Travis County Commissioners Court

June 17, 2008
Item 19

Now let's pull up number 19, which is consider and take appropriate action on wandering creek preliminary plan and a phasing agreement with wandering creek investments l.p., a subdivision in precinct 4.

>> good morning, anna boli n, Travis County t.n.r. Along with mike hettenhouse. We're representing the single office with the city of Austin.

>> maybe give a little more volume on these mics, I believe.

>> the wandering creek preliminary plan was originally submitted in August 2006. This preliminary plan is for 1794 lots on 647 acres in precinct 4. This plan has road frontage on elroy road on the ease west portion of the road and the north-south portion and on mcand gus road. Of those 1794 lots, 1745 are proposed to be residential, 47 open space detention pond facilities lots, and amenity center lot and one lot for a water tank. With this development, 67,698 linear feet of new public streets would be created. As the development is final platted. Sewage service is to be provided by city of Austin, and this is in city of Austin e.t.j. And it's been approved by the zoning and platting commission of city of Austin and it was reviewed under title 30, the consolidated code for Austin -- for city of Austin and Travis County. So this preliminary plan was originally submitted in August 2006. It wasn't complete in the first 180-day review period so it was extended for 360 days, in part due to late days that were accumulating on us on staff getting comments out in the master report. Throughout the whole process, there's been a lot of communication with the neighbors and there have been a lot of concerned neighbors on this. And in fact, we really appreciate the level of commitment that everyone has put in to commenting on this application. One thing that was raised in November of last year, in part because the neighborhood communications -- it was discovered that the topographic information on the original preliminary plan was off. So we viewed that to be a significant enough of a problem that they had -- the applicant had to withdraw and resubmit their application. So a new application was submitted in December of '07. Correcting that. So throughout this process, there's been a lot of neighborhood concerns that have been raised by a whole host of people. One of the things that we've heard a lot about is the density of the development. If you look at the entire site, the entire 647 acres, it averages to 2.7 lots per acre. But if you take out the nondeveloppable portions of this prelim, such as the flood plain and any slopes greater than 15%, it would be 5.8 lots per acre. So these are small lots. It's a dense subdivision. And we've heard a lot from neighbors and people in the area that are concerned about the density. In the surrounding area, you have a mixture of acreage, everything from, you know, tracts being a couple of acres to hundreds of acres to across the street a small lot subdivision that's comparable in size called stoney ridge. So that is a concern that we have heard throughout this process. Another concern that has been raised has to do with transportation. Elroy road or specifically the east-west portion of elroy road is a camp poe road. The north-south portion is not and mcand gus road is not. One thing that this preliminary plan has we found when we were reviewing it is a campo extension, maha loop roadway. There will be a campo road going through this plan that had to be accommodated. During the final plat process, they will be dedicating right-of-way for elroy to get the increased right-of-way that we need for the campo road system. And it will also be dedicating the right-of-way from maha loop and building their proportionate share of maha loop. One of the things that in addition to looking at whether or not a campo road was included on the site, as is the norm taken requirement for this size of development, the applicant had us submit a traffic impact analysis. And we reviewed the initial traffic impact analysis in 2006 and both staff from the city and staff from the county reviewed this, and we -- it was decided that they needed to submit some additional information to their t.i.a., traffic impact analysis to, include such things as improvements that were along 130, jacobson and other adjacent roads. After review of the t.i.a. Rvetion it was decided that, you know, what they submitted between both the first initial submittal and the second was appropriate. Some of the improvements recommended in the t.i.a. Are spoken to in the phasing agreement. Some of the improvements recommended were not able to capture because they are far enough off site and they are not immediately adjacent to this project. But they will be -- of what is included in the phasing agreement, the installation of a traffic signal at their main signed street, which is the maha loop extension and elroy road, they will be contributing their proportionate share which we're estimating at this point to be about 87% of the cost of that sign, and a eastbound turn lane on elroy into their subdivision. Another issue that was raised during the review of this project had to do with pipelines. This project is bisected by two pipeline easements that contain three natural gas pipelines. The city of Austin, as you probably are aware, has a pipeline ordinance inside their city limits. That ordinance doesn't extend into e.t.j. But this was a health and safety issue and neighbors raised it, and the applicant has agreed to, you know, voluntarily meet the performance standards that are present in the pipeline ordinance. So example, if they are going to build within 200 feet of the pipeline, they are going to have to build under the same type of materials that they would had they been in the city of Austin full-purpose city limits in dealing with the pipeline ordinance. So this was something that, you know, it came up during the review, and as we heard from the neighbors and we worked with the applicant, and they agreed to meet that performance standard. In addition to that, we also worked with our fire marshal's office because -- because of the health and safety element of this. One thing that this preliminary plan has is a 15 -- I'm sorry, a.

>> 50-foot access ease nment to north-south portion of elroy road. They own this land, but it's mainly going to be used as an emergency way in and out and they will need to pave it and whatever else the fire marshal's office would request. Right now it's looking like they are going to want a crash gate on the subdivision side of the easement, but so we're working -- we've been working to try to address the health and safety concerns regarding the pipeline. Another area of concern was the environmental review of this project. This project was reviewed under section 5 of title 30, which is the environmental component, and it was reviewed by city of Austin environmental and their wetlands staff. It was found that there are four wetlands on this property, and because they were separate locations, the wetlands staff felt that mitigation was appropriate rather than requiring setbacks around each individual wetland. So the mitigations resulted in one large critical feature, buffer for the mitigatable wetlands and that consists of approximately 12.76 acres. And in addition to that wetland, there is an existing lake that will be classified as a critical environmental feature and identified as a drainage easement and an open space lot. So in all, it appears that 47 lots will be classified as open space drainage easement lots, which is about 53% of the entire tract or 347.88 ache eshes. So a big portion of this tract is -- is where the environmental controls will be happening and the lots are densely compacted in the other portions. Also during the environmental review, there were two environmental variances that were -- that were granted by staff as environmental staff as per title 30. One was for fill over 4 feet but less than 8 feet and the second was for permanent soils within the flood plains.

>> what was the second variance?

>> permanent soils within the flood plain.

>> what does that mean, by the way?

>> I think that it has to do with their -- well, they are in the process of getting a clomer, they are proposing to modify the flood plain. So I believe that the second variance speaks to what they would need to be doing in the construction process, but I'll verify that. But those were granted by city of Austin staff who absolutely know what the variances mean.

>> all right.

>> they are proposing to modify the current fema flood plain along dry creek. They have -- at the preliminary plan stage, the requirement is that they submit a complete application to fema for their conditional letter of map revision. At the preliminary plan stage, we don't have to hear back from fema that it's a correct application and that they are ready to issue the conditional letter of map revision. So they have submitted their -- their clomer, which is what we call a map revision to fema, and right now they are reviewing it for correctness. They did have to update their clomer application to fema once it was found that the topography was not registering, and they have submitted that updated information to them and it's my understanding that, you know, we'll be hearing back, if they haven't already from fema on comments they need to address to make sure it's the correct application. And final plat -- at the final plat stage, we would not be here bringing a final plat to Commissioners court that didn't have the conditional letter of map revision granted by fema. One of the other things that came up during the review process was questions regarding hazard mitigation plan that Travis County adopted in 2004. And basically the purpose of the mitigation plan is to mitigate damages from natural hazards such as flooding to structures that were constructed prior -- okay, the purpose is to mitigate so that we don't have people put in harm's way either in -- either in subdivisions that aren't meeting standards or just not being put in the right places. So one of the things we use this to obtain grant funding from fema to fund our mitigation effort. And basically this subdivision is not afoul of the hazard mitigation plan because the plan states all new developments must require with current standards, and this preliminary plan does comply with current standards. There's just a couple more things that came up during the process. One was -- and it doesn't -- isn't so much from the county's side of things, but a service extension request for cost reimbursement for water and wastewater service was granted by the city of Austin. So it will be city of Austin water and wastewater that services this project. Another thing that we heard concerns about review process was airport overlay zone. There is an airport overlay which is a small piece of this tract. The airport overlay is not required under title 30 to be shown, and just to clarify, the piece that is subject -- well, has the -- is overlaid by the airport overlay zone is part of an open space law. So the zone, as I understand it, basically, you know, is trying to be sure there's not, you know, really tall incompatible buildings in the airport zone, so that would not be the case in this -- that would not be a problem in this instance because it's an open space law where there would be open space without anything being built. And two others things.

>> the city of Austin required to basically sign off on the airport overlay zone?

>> well, it was discussed at zoning and platting. Title 30 does not require it to be shown on the preliminary plan. Certainly it has been brought up and --

>> does the city of Austin have a problem with it?

>> not to my knowledge. And they approved the plat and it was discussed. Or I'm sorry, they approved the preliminary plan and it was discussed.

>> okay.

