Travis County Commissioners Court
August 14, 2007
Item 16
View captioned afternoon video.
Number 16 we posted for eleven o'clock. Is to consider and take appropriate action on the following vaub of variances for standards of con construction of drainage in Travis County, b, preliminary plan for rkg ranch, 1508 total lots, three, and phase and agreement between Travis County regarding agreements of a portion of reimers peacock road and highway 71. May be a good idea for staff to remind us exactly what is before us today.
>> hi, anna bowlen, Travis County tn r. What we have here today is a preliminary plan in western Travis County off of highway 71 west. It is on 15.958 acres. There are proposed 1508 total lots with sewage service to be provided by the utility district. It's not in anyone's etj. We also have a variance for block length. There are several roads in this proposed subdivision that exceed our current standards. And the variance request is to allow for longer streets than in our standard.
>> that's in a, the variance mentioned in a.
>> yes, sir.
>> and why do we think that is an advantageous for the public?
>> we see this variance typically requested in two situations. One if there's a lot of topography or if there's floodplain. The reason we have a requirement is to promote connectivity between subdivisions and tracts and also to break up the roadway so you don't have like a raceway going through a development. With an intersection then would break up the roadway. Why we occasionally recommend this variance is because we don't want to have people try to avoid getting a variance but putting streets that are too steep in locations that we think would be safety hazards. We don't want people to build unnecessary streets and we don't want them to build off of unnecessary streets. In a nutshell, that would be why we would be recommending them it's for health and safety, we don't want it too steep and don't want roads that aren't necessary just to avoid asking for a variance.
>> we think that without the variance, the roads will be shorter, more intersections?
>> without the variance, they would have to build more roads, put in more intersections, and based on topography, I think , you know, they would be very steep. Might be a challenge to meet our street grade requirements.
>> okay.
>> so we've been discussing this prelim at court for several sessions and have heard testimony. Some of the testimony, or one of the most recent things that's come up is how would this prelim if it were under the interim rules, what would be different. Comparing this to the interim rules. And if I may, I'd like to say a couple things about that. One, the interim rules would call for an archeological assessment that helps law out environmentally valuable features. We don't have that on this project. A come poniant of the interim rules that this does appear to largely meet or have the ability to meet with a few tweaks would be the buffers for creek crossings. It appears that this generally meets this or could meet that pretty easily.
>> why is that important?
>> that is a component of the interim rules, it is in the interim rules to try to, for water quality purposes, because we are trying to be sure that people don't build too close to the creek. I believe that is why that requirement got into the interim rules. It is an important thing for us. It appears to meet that, if not it could meet easily.
>> I got an e-mail yesterday asking about that. The response would be that it comes real close.
>> comes real close. I mean, literally there would only be a handful of lots that would need to be tweaked, in my opinion, to get there. So that was, they agreed to several things in the hardship letter that they sent early on in this process. I think meeting the creek buffers, just my opinion, is one of the most important things that was in there. The other thing was stream crossing. This project has five stream crossings, three minor crossings and two major crossings. When I come pair those two the interim rules, tnr staff believes that one of the minor crossings would not meet because of its proximity to a second road. But the other two would meet the requirements of the interim rules. Additionally, the two major crossings, they would not meet because the interim rules say that you can only do a crossing of a major street stream crossing in the event that have you a collector, sorry, an arterial in the campo plan. It's a neighborhood collector crossing these streams. That's all that was warranted for the subdivision. Because of that, it did not meet. And then for me really the final thing is the land balancing. Our interim rules have a provision that outside of right-of-ways and like detention ponds, you can only have like eight percent land balancing with cut and fill. And we don't know for sure that that would be a problem. We suspect that it might be something that would be shown to be problematic. We typically don't get this kind of information until the site plans, until we review site plans that accompany final plat. Either way, right now in the interim rules and this project, the streets and drainage, or streets and detention ponds, water quality ponds, that figure is not subject to this eight percent for land balancing. This is more having to do with pad sites, building pad sites.
>> I'm not sure I understood that last point there. So the cut and fill land balancing requirement--
>> that doesn't pertain to the cut and fill for streets or detention ponds. That has to do with like rock grating.
>> our interim water quality regs only go to lot grading and not to the cut and fill for streets and detention ponds?
>> that was I believe specifically excluding and expressly stated in the interim rules.
>> although it was cut and fill on roadways that led to our more recent problems with silting of waterways. Is that a correct statement?
>> I am not sure. I am not sure what it was, what they were clearing for in some of our more recent situations. My an understanding is that it's the magnitude of the clearing done at once.
>> irrespective of whether it's for pad or road, it's the magnitude.
