that we purchased that land already cleared since we purchased it we have -- drilled the test wells, had a cowboy luncheon and that's -- burned the piles of -- of cleared trees that were there. That's about all that we have done to that. We have staked out to that. If we have done anything he is and I have left it out it's a simple omission.
>> all right.
>> chris mccombs is our engineer. He's addressed pre and post development water issues, I think that the community will be well pleased. We have managed the ground water in accordance with the county requirements. I will let chris address that. I do know that our post development runoff is less than our predevelopment runoff. If chris can -- if you don't mind I would like to clear up the -- the runoff issues now because I think that's something that you all need to know. So --
>> my name is chris mccomb with amc design group. I am the project engineer. There are just a few erroneous items that were brought up that I would like to clear up. First of all there are 10 residential lots. Not 11. The 11th lot is a private street. The application was made in December of 2006. So that application has been in place for over six months. We have obtained an lcra
>> [indiscernible] permit, storm water and water quality. This project is over 20 week, we do meet the existing interim ordinance for the county. Our overall runoff for this project. Produced the net impervious cover for this project is less than 10% on the entire property. So you are going from 0% impervious cover to less than 10% for the final development that's based on a large square footage of impervious cover estimate per lot. So that, you know, I feel comfortable with that. So anyway that I think directs those questions, cleans up some of the information, misinformation that was given earlier.
>> judge, let me ask -- joe. Are the attorneys for the county, does the county have the autonomous ability to create a ground water district. Does that necessitate a vote of an area that would be designated as a ground water district.
>> only if you use taxes to support it.
>> if you are not -- so you have got to have a -- have a -- a revenue mechanism to have this. It is my -- it is my thought, my understanding that you do have to have a vote for the creation of a ground water district.
>> in the adjacent counties such as hays, they do not have any taxes dedicated to the ground water district. They receive fund from new connections, fees from new connections, that's how they fund themselves. In adjacent blanco, which is in the trinity aquifer exclusively, they do have a tax specifically for the conservation district. There are areas up in the panhandle where -- where ground water district does exotic things like cloud seeding, so on, where they have a very large tax rate. But cybill let me ask, to have a tax rate don't you have to have a --
>> absolutely. If there's going --
>> [multiple voices]
>> I want to be able to understand the -- one of the main reasons that we pull back on the ground water district is because we were frightened that the area where we would create this ground water district that it might fail because Lakeway has to be in it. If Lakeway doesn't have to be in it, cybill, because we -- between the senator your state representative, myself and a number of other people that were at the legislature to -- to determine this, we went through with he -- we went there with the intent of trying to create or establish some sort of a parameter that we thought that we could get it done. Folks, let's not dance around the issue here. There is a water issue in western Travis County if you are getting it from the down. It doesn't make any difference in a hydrologist tells us. There are issues given the fact that the way the thing is set up there now, you could come out there and eventually suck everything out of the ground and -- just annihilate people that don't have the ability right now, you know, to -- to quite honestly get, you know, adequate dependable water. We know that. You don't have to be a hydro geologist to know that. Can you show that you can build a development with a hydrologist coming in and that it passes our rules? Absolutely and there we are again. We have a set of rules we need to somehow alter and work in a region that we know is desperately in need of -- not just y'all's 11 lots, I mean, it's however many are in western hills -- the larger development, probably even even developments like you all will be somewhat dealt with via surface water, lcra water. But we know that we have got to -- to tread lightly on -- how we do this. But we got rules. If we got rules we will -- we need to change some rules. Yes, we need to change some rules so county has the ability to get in, deal with more than it can deal with right now. But -- but that -- that is tenuous as well because there are some rules that some people want in these county rules that probably -- probably makes it very difficult to pass at the legislature. Which we saw that this session. Not that -- not that all of us aren't willing to say we do need these things, but we can't -- some people I would say that we overreach. There are a new of these things we absolutely have got to deal with. We need to deal with the water issue, it's not just a simple matter of whether or not you all can show these 11 or 10 lots, I mean, that's adequate water because there is a likelihood that it's going to have a huge effect on other people's water. That's what I think that we have got to deal with. I don't think there's anybody on this court, I certainly am not against creation of a ground water district. I would like to think that if we are going to go out there and try to do it, we certainly set the thing up to get it done versus getting it failed. The worst thing that you can have is to try to float something out there, fail it, try to bring something back, because once something fails it's hard to reenergize people to get back into the game, which I think is the reason why three or four or five of us backed away because we couldn't really set up something that we felt like we could pass. It wasn't that we didn't want to do it. I don't want people to walk out of here thinking there are some of us up here that don't care about that. That is the fartherest thing from the truth. What we have found in western Travis County, we have rules and regulations do they need to be amount terred, probably. The reason we sat down and did intriem rules because there were things that we needed to have in place, we got those things on the books, I mean, and I think that we have got more work to do with this thing. I do not see this thing being, even though you comply, because this is one of those deals that we know that there is a deeper issue for lack of a better way to put i, no matter how deep you go, potentially has the effect or can have the effect on a lot of people's wells in western Travis County. We just need to belly up to the bar, deal with this. Unfortunately you are probably I think you are probably going to get caught in something here. Because it's time to deal with it. We have got to solve some of these issues and water is something that no one questions whether or not we have a limited amount of it in the ground and the more -- because it's not like we can stop development in western Travis County. Y'all. We all know that.