>> the last thing -- last couple of things I would like to mention is that in addition to the two environmental variances, there was an administrative waiver as per title 30 for the balance of tract, and one of the things that came, I think, as a result of that waiver is there are 14 substreets to adjacent -- stub streets to adjacent property shown in the body of this preliminary plan. It's been a long process. I'm sure for everyone involved. A lot of questions have been raised. We've done a very thorough review and those are the main things that we heard during the process.

>> when you say there are 14 stub streets to adjacent properties given waiver to not have to connect to those 14 stub streets?

>> when those properties come in and develop, they will need to connect to the stub streets that are shown -- they are not existing there. We're trying to get some connectivity. So -- but this preliminary plan meets title 30 and we would recommend its approval.

>> on a -- I remember one meeting mr. Hilgers was present and the county judge and I were present and stacy and we talked about the submission of, I guess, the plans for wandering creek to fema so that they would review those, that plan, and maybe get ahead of the whole idea of the fact that it floods in that area. And the fact that the fear that, you know, neighbors, people who have lived out there a long time had that there would be flooding that would go on to their property. Did we get sufficient answers from fema regarding those points?

>> stacy, t.n.r. They did submit a complete application to people for their conditional letter of map revision, the flood plains they are planning on doing as a part of this subdivision. Fema is in the process of vee viewing this information. In fact, yesterday I received my copy of their -- of fema's comments, and I can tell you fema is going through this application with a fine tooth comb. Part of that is because I personally asked on behalf of the county judge asked the fema reviewer to pay particular attention to us because of the flooding problems on dry creek.

>> and because precinct 4 seems to be the area where all of the flooding runs down to southeast Travis County, and because mr. Hilgers is one of the people who lives close by and had incredible concerns about it and I wanted to make sure that mr. Hilgers knew that I was not ignoring his concerns at all. So that letter to fema also will address the clomer?

>> it was addressing the clomer. They will need their clomer approved prior to any construction.

>> so we cannot approve the final plat if fema does not find their proposal for changing the flood plain is workable.

>> that's correct. And in fact, if their plan is not workable, they may have to come back and revise their preliminary to fit what fema believes is actually workable.

>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]

>> adjacent to this development and we could directly attribute but for you wouldn't have this need. We did have -- it a common problem that we've had with some of the larger subdivisions at the prelims especially that come through, when the improvements start to get further off-site, we lose the ability to really require them, even if there's a tia saying, you know, there needs to be some improvements there. So --

>> so we're having issue with the ross road and mcangus road, we -- we don't feel we can prove up the impact, the rough proportionty on the impact. We don't have the sophistication to know what the impact is or the authority to require that they participate?

>> I would say a combination. We could probably look to see what their proportionate share would be. When we look at the -- consider the maha loop extension, the campo road and the improvements that they are going to need to make immediately adjacent to their -- subdivision, that pretty much eats up what's proportional for them. Even if we had the authority it would probably have been hard for us to go further off-site.

>> so the improvements to el roy at wandering creek drive are off -- are significant enough that they are offsetting any impact we're seeing on ross and -- and mcangus?

>> I would say so.

>> and maja loop being part of the offset.

>> okay. What part of the traffic impact analysis, tia, did they show any indications as far as it being brought back, did they show any indications of what happened at -- at -- at f.m. 812? Just south of this hooked in from 973. That little -- that's a very dangerous intersection now and -- and I'm just wondering if anyone would use that route to get up here, up from -- up from 812 up to -- up to -- up to -- off of -- off of 973. Up to -- up to el roy road or burleson or whatever road at that particular intersection. Right now, I know that -- that that intersection comes into a -- into the intersection at 812 and -- and 973, it comes to a little stop sign right there. And of course you pick up 973 as you go further south tying back into 183. My concern is what type of -- what type of -- of situation can we encounter as far as the impact on that particular intersection again it's very dangerous coming around that -- it's a big high curve there. And if you come around that curve, you just really got to -- got to really watch out now for persons coming out of that particular intersection. 973 and 812, especially with people coming off of 183. And 812. So I'm just concerned whether that -- had they made any projections on any type of increased traffic at that particular intersection kind of the back side of it, but then again, there may be -- may be increased traffic. I just would like to know what -- what is that increased traffic and I'm quite sure it will be some, but what is it, the back way.

>> okay. We're going to -- I'm going to ask the engineers traffic impact engineer to speak to that. I do want to mention before he adds that concern that -- that when -- when maja loop, when that campo road is finished, it's going to start in the subdivision at the el roy road end. But I do want to mention, make sure that you all are aware, when the raw land behind the subdivision is developed, this road will extend to 812 at some point in the future. But Commissioner to address your specific question I will let the engineer address that.

>> hello, judge, Commissioner members.

>> how are you doing?

>> good thank you.

>> good.

>> the scope --

>> name, please.

>> sorry, my name is benefit detect patrick and -- benedict patrick, I'm traffic engineering consultant for this project and I represent the developer.

>> okay.

>> and -- and -- Commissioner Ron Davis, regarding your question for the intersection of f.m. 812 and f.m. 973, that was not analyzed as part of the tia. We went through the process of developing the scope of the city of Austin, the county reviewed it and it was not included as part of the scope. But the analyzed -- having intersections the main intersections we thought would be most impacted by the development.

>> I was just thinking probably if a person didn't take the burleson road cutoff, 183 then points -- points east, decided to go the back way, come in from 812 at 183, going -- coming from the south on 183, and then making a right turn at 812, going all the way down and then making -- trying to get in and turn back over to the left, going into that left turn lane going back up 973, and then hooking into burleson road, in other words, the back side approach to get to the same location. I don't know, it appears that -- that there would be a lot of impact off of 183 from people -- from persons coming west going east. And -- and I just wanted to know if that was -- you say it wasn't included. I guess there's a possibility with this type of -- of density and development that you will have a density, you will have an increase in traffic volume. How people get to their destination or sometimes they like to go the -- the -- the area where there's the least recess tans. And to get to where you are trying to go. Especially at 183 traffic evening traffic. It is -- it's something else coming in from points south, lockhart, all of that stuff like that. All of that coming into Austin. So that was why I brought the point up and maybe could be looked at. I really don't know the answer. I do know this. That is a very dangerous intersection at 812 and 9 -- f.m. -- 973. Very dangerous. So I just threw that out because it wasn't in here anywhere as far as some of the things that I was looking at, I just happened to see the back way into the subdivision.

>> we did analyze the intersection of el roy road and f.m. 812. Basically the logic Commissioner is really like as we go away from the site, away from the intersection, the further away we go from the site, the traffic is sort of like reduces because it like, you know, it's sort of the traffic gets more dispersed because the traffic comes from all the directions and then the most impact would be closest to the intersections itself and that's the reason that particular intersection was not analyzed. But the traffic, like we analyzed the intersections of el roy road and f.m. 812, that was specifically requested by txdot.

>> okay. Well, I just wanted to throw that out. As this process proceeds it would be good to have the numbers on that. So that's why I brought the point up. But thank you.

>> residents? Any residents? Ms. Childers, others please come forward. We probably need you there. In case there are -- in case there are questions that you need to address.