>> right. And certainly no matter what someone is clearing for, in this particular area both lcria and Travis County will be looking at it. I know that for clearing hearing I mean this project is subject to the lcra-mps ordinance. I know they have already done some early master plans on this that lcra has looked at at reviewed. Those lance will be further out fleshed out as they go through the process. Even though it's not in our interim rules or they are not following that component of our interim rules. Since we know they will be working with lcr a. On that , we will be looking at that and making comments as appropriate based on some of our past experiences. We will be looking to be sure that we don't have a clearing of land that we think could possibly lead to water quality issues.
>> I have a couple more, but go ahead. I interrupted you.
>> go ahead.
>> you say the lcra-mps ordinance . Sorry, I'm not familiar with it. What does mps stand for?
>> nonpoint source pollution.
>> is that the same as the high land lakes watershed ordinance?
>> I'm not sure. But yes.
>> and so in terms of our, do we have any borrow enforcement authority from the lcra for entorsing those regulations?
>> I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that both agencies have inspectors and enforcement procedures. We would certainly either inspect and enforce independently or in conjunction with them. I mean--
>> so at least we would be an additional pair of eyes to identify issues for lcra. At most we may actually be able to participate.
>> depending on what exactly was going on, what our inspectors saw, you know, I would think we would be able to do one or the other if not both.
>> okay.
>> the points that you mentioned about the interim rules, the filing of this application was such that the interim rules did not apply.
>> yes, sir. And they asked for hardship waiver, which was granted by tnr. In their request for hardship waiver they stipulated several point that they would voluntarily adhere to. I believe that in part because of some of the concessions that they were willing to make and put in writing, that has to to with why we granted the hardship variance or wafer, sorry.
>> the commitments made in the hardship application, rgk is meeting?
>> yes, sir. They are currently plat notes that mirror the language exactly from the hardship waiver. I believe additionally that Commissioner eckhardt worked to maybe perfect some of those notes.
>> I'd say I added some things.
>> okay.
>> not everything that would be regulated by the interim rules, however. I wasn't able to undo the grandfathering, only reduce the magnitude of the grandfathering.
>> I believe in the new notes that Commissioner worked on, there are some provisions that help frame what sort of activity if it were to occur in the future, would not be considered grandfathering or grandfather situation.
>> just to follow up on that. Basically the agreement that was made in return for the hardship is listed on page 2 of your memo those are still in place?
>> yes, ma'am.
>> yeah, the less than 20 percent imper vious in two, three, four, five.
>> yes, ma'am.
>> questions have been raised repeatedly about the timing of the construction of reimers peacock road. Anymore information about that? Do we know when it might be built? Do we know when there may be plans commenced to construct it?
>> good afternoon, my name is rex howel, I represent rkg ranch. From the landowners standpoint there are no plans to construct the road at this time. I have no idea when that might occur.
>> okay. If public dollars are used, we obviously have more say-so than if private dollars are used for the construction. I'm worried a little bit about the process, I guess, if the, would the landowners actually do the development, you think, or would there be transactions regarding the land and other developers? That's not fleshed out either?
>> I don't know. That's for them to decide at some point in the future.
>> okay.
>> what is the opposition to this particular proposal?
>> I believe the last type of questions I got had to to--
>> the latest opposition.
>> sorry.
>> I heard earlier the opposition. Has any earlier opposition changed or is the opposition stance consistent with what was laid out on the table. Has there been any update or change in that opposition? To this project.
>> I believe that probably any opposition that we have heard in the past, probably the concerns raiseded, the opposition would still feel. The most recent questions that I you know, have seen have to do with cut and fill and land balancing. I'm not trying to put words in anybody's mouth, but I believe the opposition probably has the same concerns they had last time they gave testimony.
>> thank you.
>> we'll hear from them in just a moment. Did we want to cover the points you referenced a minute ago? About plat note?
>> sure. That would be good.
>> additions?
>> with both of you all up there I think that would be, this would be an opportune time.
>> okay.
>> just to recap, it's my an understanding, just want too make sure that we're on the same page with le, that the grandfathering occurred with the filing of the application in March of 2005.
>> correct.