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> .
>> with tnr, they have done their work, come in with our rules and somebody has complied and that is what happens to us. Knowing that there is a deeper issue here and that, I think, we have to deal with it. I don't know how long it's going to take but I agree with the judge we are probably going to need up and determine how to move forward at this stage. I think that there's a lot of work to be done with this project and we have to have more specificity in really knowing that there's not an issue here even though I certainly admire and believe hydrology report. The appraisals, you're right cybill, you can find those all day long. This is not something that any of us question whether there is an issue of groundwater. There is an issue of water in western Travis County. We know that.
>> judge, if I may.
>> the sb 873 powers, are they adequate to address any portions of these questions about the runoff and the groundwater availability?
>> we can take this into executive session and go and get that question addressed.
>> secondly, does tc e q require, I notice on the time distance draw down trend, the notes that these trends do not account for the effects of current or future pumping of other wells in the area. I am assuming from that statement that tceq doesn't require accounting for the current or future pumping of other wells, whether chapter 230 addresses that.
>> they do not. But if you had the priority groundwater management district, it would.
>> those entire standards would apply.
>> yes.
>> okay. Those were my questions.
>> if I may interject here. Chris informs me that Travis County rules do not allow for rainwater collection only or as a primary water source. I will be willing to put a rainwater collect sun on every house. These homes are going to be in the 800,000 to a million dollar range. The costs of a groundwater collection system is not going to add a significant percentage to the cost. If it will please the court, I'd be willing to use rainwater collection as the primary water source. But I can't. So that is, I'm asking for your approval that I will guarantee the rainwater collection on 100 percent of these houses, on ten houses. That will alleviate the majority of the groundwater issue. I mean, we have to according to Travis County regulations drill wells. But we can use rainwater as the primary source and use the well as the backup. That should address cybill's concerns. One of the other people in the public says she loves her rainwater collection. I collect rainwater at my place. It's a lot better to drink and a lot softerment we can alleviate the situation that way.
>> right now you have ten homes planned, each will have its own water system.
>> yes.
>> ms. Audrey, then we have to decide what to do about this item today.
>> I would like to conference with these people and I would like to have you delay your vote until perhaps we we have can have time to conference to conference with Commissioner Daugherty. These are wonderful ideas and people are gung ho when they buy the house but often an after playing around with it for six years or sinks months, they stop using it, and I have seen this happen over and over again.
>> why do stop using them is this.
>> because it's very difficult to manage for most people.
>> difficult to manage ?
>> it requires all kinds of filtration equipment and additional pumpps and that you keep leaves off the house. Tons of things that take time to do.
>> maintenance.
>> a lot of maintenance. If you are so rich that you hire it maintained, fine. But 600,000 house is not that rich. Those people are going to have to do the fiddling around themselves.
>> 600 to a million.
>> yes, ma'am, I said 800 to a mum. We install rainwater collection systems. Anybody, you all have a pool pool? Any of you all have a pool? Okay. Just like a pool. You change a cartridge filter when it gets full. It is not a maintenance filter. They are very user friendly. She said she did not oppose. I have offered a a--solution for the water. Cybill, sorry, I don't know your last name. She is opposing. I'm trying to come to an equitable solution. The only thing I can offer to do is put in rainwater collection.