>> good morning, we don have an order of speech here I would like to introduce myself make a few comments to begin with. My name is bill hillgers, I come from a prehistoric era in eastern Travis County. My wife and I have lived in el roy, in the vicinity of el roy, on el roy road since 1958, this is our 50th year on our home site. The home that we moved into was built by a lutheran minister in 1879. We moved out there for the summer not expecting to stay and we -- after we decided the four children liked the country so well we decided to try it for a year. So we started off with a popham school in el roy in 1958. 50 years of history. Now I don't know who it was in television that says you ain't seen nothing yet. When we moved out there, we had an 8 party line, no water, no -- we had cistern water and so we grew up in a very primitive arena, but our children seem to thrive and prosper under it. We like the country. In 1955, I was chairman of a committee to integrate the dell valley schools and that was successful. Unfortunately, I became chairman of the del valle school board as a result of that, I served in that capacity for a number of years. This is my 60th year of law practice. To introduce my concern about this, the -- the thing that I remember about the colorado river when I was growing up in lockhart was that every time it flooded downtown Austin was flooded and wiped out. There was no controls of the water. The flooding. There's still no controls downstream in Travis County. Of the flooding. The lower colorado river authority has a website which describes one of the most flood prone regions in north america. Is the floodplain of the colorado river. That includes onion creek, includes dry creek and includes maja creek. What you have before you here is in my judgment one of the most important issues about the future of Travis County. When I was chairman of the del valle school board we were under great stress to accommodate the growth of that district. The stress now is acutely more dramatic. There's a huge problem of dealing with increased population. Demographics of the area have changed completely. The -- when we grow up in a very low populated area, it was a very quiet peaceful kind of existence, but even then the funding for the schools were dramatically in jeopardy. People for some reason have an aversion to paying taxes, to support schools in a way that's necessary. Right now, that problem is exacerbated dramatically. We have a -- we have for example in this particular application, we have a consideration of what I consider a surreallistic look at a proposal. This proposal that you have before you has so many problems with it. If you were going to design a place not to put a subdivision, you could use this as a prototype. I'll tell you why. We've lived outside there as I said for 50 years. In that time, we have floods periodically that flood the whole area. Dry creek, there are eight bridges around that area involving dry creek. The flood waters come through those bridges, they wash everybody out downstream. The elevation of the property that's under the application here is a 612 feet. The lower part of that elevation is 400 feets. Everybody that's -- that is in dry creek and maja creek vicinity are impacted by the flooding on that area. I don't want to fault the staff for our conscientious efforts to try to deal with the very difficult problem. They have faced the application they have got to address. One of them are hazardous mitigation rules adopted in 2003 is a system of buying out properties that were flooded. If you get a property that was destroyed like thoroughbred farms and timber creek, the money that comes to buy those properties out, doesn't replace or pay for the value of it. Simply gets rid of the houses. Doesn't mitigate the flooding at all. No hazard mitigation involved. Ms. Sheffel and others have had a tremendous problem funding that depending on the fema allocation. That fema allocation is critical to what you have adopted as the hazard mitigation plan. The hazard mitigation plan is your window to do some controls about the future of Travis County. Because it's there to protect the public health and safety. I can go on at length and some of my colleagues would tell you at length some of the flaws in this application. What this is going to do, in my judgment, is to create a slum in this area because the density of the development, this morning's paper there was an estimate of 84% increase in police costs in this area in the last 10 years. The highest in the state by far. The job of the Commissioners court to look after the policing of the outer district is dependent on the quality of life that people are able to enjoy. Right now, the funding that's been available for thoroughbred farms and timber creek farms have been subject to fema rules, depending on the hazard mitigation rules. Also dependent on the lower colorado flooding coalition 721 counties in the state. The problem right now is that thoroughbred farms flooding was in 1985. It still hasn't been bought out. The people have been flooded out, have their homes destroyed still haven't been paid for it. Timber creek was flooded in 2003. Many of those people haven't received the money for that because it dependent on fema funding. Fema funding is depending on congress's allocation of fema money. That money was vetoed by the president and overridden the veto last year. But the money is still not here to pay those people that were flooded out in 2004. What I'm saying is not -- not the fault of the staff trying to find a way to accommodate something that's impossible. But this if you are going to do a prototype of what should not happen, create a density in this area where in a flood prone area where you have got three creeks converging in the same location, with 8 bridges all around and flooding periodically consistently, put that density together and you build a slum. That's exactly what's designed to happen here. And the future of Travis County is dependent on whether this court will act in a way that will protect southeast Travis County. The -- you know, I have a -- a long commitment to -- to poverty area of chairman of the human opportunities corporation for six years, the war on poverty. I know the importance of providing housing. The place to put housing is not in the middle of a floodplain. You can design a prototype. But what this he-- what this ought to be, you couldn't pick a more disastrous option than what you have got. Two versions of a dry creek one version crossing el roy road off of this property which is 612 feet down to swiss alpine village, makes that a prime prospect for the next step in this to buy out swiss alpine village and move those people out. Doesn't do anything about flooding, doesn't solve the problem at all, just wipes out the people that had a house there that they worked on to get. To me this is almost surrealistic exercise. A lot of my colleagues here will tell you specifics about the damages that are going to be incurred. Just give you an example, we had -- we have for the last five years adopted an organic farming and research center. Our place converted to organic agriculture. Our future believes that the plan of mental health depends on the top layers of the school, microorganisms protected. That's the reason the health food stores like whole foods and so forth, people are beginning to realize they are tied to that. The key to that kind of farming operation is that you have to be able to -- to maintain the life of the microorganisms in the soil. All that you have to do is to wipe it out is put herbicides, pesticides, antibiotics in the soil, it watches -- like what washes off the road across el roy road down to our property. That work is wasted you might as well forget. I want to call on some of these people like have been very active here that there were 500 people signed a appellate representing the -- the people in our area which are low income people, they are no big -- no -- people able to fund litigation. If there were possibilities of that this would have been in litigation a long time ago. Should be stopped now. It has an opportunity for solutions. Solutions that I hope for, has a moratorium for six months on this, redo title 30. Title 30 is not designed to handle floodplain areas at all, doesn't address or solve the problems, doesn't deal with the future of southeast Travis County. I just mention this all the way from -- from this properties. All the way down, subject to flooding of dry creek, onion creek, what happens to that area? You can make a decision here today. You can convert the whole thing into a slum, let the whole thing be wiped out as far as future development. You could also take a creative approach to it, cut down the density development in the given areas, make the -- make the livability of the area feasible. Get this particular application readdressed with the 60 day or six month moratorium on getting the thing properly revisited. Cut down the density of the development and make it liveable for people that will buy lots there. It's not going to do any good to have a bankrupt subdivision there, that's what's going to happen. Tom lincoln here is the owner of limousine service across the road from us. Tom?

>> I have a map that I would hike to distribute if I could. On this map I have highlighted the property that I own, which is surrounded by this development.

>> I'm here to represent myself, thomas j. Lincoln, my family and my business, Austin area limousines, I have been a landowner and resident at 8028 el roy road for the past five years. You can see that highlighted on that map at my location. I have been a business owner for the last 16 years in Austin and Travis County. And I am a voter. And I can become a very aggressive campaigner and that's -- that will be for the rest of my life. As a resident I have experienced a family emergency that requires e.m.s. And fire rescue. My wife sustained a possible life threatening injury that required immediate transport for emergency care. If it were not for the quick response by our e.m.s. Located on el roy road we would have had to figure out an alternative measure that may not have resulted in such an excellent result. If this project is approved I fear such a response for all residents will be extremely hindered by the massive increase in traffic travelling on el roy road, a county road with no shoulder space to yield in any direction to emergency vehicles, a county road that has no plan to expand, widen or repair in any way for years in the future, a county road that has no alternative road for each the most minor of accidents that at present sometimes takes hours to recover from. Wandering creeks currently proposing 1700 lots or over 1700 lots in the ensuing traffic debacle of an additional projected 17,000 vehicles per day will make it virtually impossible to operate an efficient business or e.m.s. There are no plans to extend -- expand the project for this project to -- the road for this project to ensure safe travel for business and residents that currently depend on el roy road as their only exit from their neighborhood. Austin area limousines chose el roy road for its business site because of the convenience, safety and ease of access to the Austin airport. Both commercial and

>> [indiscernible] entrances are at present a close and safe way for any chafferers to arrive for clients who demand promptness and no excuses are accepted. The delays wandering creek's proposed plan would bring to el roy road would put at risk my largest accounts. It has taken me 16 years to accumulates and which will -- which I sustain my business from and support my employees and their families. My clients range from political, business and entertainment industries that demand excellence. Wandering creek in its present layout would exterminate any hope of doing business expediently on el roy road. This project would jeopardize the hard work put in during the past 16 years and force me to possibly move my business. The influx of traffic would hinder doing business, causing decreased income, forced layoffs at my company, Austin area limousines, the oldest and most trusted name for ground transportation in Austin. Finally, this would most certainly motivate me and I am sure -- I am sure any of my employees and clients to become the most aggressive and motivated voters we could possibly be when reelection time comes. I feel it is in the best interests of the county Commissioners to determine from the facts as presented here today that this project is not good for elm roy area as -- el roy area as presented in its current form. I welcome responsible and safe development to el roy and look forward to seeing progress in the right direction to use this beautiful land to its fullest potential. It has been done in the western parts of Travis County. I ask and I pray that the county Commissioners vote a responsible vote today to the wandering creeks preliminary plan, thank you for your time.

>> clem vetters.

>> thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak today. I'm clem vetters. My family's farm is located next door to the subject tract and I'm an elected board member to the el roy preservation association. Many of our neighbors would like to be here today. But they have to work. However, you might be aware that the 500 plus signatures we have obtained on a petition protesting wandering creek. We are not necessarily opposed to development, however we are opposed to this plan. We don't want 1784 mobile homes in our neighborhood. I went over this on foot, horseback, truck, private aircraft, I'm very familiar with the property. First point that I would like to make is there are actually lots that are going to face el roy road and not on interior streets. While you can see this in a subdivision on east stassney road, the people don't pull in on stassney lane. They have an alley, what subdivisions exist in Travis County where people pull in off of a major road into their driveway, pulling out and backing into traffic. None of us neighbors back out into the traffic. We are all on ranches and we front and pull out, it's very dangerous in that form, we've had a lot of problems. These homeowners might have to face having their dream home condemned. From what I see in the campo plan, it looks like they are going to take 70 feet from the side of the road. So are we going to develop lots and build homes there just to tear them down by 2030? This doesn't seem like very good planning and I don't think it's fair expense to our taxpayers. Point number 3, the next one, title 30-1-152 defines an interested party. We are an interested party. As she mentioned there has been -- ms. Bolin, there has been communication between the developer, county, the city, the neighborhood. There has also been a lack of communication. During the first application, we verbally informed them that we would like to be made aware of any variances. At our next meeting, we were kind of snickered at that we weren't -- we found out that all of the variances have been approved without us being notified. We were told that this was because we did not register as interested parties in writing. This appears very sneaky. It also seems illegal to many of our neighborhoods. Point number -- number 3. When lots are subdivided and subdivisions are made often the government requires easements. The previous lands owner of any property had to give up a few additional feet along el roy road when he cut it up into three lots. The preacher down the street had to give up a huge corner of his corner lot for a line of sight easement. We have the campo plan that's already in place. Where aren't we giving these easements now? Why isn't the easement shown on this plat from maja loop road which is going to extend rightly the middle here. Why aren't we getting the easements along el roy road for the planned campo plan that's already gone into action. This again seems like poor planning and wasted tax dollars. Point number 4, our schools are busting at the seams. Some of them are going toes have a lot more, where are these 4,000 additional children going to school. When popham elementary school opened day one, it had portable buildings outside of it. Where are the children going to go to school. The developer that developed stony ridge -- show me on this map where there is one square inch set aside for these children. Point number 5, I would like to just point at a portion on this map. What is planned for this area, they are going to bring in four to six feet of dirt, this is the 100 year floodplain.

>> take the mic. Wright here, dry creek coming here, through here, this is a massive floodplain. When it -- we do have a heavy rain, for the necessarily 100 year floods, but a heavy rain, el roy road right here, el roy road is closed and they put up a barricades and we have photos of the barricades washed two, 300 yards out into the pasture. It's a major flood area right there. What they are proposing to do here is put in a concrete wall, four to six to eight feet of dirt, build these homes on top of the existing 100 year floodplain. Right upstream is thoroughbred farms, as mr. Hilgers mentioned already having huge problems, people can't live in their homes, not being paid for, they to h to move out. Timber creek with the same problem. If you take a full glass of water, which is the 100 year floodplain level, you drop one pebble into it, it overflows, how are we going to answer to the people that live along this floodplain, when all of this dirt is brought in. That's going to change the level of the floodplain. As she mentioned a portion of this property is in the airport overlay zone and the airport authorities who we met with have not, not been notified. There's -- they are supposed to be notified of any development or zoning within any region of the airport overlay zone. I have that map here if you would like to see it. Point number 7, title 30-2-282, says all, all wetlands must be protected. They plan to cover them with dirt and build homes on top of them. There's a huge lake, right here I have photographs of it, a huge wetland pond. There's I don't know 20 lots right here that are going on top of it. And there's about 8 other ponds on the property. You might hear that the wetlands are being protected. You can see today they are planning to build homes right over the ponds and the wetlands.

>> [inaudible - no mic] okay. Point number 8, title 30-5-281 addresses critical environmental features. They aren't staying 50 feet away from the mall. They are building on top of them. Point number 9, title 30-2-214 requires dedicated parkland to be shown on the preliminary plat. If there's any doubt about it, I have -- I have the law printed out here. Where do you see one square inch of dedicated parkland anywhere on this preliminary plat. We would like to know. There's none. Point 10, the Texas water code appears to be violated. Chapter 11.086, the water from this development, which is raw land now, flows to my farm and many of the neighbor's farms. This -- this part of the water code prohibits water from being stopped from flowing to neighboring farms. We rely on this water for agricultural purposes, mainly to water our livestock. What are we supposed to do now? Point 11, I spoke with a representative from the u.s. Corps of engineers. He stated one of the wetlands, which is picture number 1 in the photo there, belongs to the united states government. If you can hold up the map, now it's not smoke on what they are showing you, this -- this place is on the city of Austin map. That's how huge this thing is! You can

>> [indiscernible] it's like six acres. You are not seeing it, though. This corps of engineers tells me this body of water belongs to the united states government. It's not meant to be drainage or depension pond. It's a critical environmental feature. They don't own the water in it. If they don't want to do anything around it they need a 403 permit part of the united states of america water act. This seems to be in violation of federal law to put a drainage easement in it without a permit. Point number 12, their estimate is 17,000 more cars per day on el roy road. When dry creek floods, as I mentioned, the road is closed. When all of these cars are going to be forced the other way down el roy road they are going to come to the one stop sign. At this one stop sign, about 100 meters back from the one stop sign at el roy road and f.m. 812 is our fire department and our glance with 17,000 cars backed up, at a stop sign, how are they supposed to get out to help people in need? And what about the safety of our emergency personnel? There's a part of title 30 that mentions protecting the safety of the problem. This seems to be in violation. Point 13. As you have heard, they applied for a clomr with fema to fill that -- fill dirt and build in the floodplain. Clomr has not been approved as far as I'm aware of. How can you approve a plan to let them do this when they don't have permission to do what they are proposing you approved them for. Point 15 I heard earlier there was two pipelines that go across the property. I could be incorrect about this, but I believe there's four. There's two on the upper part of el roy road where the greenings out, main san entrance, one that cross across, four pipelines that might cross this property. 3 about 99% sure. They mentioned fire personnel, how they worked with him and kind of -- they didn't say they approved it, but they let you believe everything was hunky-dory. Well I have met with the fire chief, I have read the letter that should be in the file that you can read. He did not approve or disapprove this development. He said he did not have jurisdiction to make a decision one way or the other. If you met with him you might be interested to know what his concerns are. They talked about the city approving the service extension requirements for water and wastewater. These violated city ordinances 25-961 and 25-963. If the city council meeting where they approved them, the city attorney got up and informed the mayor, yes, these are in violation of the law, but we need to change the law. Regardless the law has not been changed and they violated the law, the maximum they should have been given was one million dollar and they were given 11. Point number 18 the engineers have stood up here and told us about the traffic. I don't care what any engineer says, I live out there.

>> [indiscernible]

>> get the mike again.

>> right here. On el roy road is a 90-degree curve, this is very steep. These are a couple of the highest points in Travis County. You can see mount bonnell from right here on the farm. This is a very steep road. Friends of mine own this property here. If you stop along this guardrail, you can see a bunch of cars and trucks and whatever down at the bottom of the hill that have crashed and rolled off the hill.

>> they can tell you how safe everything is, all of us can and see all of the cars at the bottom of the hill. Commissioner Davis you mentioned f.m. 973 and 812, I've had two friends killed there.

>> very dangerous intersection. Very dangerous.

>> many people killed there.

>> it's not just the back way to the subdivision, though.

>> in their traffic report, I'm know traffic engineer, I did read it, it's a traffic engineer study that was several years old, based on information over on pierce road. It wasn't redone for this area. Major artery here, didn't include jacobson road which are big roads.

>> in conclusion, title 30 being violated, city code being violated, the united states water act has been violated, the u.s. Corps of engineers has not been contacted, the campo plan has been overlooked. We are approving a plan to build in the floodplain that fema has not approved. The Texas water code is being violated. The f.a.a. Still has not been contacted. The health and safety of our citizens and my neighbors are being endangered. Be it traffic, school overcrowding, fire and ambulance access, and flooded homes. Please don't approve a huge mobile home park in the floodplain in the flight path on a steep slope near the dump near the prison with bad roads, overcrowded schools and underground gas lines. Thank you.

>> ma'am let's give you a chance to get your comments today. We will need to break for lunch real soon.

>> mine is short.

>> we need a follow-up discussion this afternoon. So you all are welcome to come back after lunch. But let's hear you.

>> first of all, I would like for you to see el roy road. That's the 7,000 and 8,000 block of el roy road where there's no shoulder, no way to pull off and some steep slopes. Good morning, Commissioners, I know Austin needs more low cost housing but at what cost. There is not a worse place in all of Travis County to put these nearly 8,000 small 40-foot lot homes. If you pass this, you are going to be dooming families to bailing water out of their bedrooms and kitchens when it rains, also these families going to have planes flying over their houses night and day and their children are going to be playing in back yards with -- with 50-year-old crumbling pipelines up against their fences. It occurred to me if these houses were to built in bull creek at 2222, that developer if he were putting a sea of houses in that creek bed, the media would be out there jumping on this like crazy. But they are not jumping on this. So why aren't they? The only thing that I can come up with is bull creek is northwest and we're southeast.

>> we do have the Austin american-statesman reporter.