>> there was an additional letter in I believe June of 2005 that added acreage. The plat notes, and again, my intention in doing these was to create a paper trail of the concessions made so that they could be enforce the, increase the likelihood of their enforceability. But i, and the reduce the magnitude of the grant fathering. They do in the eliminate the grandfathering--do not eliminate grandfathering. Sorry, I'm trying to pull them out so I have the actual ones. First note goes to the addition of properties. There can be no more than an increase of 20 percent over the original acreage first submitted. I believe the acreage was the 263 already increased by, I believe, 18 percent, which leaves an additional two percent of wiggle room in the event that additional property is purchased for access or something like that. The second goes to 20 percent imper vious cover which includes residential and nonresidential use. That wasn't clear in the plat notes originally. The third goes to compliance with the waterway buffers included in the interim water quality regulations. The decision was made to put the actual language of the buffer regulations in the plat notes so there would be no question as to which version was being complied with. Although it does not include all of the interim water quality regulations, only those that are pertinent to buffers and stream crossings. There is also a plat note regarding, three plat notes, successive plat notes, regarding native vegetation, pest management and lighting. It was tightened up to apply to residential and nonresidential uses, to be approved by the county at a future date so we can nail down with more specificity as the plan gelled more. There was also a note to comply with the endangered species act. I believe those are the notes. Did I cover everything?
>> yes.
>> now again, these notes do not undo the grandfathering. Issues remain about cut and fill and land use balancing. Also the very present issue of what happens with reimers peacock. My an understanding and mr. Howel, I would like you to speak to this if you can, my an understanding is the lcra regulations apply in some regard to constrain the cut and fill both in pad and in roadway inside the development.
>> the rules as I understand them require that you identify how you're going to phase construction. I think that in particular was created in such a manner to address the west cyprus creek issue. So that you go through a review process with the lcra to demonstrate how you're going to phase construction and demonstrate how you're going to deal with the temporary controls for stormwater runoff through that phasing. Then, of course, there's the inspection aspect of that as well for them to come out and look at the site and see that you are complying with your phasing plans. So the property has an approved point source master plan on it at this time.
>> and that was the November 30, '06, approval?
>> that one have been, yeah, okay, yes.
>> so while this project is grandfathered in terms of Travis County regulations, it is not grandfathered in terms of the lcra regulations, the high land lakes water sediment?
>> that's correct.
>> any threat --any other questions from you all?
>> the other concern is with traffic and traffic conditions on highway 71 west. When this development is constructed they are committed to make certain enhancements to 71 west to accommodate traffic from their subdivision. And just what are they, again, for the record?
>> there would be, with each intersection on the 71, they would be doing advanced agreement along with indemnification agreement to mirror, to redirect the obligations of the advanced funding agreement to the applicant. But they are to include turn lanes, I believe median.
>> widened shoulders for acceleration and deceleration lanes, expanded turn lane and the center with striping. So basically an island for turning in the center.
>> and both intersections on to 71 as they start to develop those, off of those two beck shunce.
>> intersections. So basically the sale improvements that text does has in their safety il improvements further west and back toward the school.
>> just want to, this will address some of the additional problems of residents in and out of the newly constructed rkg subdivision may cause. That's my an understanding of that.
>> I think it would also help had ongoing traffic as too as well on the roadway.
>> okay. Any other questions from the court?
>> one question for anna. What benefits to grandfathering remain for rgk?
>> what been fits?
>> yes.
>> do you mean what would be applicant get to do based on the grandfathering they already have? Okay. They would get to financial plat this subdivision under the set of rules laid out on the, in the plat notes and in the hardship letters, they would get to subdivide based on those provisions. If they deviate, then depending on what they are doing and how it fits or compares to the plat notes, or if it's a separate or distinctly different project, then the grandfathering would not necessarily be in effect.
>> is it safe to say that it's interim water quality regulations as a body, excluding what has been included in the plat notes, is the benefit that they get? The different treatment that they get?
>> I would, that they are not following everything that is in the interim rules, is the benefit that they get.
>> and so those benefits go to density, cut and fill regarding pad, what other categories are not touched on.
>> well, density, I'll need to, I want to verify this, but I don't believe--
>> density was specifically addressed.
>> that it was specifically addressed in the interim rules. I think that they volunteered 20 percent number. I think we said that if you go over a certain density, you have to additionally do a client fee. That's how I believe the interim rules spoke to density. But absence of an archeological assessment or identifying environmentally available features u that is something that we would be getting now.
>> so we're not getting an environmental assessment for the cut and fill requirements on pad those are two things that remain as a benefit to the grandfathering, benefit to rgk, detriment to Travis County.
>> right. And like I said, two of the major stream crossings would not meet the interim rules as written because they are not arterials in the calm --campo planlve and one of the minor stream crossings I don't think would meet because of the proximity to another roadlve two of the minor stream crossings would meet the interim.
>> other questions?
>> the only other thing that I think is kind of out there, I guess the members of the council were you all able to get some kind of agreement from them that they would look at the highway safety issues that were raised? And then I guess they are still left out there.
>> this is still in the calm campo plan. It's just that it will be years before permanent improvements are made just based on the funding. But bob day has committed to make, you know, some short-term improvements, I would call it, plus take a look at other things that Travis County may call to their attention. We are still putting together a letter to send them. Right?