>> here is how this works. Number one, the public hearing. It is not an action item. The action item is number 1 1--number 16. We have what's called a professional courtesy policy which means if anybody on the court is uncomfortable taking a position, a vote, that person is able to request one week postponement, unless there is an emergency. My advice would be not to postpone for one week but to postpone for two because next week we will only have three members of the court present. If I were--
>> postpone for two, oh--
>> let me finish. If I were in your shoes, I would not want a vote today because of the hour. If I were in your shoes I would not want to vote next week either. But I would want an opportunity to make my position clear not only to residents but to county staff, upon whose advice the Commissioners court decides. When these matters are posted for public hearing, and we do have two or three a week, most of them are routine and nobody is here, the issues have been address addressed. So when residents come down on one and express concerns like availability of water, stormwater management, et cetera, it's kind of a big deal. So we routinely try to gets the parties together. We can't make them do that but we can make county space available. And there have been a surprising number of situations where a little more conversation, not in open court but in one of our conference rooms, has helped a great deal. Sometimes, if nothing else, they crystalize specific issues. Looks like we have two crystalized already. But the residents have a different idea about what it is that you plan to do based on, I guess, statements read or heard, literature, promises that they say have been made, maybe in casual conversation or what. You seem to have a specific idea about everything, every aspect of the project. And based on what we heard today, though, they don't know all of that my recommendation is still that conference but conference or not, my request is that we wait at least one week. Commissioner Daugherty will not be here next week. Right ?
>> right.
>> that means two weeks. In the meantime, during that period, we will as court members become a lot more familiar with the specifics of this project. If you look at our agendas, I best we have two or three of these a week and have done for the last year or year and a half. That is a lot of them. But when one clearly has issues, we spend a lot more time with it than we do just the standard.
>> okay. Two weeks.
>> two weeks. The question now is whether you all want to conference here.
>> I'd be happy to do it here or someplace out closer to where we are.
>> if we can come to an agreement today, can we come back and have a vote? I mean the opposition come back and says that they are okay with it, can we continue the action item 16 and vote ?
>> later on.
>> we will be here until five or so today.
>> let's hope action item 16 comes before five.
>> yes.
>> I would like to request that we go another day. First of all, I can't stay at length today. The primary reason being, if they can provide us, if it's possible to provide us with the consultant study on the water and some summary plans on their detailed develop development directly from them, that would give us a better chance to take a good long look and come out with specific questions rather than trying to do it on the fly.
>> I mean, I'd just as soon do it today while I'm here. You know, the marketing stuff that we submitted was done by a real estate agent. I have seen it once. I can't tell you what it says. It's not the final. The plat is not approved.
>> let's just vote now.
>> I mean--
>> let me play county judge. I move that we end the public hearing.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? That public hearing has been ended. Now let's call up item 16. I move that we post pen consideration of it for two weeks.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? Show Commissioner Daugherty and Biscoe, voting against, existinger ecrt, commission Commissioner --Commissioner Eckhardt, Commissioner Davis present but not voting.
>> sir, we can postpone for two weeks. That is fine. We will do what we can to appease the neighbors. We are not trying to be a bad neighbor, as I indicated by offering to put rainwater collection in.
>> part of it really does seem to be, given a specific fact regarding specific concerns, the question, I think a lot of progress can be made if you try to get together. In the end, all we can do is really act on the facts as we know them. Unfortunately, what we know, what I know, sort of stands out dramatically, last year there was a drought and people were concerned. If you bring in additional homes to the general area, the availability of water becomes more important than had loss year's drought not occurred. At the same time, in the end there are legal standards that come into play and we'll get those answered and addressed by legal counsel and have specific questions in questions in mind before we take action. We can get those answered before. And there are specific county policies we want to be sure are being med to the extent there are areas that we need to apply, we need to look at those and make sure we do our diligence. Staff has preliminarily determined that compliance is met.
>> yes. Thank you for your time. See you in two weeks.
>> number two is a public hearing also. It is to receive comments on a tote thel vacation and re replat of the resubdivision of lot 5, silver spur rank rankettes section two in pre present three.
>> move.
>> second.
>> all this favor. That passes by unanimous vote.
>> this is a subdivision in Austin, precinct 3, out toward 290 and 1826. Basically it's taking a total vacation of a re resubdivision in order to facilitate turning two lots into commercial lots. It's my an understanding the commercial lots will be used for a retret center,
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, June 6, 2007, 8:00 AM