>> good, I would like to talk to him. We're southeast near the prison behind the airport close to the dump nobody seems to be interested in these 1800 houses. We are asking you to please care about this. Wandering creek subdivision was platted with no playgrounds, no pools, no ball fields and no schools for the children, so I guess these 1900 thousands houses are going to be down the street to hoya park. That's the closest place to have a picnic unless moya is flooded. No the roads. I gave you some photographs of el roy road and what it looks like. The trouble is I use that road every day, I have been using it for 25 years. When the fire truck goes by, what do I have to do? I stop dead in the middle of the road unless I happen to be close to one of my neighbor's driveways, I stop dead in the middle of the road and the fire truck goes out and around me. What's going to happen when we put 17,000 more cars on the road today? I didn't make up that number, the traffic study people did. 17,000 more cars and you are not going to fix it this year, next year, the year after, the year after, you are going to fix it in 2030. We have got 17,000 cars stopping in the middle of the road with the fire truck and ambulance trying to go around. There's no bus service, people are going to have to walk everywhere. There's no bus services, for churches, no restaurants, no grocery, no gas station, no drug store, no anything, they have to have a car to go somewhere. You are sticking these people out in the middle of nowhere with nothing. I live on a goat ranch. Mr. Hilgers has cattle. We can't live on lamar. So we're prepared for this. But these people that live in a 40-foot lot are not prepared. You have a choice. You can save these future homeowners a whole lot of heart ache. Think about moya park. You are familiar with moya park. It's real pretty when it's sunny and what happens when it rains and it rains and it rains and it doesn't stop raining? It's not so pretty anymore when it floods. Thank you.

>> thank you, ma'am.

>> oh, also I would like to tell you one other thing ... By the way wandering creek is for sale. The developer is going to plat this and sell it and he's walking away and he's going to stick you with the problems after it's sold. For sale.

>> judge, I just make this concluding comment before lunch if I may, in the 1970s, my wife and I were coming home from a concert in separate cars and at el roy road now near where the phillips pump station is located, her car stopped in front of me, as I came up to her, my car stopped, too. We realized there was something very strange going on. What it was, there of course a pipeline leak in the gas pipeline on el roy road. We got out of the cars and went to our neighbor's house and watched the explosion that occurred when six people were killed behind us in a car. Those people were killed and this fire burned all night. All of our cars were totally obliterated and wiped out. One of the hazard mitigation problems that is real is pipeline safety. The county for reasons that I don't understand did not adopt a pipeline ordinance several years ago. The city has one. But mitigating that problem doesn't solve the fact that there are multiple hazards from gas and oil pipelines and there are five of them on this property.

>> you said five? I heard four. I heard two.

>> I think there are three, two gas lines, two oil lines, maybe there are four. I'm not sure that there are five --

>> [multiple voices]

>> Texas railroad commission -- anyway, go ahead.

>> what I'm trying to point out is this property has multiple problems that are not being addressed here and whether or not I want to offer is a hopeful answer to this. The future of Travis County is incredible. The opportunities are beyond belief of what can happen here. But it depends on this court to draw the line and say we're not going to countance continual flooding and population increases creating slums where they need not be slums. There are ways to deal with this problem where -- if we have the opportunity to stop what turns out to be a disaster in the process. We thank you very much for the chance to be here.

>> thank you.

>> in terms of -- in terms of court action what kind of schedule are we on?

>> judge, the discretion -- discretion of the court, no time mandate on this process.

>> my question ms. Bouldin would be more specifically, we have a problem with a full complement of court members for the next couple of weeks. If we were to take three weeks, that would be what, July 8th. I have a variety of questions this afternoon probably a few requests. Plus with legal a couple of -- a couple of legal questions this afternoon. So I doubt that we would take action today is what I'm getting to. The question is -- if we were to take until July 8th, any apparent problem with that?

>> unlike a final plat we wouldn't risk postponement -- postponing this would not risk having it adopted because we didn't take action. I don't have that we have a risk. I would like to our attorneys to verify. I don't think --

>> in addition to that I think 90 days if they run from June 10th, that's like September the 8th. Or so?

>> that would -- that would be more realistic to get the thing resolved.

>> to hear back from fema since we asked the question.

>> Commissioner, in addition to that, as far as the regulation who regulates those lines, those gas lines, I have heard from two, then I heard three, I hear five. Four I think at one time. The Texas railroad commission I think is the authority that actually deals with the regulation, actually what flows in there, also can identify locations. I'm kind of concerned to know what is being transported in those gas lines, what material, what fuel is being carried. I think something else that we can look into to determine the -- the fuel as far as in the location of those lines. By flagging them. So it's a lot I think that needs to be in that 90 daytime line Commissioner that we just got a lot of questions and no answers this morning.

>> if we are going to look into the pipeline what's being transported then is it also possible to ask why Travis County did not adopt the pipeline ordinance?

>> I don't know if we have the authority to.

>> legal questions.

>> are you all coming back this afternoon.

>> yes, your honor.

>> we will have a discussion, I'm about to move that we recess until 145. We have two or three other issues to take up, we will take this up first. If you get back around 2:00 we will discuss this and a lot of it is open court discussion. We may have questions for the applicant. Is the applicant here? Okay. We may have questions to ask the applicant. Some of the issues we need clarified. And then we will have some legal questions that we put to legal counsel in executive session. Normally we recess for lunch at 12:00. We started a little bit after 9:00 so it's normal we have out of creative thinking and energy. Around 12 noon we will be a lot more productive I think after lunch. Move that we recess to 145.

>> second.

>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.

This morning we -- we began our discussion of item no. 19, involving the wandering way

>> [sic] project. And 19 remember is to consider and take appropriate action on wandering creek preliminary plan and a phasing agreement with wandering creek investments l.p., a subdivision in precinct 4. The applicant was here this morning along with applicant representatives and my guess is they probably want to respond to some of the --

>> [indiscernible]

>> comments that we had this morning. I do have a few questions myself, but y'all may cover those in your responses. Would you like my questions first?

>> [indiscernible]

>> [inaudible - no mic]

>> okay. Anna bolin, Travis County t.n.r. There were some questions raised this morning that I would either now or after the engineer or development, developers side gets a chance to speak to, I would like to address. Which way would you prefer it?

>> I prefer you to go ahead and address us.

>> okay. One question that was raised had to do with lots fronting on el roy road. There are three lots in a front on el roy road and two lots have a shared joint use access easement that's designed for front pullouts. One lot, the third lot has a driveway at least 100 feet away from that joint access easement and that would also be designed for -- for front pullout. And this --

>> I'm sorry.

>> [indiscernible] do you have front pullout on --

>> right. Two of them would share a joint use access easement. That stipulation is currently on a plat note that's shown on the preliminary plan. Oh -- looking at the number of pipelines --

>> the question I guess that -- the comment this morning I think went more to their creating an unsafe situation for those residents. And what's the response to that?

>> I would say that the requirement for -- for front pullout, so you are not backing up on to the road, that requirement is -- is based on the need to have safety for the people pulling out and the people on the road.

>> so you should be able to pull in in such a way that in order to exit your front first.

>> right. You are not backing up on to the road.

>> a half circular drive? Is that how you get that done?

>> I don't know that the answer is a half circular drive. But in the design of the driveway, there has to be a space to turn around so that when you come out, you are -- you are facing the road not the end of your car, the back end is facing the road.

>> still come out that way, it's just -- if you elected to. Right? You could still back out unless somebody was going to be there to say hey.

>> well, you know, that certainly is something that could be put in deed restrictions, but yes the anticipation would be that you would pull out front first in your driveway would be designed in such a way to facilitate you pulling out front first.

>> we are not encouraging backing outs at all.

>> no.

>> okay.

>> definitely not.

>> second question was posed as to the amount of pipelines and what was in them. We are showing there are three pipelines traversing the property. There are two pipelines that are near the property but outside the bounds of the subdivision. Of the three pipelines that are -- that are on -- bisecting this property, the railroad commission's website says there's one in question, it's owned by phillips petroleum.

>> phillips petroleum.

>> yes, sir.

>> according to the railroad commission website, it is carrying liquefied natural gas.

>> what about the other two?

>> I'm showing them to be natural gas pipelines.

>> all three of them are natural gas.

>> normally in a situation like this, would the website be reliable?

>> I would --

>> I'm not saying it's unreliable, but I really don't know. Is that where you typically get -- we would look to the railroad commission for information about what's in pipelines.

>> would you like to the railroad economics's website?

>> yes.

>> > I mean we would like to the website from the railroad commission.

>> we could confirm that, right?

>> certainly.

>> the reason I say that, I don't recall ever hearing that we have got information regarding a serious controversy from a road site, from a website and kind of relied on it. But this is something a phone call could --

>> right.

>> could confirm.

>> certainly.

>> thank you because I was looking for a little better confirmation for that anyway. That's why I brought it up.

>> I'm not saying they are wrong.

>> I'm not saying they are, either.

>> but the website, website, website. I mean it would be good to hear a person allow a person to say this is actually true and -- I will bring it up for other reasons that I've had experience with before. With some things. That's why I brought that point up. Okay?

>> certainly.

>> not to -- not to belittle anybody. Nothing like that.