>> the court --
>> the court a week ago said let's pull some recommendations from residents, add them to ours and send them to bob day in the form of a letter, really to augment conversations that we have had. We have had a couple conversations during campo meetings. Those -- public discussions. I think the commitment from them is short-term they will do several things. And long-term, though, they are looking for a funding source. The other thing is that we may be able to get campo to move this up. Still you are looking at funding. The way the conversations are going, you are looking at tolling. You go in and make significant improvements of the lane adding nature, you are really looking at tolling to pay for the capacity. Otherwise, my guess is you're looking at decades down the roa.
>> we don't have any kind of ballpark figure as to what it would take to address the safety issues that have been raised sm.
>> I think there's a wide range of recommendations that we have made. We do have a meeting with bob day on Friday to transmit both the county and community's recommendations for improvements to 71. Some of those improvements are fairly low cost, like changing speed limits. Others are very expensive when you start talking about adding lanes to 71. So there's a full range of opportunities and lots in between. But if what tex dot is currently doing on 71 is n any indication, what is getting done right now is being paid for by developers. It's not being paid for out of local tax dollars or state tax dollars. So I think what judge Biscoe said is accurate. I think it is a funding issue. Ultimately the larger more costly improvements will probably be paid for out of tolls.
>> short-term, though, short-term measures that are a lot more affordable seems to mean that we should be able to partner with tex dot, maybe with some other impacted entities, to get those done a whole lot faster. It's just identifying they will and getting agreement on them. If you say reduce the speed limit, it may be the best idea in the world. But what they do is send the engineer out to do drav--traffic studies. Right?
>> sure.
>> there's a process that requires them to satisfy themselves about changes that need to be made. It's just that we need to get those processes started, underway, and sort of move on.
>> short of tolling, though, you don't think we could address some of those issues in the long term? For instance, like a bond election? It's been done before, bond elections and then turn the money over to tex dot for them to address some of those issues.
>> in the past our bond money has gone to acquire right-of-way. I would expect tex dot would continue to ask the county to do that. But the physical improvements, the construction is typically paid for either by state or federal dollars. To date the county has not paid for any construction, merely right-of-way for state projects.
>> Commissioner, some of the statistics that we had had yesterday before us were ranged anywhere from $19 million a mile to $82 million a mile to do a roadway. We cannot bond. I mean, I don't think that you can take a bond issue to this community and even dent what you have got to do with 71. 71 has got to be done without question. You are talking about several hundred millions of dollars for tex dot to do that. And that is the reason that we are looking at toll roads. Even if you don't toll 71 and you toll something else that allows you to come and bring dollars to another place in the community, but the dollars, I mean, the dollars in the last six months have grown beyond imagination with road building. You know, we're fortunate that on 7 that we have a lot of--71 that we have a lot of right-of-way capability. That is a huge cost in road wea construction and tex dot has a lot of that. But it is not in the queue. We are talking about voting in October on five roads and none of those are on 71. I don't think anybody needs to be misled that there is a quick fix, you know, to 71. The unfortunate thing is that if you look at the paper that's come out in 2005-2006 where you have accident reports, I mean, it is on the east side of 35 with 183 and with 290 and with the other road, an and then it's on the west side with 71, with 2222, you name it. But where you have big pockets of traffic, you have accidents and tex dot is certainly privy to the notion that they have to go out and try to do something quicker or sooner than later. Especially on 71. I think 71, most of us would say know that it's perhaps the most dangerous because of the speed. And I don't think, every engineer that I have talked to is not willing to go out and put 55 mile an hour speed limits. They will tell you that when they go out, and 85 percentile, which is how engineers do it, 85 percent of the people travel this speed. So if you go out and put an artificial speed that says we want to you go 55, nobody goes 55. You can put law enforcement out there and just give tickets, you know, beyond imagination, and that probably helps for a while. But once you stop with your law enforcement out there, then the speeds go back up. One thing that I know that the judge and I talked about, and I know that senator watson and I talked to bob day about, was finding some way to get some barriers in the inside, I mean in the median. Albeit, all it is is is a line right now down 71. But at least you would keep the people from having the head-on collision. Not to say that the three ladies that were killed, it wasn't a head-on collision. So you still have some issues there. But the real issue on roadway is how do we identify the funding. The sooner the funding can get to tex dot, the sooner they can do something about some of these roads. And we are all for the last three and a half, four years on campo , we have been trying to figure out had how to identify the dollars. The dollar needs continue to grow. So I'm fearful that we can't do a lot. I do think that we're going to be able to do some things because tex dot has the pressure to go out and to do something with 71.
>> and I think as we approve other plats that come forward, not only on west 71 but on east 71, then I think, and the speed continues to be the issue all along 71 from west to east, seems to me like the speed limit really needs to be addressed because it's going right through an urban area where that speed is going to really mean a lot of accidents on both sides of I 35. And why couldn't we pursue the speed limit issue as a short-term.
>> it's on the list.
>> almost seems like it really needs to be number one up there.
>> it's on the list but I'm afraid we are tinkering around the edges of a much larger problem here. In regards to rkg specifically, I don't feel comfortable with placing the blame for the deadly conditions on 71 at rkg's feet. The deadly conditions are a combination of factors, one of which is the county'sability under state law to deny the subdivision plats. I quite literally do not have the authority to say no, which apalling, I know, and unsatisfactoriry. The other is our inability to appropriately fund our transportation needs. We have used the gas tax for more than half a century with great effect. It's cheap to add minister, cheap to collect, and it bears a reasonable relationship to how much a person, an individual uses the transportation infrastructure. We are ditching that system in favor for a tolling tax system, which is far more expensive to add minister, far more expensive to collect, and has great of inequity both vertical and horizontal inequity for the users. I don't know which is more frustrating as a county official. Our woefully inadequate tool box for land use or having to sit back and watch on really repug nant form of funding for transportation. I'm so sorry.
>> move speeding to the top of the list on that later, joe. Now, if you have come to address the court on this matter today, please come forward.
>> I don't intend to put this at anybody's, you know, feet.
>> sorry, I didn't mean it that wayno, no--
>> no, I just want to clarify. I don't intend to put this at anybody's doorstep. I think given the fact that we don't have the land use regulation, it would appear to me, and because development is going on both west and east of I 35 a 71, that speed still remains one of the biggest issues that we need to somehow get addressed. Because lives are at stake. Plain and simple. I don't want to bee bee labor that I think it's a reality. Have I to apologize to you. I need to leave about five minutes before 12 so I can make a meeting I've been invited to. But I will, I'll try to hang in there with you all with the whole process the.
>> name please.
>> my name is diane cunningham. And I am with the group citizens for change on 71. This is a newly formed group. Our mission, our purpose is to work proactively with elected officials, tex dot and campo, to make hi way 71 from the oak hill area to the county line a safer driving experience. The reason why I am involved with cc 71 is that my children and I witnessed that tragic accident with the three educators from Round Rock. We were coming home one day during the rain and saw that accident. After that accident, it was very hard for me to, and it still is to this day, hard for me to drive on a rainy day. When I am going up the hill, I am afraid that a car is going to come hydroplane is towards us. When I'm coming down, I see that accident happening again and again. I know one out of ten people out where I live that have hydroplaned down that same hill. I have friend that have told me that when they are driving highway 71 and pass another car on the inner lane, that they are child has said, wow, dad, did you see how close that car was? So it's even noticeable the a child in the back seat, how close oncoming cars are coming. We're asking that you please take action on any proposal that you receive to make highway 71 a safer road. Thank you.
>> thank you, ms. Cunningham. Anybody else?
>> may name is hans-huth. I live on barb wire road. We had short presentation last time we met about the problems there. Mr. December --danugherty has some illustrations from me about how dangerous the area especially at barb wire road is. There are now commercial establishments spring up, gas station and convenience store at the coroner of barb wire road and highway 71 is springing up and will be in operation within a few weeks. There are other commercial operations in that small strip. All of that says to me that in that neighborhood, in that area, a speed limit of 70 miles per hour, which is often exceeded, is totally unreasonable. I saw the document that tnr sent to the Commissioners with the short-term improvements, and I agree with much of it, but I disagree with item 5 in the short-term improvement plan which says reduce speed limit from 65 miles per hour to 55 miles per hour from barb wire road to pace bend park road. That is simply ridiculous because by the time people see a speed limit sign at barb wire road, it's too late. The car has already hit the back of the school bus. That speed limit sign needs to appear where the first sign for --merging from two lines to one lane appears, about three quarters of a mile back east or south from there. And that is my main point. That we change this and put the speed limit at 55. And there is some case to be made at 45 in the immediate vicinity of the restaurant and the barb wire intersection and the strip mall developing there. But at least make it 55 miles per hour. And as far as Commissioner Daugherty's comment, I disagree totally. Anybody that drives 71 into bee cave will see sign that tells you, tronic dis--electronic display that tells you what the speed limit s I drive that every day. It is a mile from that point to hamilton pool road. And there are no feeder roads there or anything like that as we have in barb wire road. But yes, traffic travels at 55 miles per hour in that stretch. I can't see the just --justification there for 55 miles per hour, but it exists and is being obeyed. We can have the same thing in the barb wire area. Please act on that. Yes.