>> past experience is where I'm bringing it from. Okay.

>> sure.

>> thank you.

>> thirdly, well, our fourthly, the question was posed well, how come the right-of-way isn't being dedicated and the easements being dedicated with the preliminary plan? The preliminary plans are not recorded at the county courthouse. We would be looking to them to show whatever right-of-way would be dedicated in the future and whatever easements would be dedicated in the future, but -- but the future is when they -- when the final plat, the property, that's when right-of-way is dedicated. At that point they would either dedicate the easements by plat or by separate instrument, but that is when -- when dedication happens in the process.

>> are we authorized to -- to withhold final plat approval pending documentation of -- of dedication?

>> we wouldn't be recommending a final plat to Commissioners court if they didn't have the right-of-way dedicated per plat as we had worked out. And --

>> the answer to my question is yes?

>> yes, we wouldn't -- same with the easements.

>> we had the authority to do that? Because we have been doing it.

>> right.

>> and I would be looking to our -- okay, our attorney is shaking his head in the affirmative. That's good.

>> nodding. Trying to stay awake.

>> and a question was possessed about parkland. Posed about parkland. Given that so much of this site is floodplain, one of the options with parkland is fee in lieu of -- of dedicating a park there on site. And we would want land that's outside of the floodplain, if you are going to dedicate parkland under title 30 or even our current regulation. So the developer at the time of final plat will be paying fees in lieu of parkland dedication. The question regarding the water code, the water code, provisions of the water code are embedded in our regulations, title 30 and chapter 82, and some of those -- the two provisions that I think are -- were brought up today under the water code, per our regulation, they would not be able to increase peak flows coming off of the site. So -- so as to not flood those around them and they also can't divert water from drainage ways so they can't withhold water, either. Let's see.

>> how do we -- how do we enforce that?

>> through our drainage review. As -- even at the preliminary plan stage, we start seeing drainage modeling to prove up whether or not the drainage will work as it's required to not either concentrate flows and change them and affect people and cause flooding or divert water so we start looking at this, at the preliminary plan stage, we get more information as the final plat and the construction plans come in. But this is -- the drainage component is something that we start the review as soon as we get the preliminary plan.

>> okay. The f.a.a. Is not required to have the preliminary plan under title 30 and I would state, also, that the airport overlay zone is a performance zone that speaks to the height of the building in the zone and in this case the area that is subject, would be subject to that overlay zone is an open space zone, there wouldn't be anything being built there that's vertically inconsistent with the overlay zone. And I am -- with regards to interested parties, adjacent landowners, this is the second application on this project. The first application came in and it -- when we found that the topography wasn't registered they had to withdraw and submit the application. When the application was withdrawn and resubmitted by that point we had all of the interested parties and they were included on the notification. In fact today for Commissioners court we sent notice to the homeowners association within 300 feet, like the -- I believe the homeowners association and the interested parties and I believe the school district.

>> notification letters?

>> yes, sir.

>> okay. So if they file a preliminary plan, later they will file a first or second. If you indicated that you were an interested party, to the first preliminary plat, would we automatically carry you to the second one?

>> yes, we do.

>> we automatically carried it to the second. So those -- there was one other thing about the 973-812 intersection. We did contact txdot. And we found that they were in the process of conducting a corridor study, including this intersection and in fact they had already identified some improvements to that intersection that they would have liked, however, that was about the time that their funding got cut.

>> the only thing they end up -- not the only thing, I guess they have done a lot with txdot in the area. But prior to that, it wasn't a left turn situation, a safe left turn situation going towards el roy road on 812. Of course they put a left turn in there at 812 and 973, however there's a stop sign there. Anybody wants to go points south or either towards I guess towards el roy or come back into 183, it is just -- it's just traumatic. I mean it's really dangerous at that intersection. So they did make some improvements. Of course with the s.h. 130 coming through now crossing 812 going points south there's been a lot of -- some adjustments. But it has not alleviated the safety factor that should be in place at that intersection, in my opinion. But I'm not an engineer, but I do observe traffic and safety issues and that's definitely a safety problem at that intersection.

>> well, like I said, it's my understanding that they did identify some additional projects for that intersection but right now they are not funded.

>> okay.

>> all right.

>> that's really the points that I wanted to be sure and address.

>> okay.

>> should I ask mine now, is that okay? Okay, regarding the wetlands and we saw pictures of those, what's proposed as to them?

>> I don't know that any of the environmental people are here. Judge, would you like to speak to that? Jud?

>> my name is jud

>> [indiscernible], I'm with carter burgess, we have been doing --

>> who?

>> jacob, carter, burgess. Representatives from our firm have done delineations of the wetlands and waters of the u.s. On the property. That had been presented to the city of Austin environmental staff. Reviewed each of the elements. Visited the site several times and ultimately determined that there would be a consolidated mitigation plan. Primarily located along the lines of -- of the area of dry creek. And so that area has been preserved and there's a specific plan for that mitigation including revegetation and reestablishing some of those areas within the -- within the locations closest to dry creek. And some additional buffers to dry creek beyond the typical critical water quality zones and water quality transition zones.

>> so in laymen's language, what will happen there will be a consolidated --

>> correct.

>> wetland area.

>> correct.

>> it will be taken care of, buffered and everything and so some of the individual ones that we saw in the picture might be covered over?

>> correct.

>> okay.

>> some of those, although -- some of those are more stock pond than wetland. I mean, they have just been built up over the years. There has been some vegetation growing, but it's not -- it wasn't established to be anything critical in the eyes of the environmentalists that reviewed it. That included input from the city staff.

>> so when we think of -- when we think of wetlands to be protected, we should think of he -- of what?

>> there's certain criteria, I'm not an expert in that area, but you look at the vegetation that's there, particularly around the perimeter around the normal water surface, also the plant life and/or species that exist within that area. Is it a viable area to support life.

>> okay.

>> so --

>> one other item to comment on. The large critical feature that was identified on the site, which is roughly six acre pond, is being preserved in its entirety, including the -- the appropriate setbacks from standard city code, the only items that we are doing work in that area are associated with the fact that there's an existing dam structure there, which is classified as a high hazard dam by the new state regulations. So as a matter of responsibility, we are required to evaluate the structural stability of that dam and reinforce it. There is a potential for a dam breach that could flood the downstream neighbors. That's an existing situation that we are going to improve.

>> okay. So in terms of -- of actual construction of these homes, many of the areas are in -- are in the floodplain? And will they be covered over and homes built on top of those as described?

>> they just are opening on -- homes will not be allowed to be constructed until the floodplain modifications have been completed. Therefore taking the sites out of the floodplain.

>> so to take them out of the floodplain, basically you fill them in?

>> yes.

>> and the -- the process of taking in fill to elevate those areas is -- as described previously is how that would be done?

>> yes, it will be done with fill and I believe retaining walls.

>> is that common or --

>> it's very common.

>> one clarification on that item, there is fill occurring in the floodplain, but there is also cut occurring in the floodplain, so we are just transposing the material. Cut in the floodplain. So we are taking material that's in the floodplain and pushing it up on the bank so that the end result is that you have that same capacity for volume of water. So the statement that we are filling in and therefore the water surface will rise is not a correct statement. We're going to be excavating material and moving it to the edges of the floodplain so has we eliminate portions of that floodplain.

>> now, this is a flood prone area today.

>> correct.

>> and how do we know or insure that it will not be worse after construction of the subdivision?

>> that's our responsibility and the design. We are certifying to the design calculations that we're doing. They are being reviewed by multiple engineers. Also reviewed by fema for accuracy and any of the input that we get from them we will have to respond to the prior to release of any final plats.

>> so as an engineer, what do you do?

>> we design -- there's a combination of things we do. There's computer programs that evaluate the total volume of flow of existing versus proposed conditions. We evaluate those and determine whether or not there's a need for movement of materials within the floodplain. As -- as a typical standard, if you do put impervious cover on the ground in the forms of houses or roads or driveways, you do increase runoff and to mitigate that we're going to be providing both water quality and detention facilities on the property so that the storm flow that comes off of these new lots will be slowed down and attenuated and released at a controlled rate into the existing dry creek system and then the area specifically within dry creek we're going to maintain the same flow capacity. So at the end of the day, you'll have the same amount of flow, you'll have the same cross-section of creek for the flow to go through.

>> okay. In all of that -- how do we ensure that downstream homes is not adversely impacted?

>> there will be no adverse -- because we are reducing or maintaining the existing flow and allowing it to pass through the same flow area as today. And there's generally accepted engineering practice for the design calculations that are required to support that. And that's -- we utilize on not just this project, but all projects across the country.

>> okay. If the -- if it's determined after construction the -- the detention ponds in fact do not serve their intended purpose.

>> right.

>> what -- what happens?

>> the engineer that sealed the plans would be liable to justify why that condition exists.