>> it is not me saying that people won't go the speed. What I said whenever I have talk to the district engineers, you've been at lunch with me when we had tex dot engineers, what I am told from traffic engineers, I wish that we could put 35 mile an hour. I would support whatever speed that we could put in areas to slow people down. But when you talk to traffic engineers, our own traffic engineer that was part of these plans, they tell you how they set the speed. I'm not a engineer. I think that it would be perfectly fine and probably much to everyone's agreement, let's find safe speeds to put them. Getting text dot to do that is not something that I can do. I have asked it and I haven't been very successful at doing it. And I think that we have asked, I mean, a number of people have asked about speeds on 71, not just in that area, but in lots of parts of 71. So I want you to nea that I am very favorable of doing something with speeds.
>> okay.
>> unfortunately, I haven't been very successful, no one has been very successful at it because people having asking about speeds on 71 way before the last three to six months. We have been crying for it. I'm willing to have as many meetings as we can have with tex dot because you know that I'm not barbful about asking for those things. Nor am I barbful about saying, here are the things that we need to do, and pushing like the dickens to try to get them done.
>> I know that and I appreciate that.
>> so that is what I think. Thank goodness we have an organization that is being put together because it is sort of, you know, the sweeky wheel to a degree. And unfortunately, god-awful things that happen. Magemaybe the combination of those things. I'm willing to work with diane and willing to work with you. We set up a meeting. If we can start with some speed on that, maybe there is the impetus at this stage to get that done. I'm happy to work with you on zit --on it.
>> all right. All I can say, I fully disagree with the traffic engineers on that. It's a cheap excuse. I'm not a traffic engineer but I am an engineer and I know they are off.
>> I hear you. Thank you.
>> christy mucewith the hill country lines there are two quick fixes, one is the speed limit. That is a quick fix for 71. The other quick fix is to push back or possibly even take out reimers peacock road from the campo plan. You have thousands of acres that will be developed along reimers peacock road that will add thousands of cars to highway 71. We're all acknowledging at this time we're not prepared to handle that on 71. Continue to go push on ream erse peacock road I think is a step in the wrong direction. I'm here to talk about rgk quickly. Balk in 2004 the court made it clear that the intent was to stop approval on subdivisions out in southwest Travis County until new rules were written and put in place and new projects would adhere to those rules we're three years later still talking about this. I'm having a hard time an understanding the hardship of the developer. It's not been a surprise that new rules were coming. They have been involved in the process all along the way. There's been a great deal of compromise on the interim rules from input from developers and developer's attorneys. I to think it's reason tobble ask them to comply with the interim water quality rules. We have established that they are close. So we ask that a plat note be added that specifically states that rgk will comply with the interim water quality . Rules. It's very unclear at this process to determine the specifics of the project they will or not be able to meet. This is our only opportunity we ask for a plot note sating comply with the interim rules. We hope they will be a good neighbor. If they refuse do this willingly we do ask the court the reconsider whether this is in fact a new project and needs to be resubmitted under the new rules. There have been many significant changes appointmented out to the court. I wonder if that might justify why this should be considered as a new project. This request might go beyond action the court has previously taken. We're at a breaking point right now. We hope that you will consider how seer --serious the threat is. I understand the limited power you have. Thank you Commissioner eckhardt for your editorial. Failed items to give counties more authority have failed counties in the legislature. It is in fact within your legal authority to protect the health, welfare and safety of the citizens in southwest Travis County. It is within your legal short to protect--
>> I thank you.
>> I appreciate you, Commissioner Davis. At the hill country alliance we believe there is a limited carrying capacity of the land. It's this limit that is on our streams and on our roads. Right now the sediment in our streams and the number of accidents and fatalities on our roads is proof of this limit of the capacity. Again, require the plat note, please, and if not, ask it to be resubmitted. Thank you very much for listening and caring so much.
>> thank you. Anybody else?
>> may name is Karen humor and I'm a resident e. I teste is came up. I will not reiterate that testimony this time but I would like for it to stand as a matter of record for this sigssession. I primarily testified related to the highway 71 impacts. But I understand, excuse me, by the way, judge, Commissioner, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. I understand from talks with the county that ere is the r s3, probably to deny this particular project as it relates to health, safety and welfare of the people as it relates to the traffic. So seems to me, I mean, I have focused on the traffic safety issues of highway 71 because my concern has been the continued approval of these subdivisions that add more and more traffic. And this one uld add another 13,000 plus day trips the highway 71 traffic, not mee impacts of the reimers road c when that is ultimately through, and he fact this sets a precedent for getting threeroabuiltand the re built and allowing additional subdivisionsut there to feed trfic into highway bui have been a big supporter of the other, trying to deal with the othsu f this that others have been mentioning. And I thinthis project is justht across the board. The best exe he probms we have in subdivision as it relates to land authority and the limited role that you have as county Commissioners and county judge to deal with. I have, I don't want to be too redundant, but I have given you some pictures of the hamilton pool project which shows the land clearing that is causing I had a talk representative several weeks ago who said that there are huge, huge problems with this particular project because they do not have the cut and fill guidelines, and the lcran ordinance is on the part that they have jurisdiction in deang runoff problem. Now, I understand that our cut and fill ordinance doesn't deal with the roadway grading but it does deal with the individual housing parts. That is hugely significant. The problem, and it's true with nps, probably still true with our water quality ordinance. People will look at this and say okay, every time we have a heaviy rain, all creeks and streams and rivers have turbidity. Well, they do. But the impact of this kind of turbidity, the sediment runoff, the volume of sediment that come down. It impacted lick creek. Lick creek will never be the me it deposits, it settles to the bottom and provides an environment for grasses and other vegetation to grow which provide an environment for other problems like algae and things like that. This project is the head waters, the primary head waters of bee creek. Bee creek is the last big pristine creek in western Travis County. If they can't follow the interim water quality rules on this project, then we're looking at this. And worse. Because it's very difficult to get, once people, a subdivision is built out, once people buy their homes and start their yard it's very difficult to control and manage the types of fertilizers. They may have guidelines but getting it enforced is difficult. Then you get the nutrients and algae and related problems. So water quality is a huge issue with this projectlve I actually sent greg kosmetski a couple weeks ago because I feel this project gives an opportunity. We need private sector leadership for dealing with these land use issues because they are real. They are real for the county and real for public. The majority of the public recognizes that they need to be dealt with. But what we have is a handful of wealthy developers and landowners that are managing the system as it is right now to further their own individual interests. I sent mr. Kosmetski a letter hoping that he would step forward and say yeah, I realize this is an issue, and be a part of the solution to these problems rather than be a part of the problem. I have not heard back from him. Apparently he has not chose tha that route.is une. This ranch canbe developed at a profit even with the water quality interim rules. The issues related to reimers ranch road are precedent setting with this. I think the operative word from mr. Howel was that the landowner doesn't intend to develop this any time soon. There's nothing to prohibit the landowner from selling this parcel once it gets the land entitlement. And if that happens, reimers road happens. Oncer once that happens, the next big landowners down the road will put that in. We'll be out of control. It sets a precedent for the next landowners to come in and get this road built. You know, I just have a real problem here. This particular project has, quite frankly, to me has stunk from the get-go because on many fronts, it harks of behind the scene me. Everyone wonders why since this project and several others came in the night before that moratorium was put in place. It's extreme example of the abuse of the grandfathering law, extreme example of additional cars and traffic and air pollution highwa71. Can get road right-of-way easier in negotiations at this stage for roads that ultimately will need to be built. I can appreciate as taxpayer. However, I that this partulprojec fait netseendhe fact that ens offer up that the long-term cost to the county in dealing with the problems and that will be t outweigh the cost of acquiring that land at this point. In other words, we'll be spending more dollars down the road to mitigate the problems than we would be on the front end to buy land right-of-way. I just have to say, and Commissioner Daugherty, you look at yourself as a road man I have to wonder as a precinct three Commissioner why you are not out there in the front doing what, I mean, publicly banner child, let's get highway 71 fixed, not let anymore development. You have said the cost coming down the pike for these roads, it's only going to get more and more, and yet you're promoting a subdivision approvals to put tens and tens more s. Thiscess ahis projec. Judge, preciate whatoubeen doing to try to deal with this within the constraints that the county has. Commissioner eckhardt k your op ed article was awesome and I really understand what you are saying and appreciate the plat notes that you tried to put on this. Commissioner Davis and Commissioner Gomez who is not here, you have the same impact it is ts out of control mess s. Iteest. Legislaturn' monumental now I want you to stick your next out. D like to see you not approve this project based on whatever the mechanism is. Perhaps it's because--
>> let me say this to you. Last week I did stick my neck out on the motion that would not pass, voted to reject a plat for recording. I did that. Of course, we didn't get the, but anyway, that's another story. And I hear what you are saying. I know where you are coming from. Believe me, I'm going to do my best, as I stated last time you were here, that I'm going to do my best to try to turn this thing around if I can. Sometimes we do have to stick our neck out and go and then challenge things the way they are. Just challenge it. I'm for challenging things. That's what I'm all about. But anyway, I hear your concern. It's public safety issue, a bunch of other things. I understand and I feel it. What you are talking about, because I live it on my precinct. Not similar stuff but similar challenges. Believe me, I understand where you are coming from. The folks over there suffering from the inadequacy of having proper land use authority to a whole lot of other things that I need we need to challenge some folks and say, hey, we want the laws changed. That is exactly some things that I think we need to do like right now. Like yesterday in fact. So I agree with you.