>> I was looking for you to do additional work.

>> we absolutely would have to. We would have to remedy the situation of course.

>> who would be responsible?

>> the design engineer.

>> that's the bottom line.

>> I have a professional license that I put on the line when I seal a set of plans.

>> I understand that. But we've had -- sorry judge, you go ahead.

>> you get with the contractor or owner and fix it.

>> > absolutely.

>> couple more areas and I will be done. What's the intended buildout period for the subdivision? I guess from the time that you actually start construction to when you will complete construction of the last home?

>> that's the $10,000 question.

>> what's the plan on that? I'm sitting here visualizing overnight 1700 residents being there and a whole lot more cars and people. But --

>> I'm the developer. You know in the market that we have today, I would love to tell you it would be five or six years, but realistically best case scenario we are probably 12 or 15 years. In today's market it could be 18 or 20 years. That's really, really hard question to answer intelligently.

>> it's a multi-year buildout.

>> oh, yeah.

>> it's not all at once.

>> if you look at the area today, and you anticipate 17,000 additional cars, which is the number that we heard several times this morning, and you look at el roy road it can be -- it's a kind of frightening prospect. Can you address that for me?

>> henry do you want to?

>> I know that the campo plan calls for some improvements on el roy road. Right now this very minute the -- the el roy road from -- from 973 heading east to the intersection with mcangus is being completed as a -- as a four lane mod 4 -- four lanes plus a turn lane. I believe that the county has plans to expand el roy road through that -- through that campo plan from that intersection going east. And, you know, additional right-of-way, certainly the traffic signal that we talked about early on. The left hand or rather right-hand turn lane going into the subdivision. And any other things that we can do to participate in the improvement of that traffic we are certainly willing to do and have talked add news yum with the county about that over the last couple of years, ad nauseam.

>> have you been negotiating with fema about that submission that you have 90 days on --

>> well, we actually -- those comments came back yesterday and we just got a copy of them at lunch today. I'm sure jud and carter burgess' intention is to add those issues and get them turned around as quickly as possible. We have 90 days to respond. Then fema has virtually an indefinite amount of time to look at our response and get back to us with potentially different additional questions. I don't think this process -- I guarantee you the process with fema will not be over within 90 days. It's going to take several more months for that to be resolved.

>> okay.

>> I don't want to speak for jud, but -- but his initial take on the comments was that there was nothing in the comments that was out of the ordinary.

>> with the engineer, do you have examples of -- of other areas where you all have been able to -- I don't know what to call it, but build in the floodplain successfully?

>> [indiscernible]

>> as long as you can document the changes --

>> in this particular area we know that dry creek for instance is running right through there.

>> uh-huh.

>> historically, we can look at information where -- where it's totally a misnomer to call it dry creek. Because when the -- when the rains were appropriate, just the right amount, that is an area that will just swell up and -- and mr. Hilgers can certainly tell you, give you more information about that.

>> right.

>> but I have seen that. I have been with Travis County when that happened. Examples of a known creek like that flooding, everyone downstream, an example, other than the city of Austin or cities built right next to the rivers that -- that have been successful.

>> I don't have a specific example off the top of my head. If you look at the plan you will notice that we are still honoring that separation of the creek. That's what the large green swath is in the middle of there. So there is a small area where we will have some encroachment, but we are not by any stretch filling in this creek. We have a small area on the edges. It's very flat, expanded basin and so we are in a small area to be able to develop and offsetting that with the excavation of the material on the balance of it. So you still have some 1200 feet -- feet of area that the water flows there.

>> maybe I can help you out answering the question, as an example. Austin's colony in precinct 1, the same type of thing where they -- the project to reclaim a portion of the land, amend creek this time. For development.

>> is there anyplace where you have a lot where someone would have their dwelling on it that would -- that would anticipate having water in it in -- in the kind of conditions that you -- that you normally can see in this area or is the engineering design behind everything to -- to keep every dwelling out of harm's way with regards to flooding? Is that the design? The engineering design keeps every house out of harm's way for flooding.

>> what about the question about are the or the comments that was made about el roy road and some of the roads that are closed during that --

>> right.

>> is your response there that happens and that will continue to happen because it's more of a road issue than it is a development issue?

>> yes, I mean, all we can certify is that we're not going to create any additional problems in those locations. If there are existing areas on dry creek, either upstream or downstream, we can't remedy all of those crossings because they were built unsatisfactorily to convey the flow.

>> the other thing, I'm not an engineer, but I will suspect that many of the developments or most of the upstream land has not been developed under today's title 30 ordinances. So as those lands and projects come in, they are going to be developed and designed under current ordinances.

>> let me just one more question. I heard this morning trailer homes. Are these trailer homes.

>> that is an incorrect statement.

>> so these are homes.

>> yes, ma'am.

>> I can --

>> what's the price range or anticipated price range?

>> this is anticipated price range is starting from the 120's. We anticipate that the most of the buyers will be first-time buyers or first time move up buyers. We are 8 miles from downtown Austin. We are a mile from state highway 130. We are in the city's desired development zone. We are in a suburban watershed.

>> that's what scares me right there, you said the city's desired development zone because really we've had some real problems with the city of Austin as far as eastern Travis County under that scenario desired development zone. It's a misnomer. But anyway go ahead.

>> yes, sir. We are 8 miles from downtown Austin. We will provide homes for home buyers that work in Austin and Travis County as opposed to Austin and the county's competitors that live in buda, kyle, Leander, Cedar Park and Round Rock. This will be a deed restricted community. There will be a homeowners association of the 647 acres, 347 acres will be open space. As staff mentioned. We are not maximumming out the development. The average lot size is approximately 4800 square feet. The city ordinances actually allow you to go down to as small as 3600 square feet. Ours is at 4800 square feet average size. What were you saying the starting price?

>> 120's, Commissioner.

>> the what.

>> 120s.

>> I'm a strong supporter of affordable housing, I think probably all of us are here. Strong supporters, but there's a lot of unanswered questions in my mind that was brought up this morning, they all have something in common from the different speakers that spoke. Even though they varied, the testimony that was given this morning, even though they have varied as far as subject matter, but one thing was common in all of the testimony that was given this morning that was density, of the development. I think they were not objecting basically for the -- to the development. Except for density. So my -- I have several questions. My first question I want to go back to the Texas railroad commission and see if they also identify, they said three pipelines, the location of those pipelines are they flagged? In other words to let folks know this is where the pipeline exists. As it crosses or bisects this particular subdivision.

>> yes.

>> I don't know if that's done.

>> absolutely.

>> yes.

>> currently.

>> it has been done.

>> absolutely.

>> okay. Number 2. The pipeline was pretty common. Number two I said was density. My question to you is this: have the neighborhoods and community worked or talked with you about density of the particular project? If so, did you all come to an agreement are you just -- what happened? Have there been any discussion at all about density on the project?

>> we have met individually with the neighborhood group, nine times I believe? And county staff and we have met with them six times I believe. And without exception all of the questions that were raised this morning were raised at each one of those meetings. Every one of those questions have been asked verbally and in writing. I would hope that each one of you would have copies of those, your staff, county staff spent several weeks well, let ming a very detailed response to -- assembling a very detailed response. Density has come up. As henry just mentioned we could have designed a significantly denser subdivision. But chose not to. We have 4800 square foot as an average size of the lot instead of 3600 square feet. In essence we are 35% larger than we needed to be. We did that for a lot of reasons. But one of the primary reasons was to meet the need for affordable housing in the Austin market. At the same time being able to give up 53% of the site to green space which will end up being hike and bike trails and fishing pond and certainly we're going to have a homeowners association clubhouse, pool, hike and bike trails, kinds of things that will make it a true community. Yeah, I believe that question has been asked and answered several times.

>> I guess what would their request to cut it down to -- because still come up this morning. I really didn't get a number on what they were asking as far as reduction, as far as the homes that you are suggesting to go with as opposed to what they were recommending.

>> unfortunately, Commissioner, we have never had a specific request from anyone associated with the neighborhood about any specific issue. They have talked in general terms, we have asked very specifically what is it that you would like us to do. If there's any way that we can do that, we will. And we have never gotten an answer to that question.

>> okay. So this -- what we heard this morning basically been situation where it's been subject matter has been on the table but really hasn't been resolved as far as what they want and what you are saying.

>> correct.

>> is that correct.

>> uh-huh.

>> all right. You brought up the 812 issue that's south entry into the back way. And alley, thank you for looking into that. As far as -- as far as the improvements that may need to be taken up. In the -- in the future on that. How can we be assured that it is flooding situation that continues to be a problem in that community, a plague in that area with flooding, how can we be rest assured that you will not contribute to the problem or if I heard you say, won't even alleviate the other blooding problems as far as flooding el roy road out? That is a big concern that community has continued to bring up, of course them having to take alternate routes to get back and forth to their residence. So the question is what kind of guarantees and -- and I say that because I speak from caution. I have seen things back fire and not be as they were supposed to be when they first came before this court, that is the testimony that we have, people have brought up stuff and lo and behold, erosion and a whole lot of stuff end up -- end up -- in other words things don't seem to be what they should be at times. So my concern is, the question, in the form of a question, what kind of guarantees can you put before the folks that you being there with this type of density will not add to the problem that already exists now?