>> thank you Commissioner Davis. Anyway--
>> we plan to come back on this item this afternoon?
>> pardon?
>> should we plan to come back this afternoon?
>> I'm just about done. I just say use whatever mechanism you can.
>> who else is here to give testimony on this item? We need to come back this afternoon.
>> will this create a hardship for those who want to make comments?
>> we normally break for 12 and it's 12:18 now. I'm talking about being back at 1:30. We will be here this afternoon a couple of three hours. Unfortunately, this is not--
>> judge, let me say something. I'm going to ask for another week. I'm willing to go to greg kosmeski and ask him these things. For anybody to insin ew ate that I am not in front of anything about roads and transportation is the most ridiculous statement anybody could make because for 12 years I have fought for these things. Maybe some people question whether or not one road ought to be built versus another. And I appreciate that. But I haven't done everything within my power to bring to the forefront that it has always been about funding to take on added capacity and safety improvements. This 71 deal hasn't just started in the last two or three years. It has been going on and you know that it's been going on, Karen, because I worked with you and your husband to do something on 71 that you thought was so important to do. I will never leave the table with regards to what we need to do with mobility and transportation. You all, as far as reimers peacock rode is concerned, this, Travis County will make the call on that. I mean, it will be, the bonds was were passed by people in this community. As far as I'm concerned, I'm not interested in going out and unilaterally saying build that road. I think because quite frankly we're going to have to have bond dollars to build it, if it's ever built. So if the people in Travis County want to, then fine. If they don't want to, that's fine as well. I don't have a problem with that y'all. But we have got to get off of this stuff about somebody not being supportive or not doing something because they are not interested in safety or whatever. That is the most ridiculous. I don't think anybody that I know of in this community is not interested in trying to bring about safer roads and everything that we need. I will, I mean judge, maybe it will help if we delay it for a week because I with like to talk to mr. Kosmetski about trying to meet the interim rules. I will try that. I don't mind doing that. I will work with anybody and everybody with regards to what we do with 71. Whoever wants to have meetings with me, we will continue to have meetings with everybody that wants to be part of that deal. I mean, I do think that we can move this thing along. And maybe given the fact that people can't wait until this afternoon--
>> if I were here now, I'd rather come back at 1:30 than come back next week. Seems to me if we are delaying action until next week, we ought to try to get comments today and next week take action. I don't know that the comments differ a whole lot.
>> next week would be better.
>> I echo Commissioner Daugherty's comments. The stewardship of the rgk ranch for the past 30 years has been exceptional. Their dedication of water quality and their own use of their own land has been exemplary and it has set the standard for a lot of private land management. It is reasonable to ask the owners of that property to try to fulfill the obligations of the interim ordinance. And so if a weeks time is required for the Commissioners court and for the county judge to make that request as a personal appeal, then I think it's extremely reasonable. For those of us who took off work to be here this morning, it's hard tor take off the afternoon as well. Thank you.
>> one short comment.
>> all right.
>> I am a resident of the western Travis County thank you for your time and attention to this. I did enjoy your editorial immensely this morning am you're right on target. Perhaps your hands are tide but whatever you can do to address, Commissioner Daugherty, with the kosmetski family, how to make this a high
>> [pro-el] file positive development and address safety issues at the same time as honoring the interim water quality rules with this project should come under. And several times I've been here to discuss the issues with. Water quality to bee creek. I think we need to draw the line and get started on some positive direction on some of these issues. Thank you again, I'm not able to stay for the afternoon. I have small children. I would love to work with all of you on a continued base toys try to keep this going in the right deck shun--direction.
>> the others who have come that did not give comments, would you like to come back this afternoon or is next week better?
>> (inaudible reply)
>> 1:30? We will not take action today. It will be back on next week. But if I know we're doing it at 1:30, then we'll take from whoever is here to give them. Okay? My representation will be that whenever this item is on again, we take action one way or the other. But we can get as much done between now and then as we can. We're talking about one week. Even if I scheduled it earlier, it would be ten o'clock. I don't know what will happen between 9:15 when we norm ally start and ten. We don't know until we get into them. So who is coming back at 1:30 today? Then we'll call this item back up at 1:30 this afternoon for those present to give comments. We will take action not today but probably next week when the item is back on. Okay. Thank you all very much for coming down.
>> thank you.
>> move that we recess until 1:30.
>> second.
>> all in favor. That passes unanimously with Commissioner Gomez absent..
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:
Thursday, August 16, 2007 7:29 AM