>> well, I'm more than happy to speak to that, I'm not an engineer. But -- but I guess if I were you all, I would have a strong measure of -- of a positive thinking because your staff has looked at this many, many, many different times from several different stand points and concurs with what our professional engineers have come up with. On top of that, fema is reviewing the same data as we speak. And prior to us being able to do anything with that property, we're going to have to have a clomr that fema agrees with the calculations that jud and his company have come up with and stacy and her group have looked at that in fact what we're doing will have no adverse effect whatsoever on the upstream or downstream property owners from our project. One of the biggest misnomers that you heard this morning was that we were building in the floodplain. The reality is we are not building in the floodplain. We are going to recapture a very small portion of land has currently is within the floodplain. But as soon as fema issues their clomr and the work is done, that property is not in the floodplain any longer. But 90 something percent of this tract is not in the floodplain and never was in the floodplain, where 90 or 96% or something of the homes are going anyway. Very, very, very small number of acres, 14 or something, I can't remember the accident number, very small -- exact number, 647 acres are being reclaimed. The reality is that we don't want to do anything, period, that's going to put a negative impact on the future homeowner or on this commission or ourselves or carter burgess or the county or the city that's had such an exhaustive look at this whole process. We feel very comfortable where we are today. I'm sure the county staff feels comfortable where we are today. I wish that the neighbor goes felt comfortable. But I felt like we have bent over back yards to answer their questions. Every way that we possibly can. Unfortunately at this stage of the game we're where we're at. In front of you today asking for acceptance of our plan, we certainly hope that you are able to do that for us today.

>> and the third speaker brought up the point about united states government having ownership of wetlands or the lake or whatever that is out there in the -- in the subdivision. Is that factual or what's -- what is that?

>> that is -- that is partially factual.

>> partially packetul. Clarified.

>> partially factual.

>> our firm has done a large part of the u.s. Delineation, a very described process for determining what waters are governed by the u.s. The the corps of engineers puts out those regulations. We have taken the information that provides both the jurisdictional waters and the wets lands and have used that in our determination for the wetland mitigation plan. In the area of the six acre lake at the center of the site, we have identified that to the corps as wetlands, as area that's going to be taken on additional flows. We have submitted to them a water rights permit which is a requirement to make sure that you are not damming up water or holding water back from any downstream user because everybody has access to that water. So as a part of that we are working through that application with them. That will all be addressed under a separate permitting guidelines.

>> separate permitting.

>> right, really doesn't come up. That's another regulatory agency that we have to address.

>> okay. Since the neighborhoods are here, they have spoken, you have heard what they have said, we have heard what they said. We are hearing what you say today. Would there be any preclusion on your part to hear what they have to say as far as numbers or density.

>> as far as what, sir.

>> density.

>> > in other words another discussion with them.

>> to be perfectly candid, no, sir.

>> you will not speak to them.

>> well, I don't really honestly see the point and I'm not trying to be disrespectful. As I said, we've already had nine or 10 individual meetings with them and I'm -- I don't see what's to be gained by doing --

>> right. But if I understood you, though, correctly, maybe I didn't understand you correctly, maybe I need to be stand corrected, if this was discussed and nothing really came of it, why not revisit it. I heard you say that there was something that was skimmed over as far as being discussed, but really didn't go into elaborate discussion on it.

>> let me maybe be more specific then.

>> be specific then.

>> be more specific.

>> we had a meeting in mr. Hilgers office where he attended, two or three of the group from the neighborhood were there and henry was there. My son was there. My son asked mr. Hilgers four times, very pointedly, mr. Hilgers, would you please tell us what it is that you want. Maybe I'm just too stupid to understand the answer to this question. So if you could please, sir, if you would just tell me and dumb it down for me because obviously I'm -- I'm not real bright if I'm missing this thing. In each occasion mr. Hilgers failed to answer the question. That was many, many months ago. Six or seven months ago now. We have already gone through the process for 28 or 29 months. We have been through z.a.p. Anding approved with z.a.p. And frankly, sir, I don't want to go back to that process, if we modify the plan now in any way, what's exactly where we're going. We met or exceed every single rule and ordinance that's out there. In fact we have adapted the city's pipeline ordinance we have adapted the city's water conservation guidelines, which are above and beyond what we are required to do. At this point in time, we are ready for you guys to act and hopefully approve our plan. We have done -- I think we have gone above and beyond any number of times. So I'm not ready or I'm not willing to turn around and go backwards at this stage of the game.

>> okay. Thank you. That was very specific.

>> you are very welcome.

>> thank you for your comments, thank you.

>> what does

>> [indiscernible] z.a.p. Stand for.

>> city of Austin zoning and planning commission.

>> zoning and planning.

>> platting.

>> one more.

>> I'm sorry. As far as it is city is concerned. Did the neighborhoods, did they have an opportunity to go before the city zoning and platting commission or committee or whatever they call themselves, to address the density concerns or address all of the other concerns pipelines, all of the other things that have been mentioned here today, did they have an opportunity to -- to -- since this is under title 30, to express their sentiment as they expressed it here before the Commissioners court today. I hate to see them here, but I'm just wondering if the other side of the aisle, the relationship that we have with the city of Austin under title 30, did they have the same opportunity? That's what I'm trying to get an answer to that.

>> I would say Commissioner that yes they did. In fact several -- much of the testimony that we heard today was -- has also been given at the various z.a.p. Meetings, so I would feel that they did. Are you sure.

>> yes.

>> positive.

>> yes.

>> the only other thing that I would point out is that most of the arguments that they gave today, they also presented to the Austin city council, when the council was considering extension of water and wastewater out here, the council voted 7-0. In favor of our project and extended water and wastewater out here.

>> working back yards, very good thing about the water and wastewater and I was pleased to see in the backup that was -- also requires easement and right-of-way access across the subdivision by neighbors who would also like to tie into the same lines for which you will be reimbursed, correct?

>> absolutely.

>> yes.

>> good thing. Water is the access to potable water and then sanitation out there is -- is part of what orderly development out there is --

>> most of the property in the area is on septic so this is bringing centralized wastewater out there.

>> which is very beneficial. I appreciate that. This is outside of our authority, but it is an important -- an important note, many of my questions don't go to anything that we have the authority to deny you for based on your answers. However, they do go to -- to -- to the planning perspective. Much of which we don't have the authority to enforce, we certainly have the desire to see good planning. Has there been any discussion, I suppose this goes to mr. Kroenberg with capital metro about transit out there? Because as I see it, it looks like you are within two miles of 130.

>> we are actually within one mile of 130.

>> one mile of 130, 183, 71, all of these being toll roads, so in great respect this development will be -- will be -- part of that year for which we are very concerned, the area to the east of 130 that will be isolated by 130 to some degree and the concerns that we will be moving the i-35 divide further east. So have there been any discussions with capital metro about their future plans for providing transit options in this region?

>> I have not but I'm certainly not at all opposed to doing that. In fact I think that's a really good idea. I don't know how capital metro makes those decisions.

>> is this within the capital metro service area, do we know?

>> if it's not annexed by the city, it is not.

>> okay. It's probably -- then it's not currently within their --

>> uh-huh.

>> service area. That's already been answered. Do you know, mr. Kroenberg, I'm looking at the ingress, egress, looks like mcangus and el roy road. Any other besides those two roads.

>> not at this time, no, ma'am.

>> do we know proportionately how much of the development will be relying on the mcangus versus how much relying on el roy road as their primary egress ingress?

>> mcangus will have about 380 lots I think is the right number. 350 lots accessed off of that and the balance will be off of el roy. Obviously the maja loom continuation or expansion is part of the deal as well, but that will ends up on el roy road.

>> the maha is that going to ultimately extend down to 812.

>> yes.

>> I believe the backup says that there would be a further phase -- a whole separate project related to this that would be adjacent; is that true?

>> there is property that's adjacent to us that at some point in time will be developed.

>> that's held by somebody else.

>> correct.

>> if fema and developers are wrong about being able to reengineer the floodplain, if it turns out after the fact, I know for certainty there would be liability on the developer and engineer's part, there is any other remedy that would be available for -- so as the residents describe it we would not be plucking people off of their roof tops or if so we would have some sort of what would be our option?

>> we currently regulate to the one percent plus. It's not an end all. There are floods bigger than our one percent or 100 year storm. In those cases it's just a decision that society has made that certain risks are acceptable. Our development regulations are based off of that risk. Fema's insurance is based off that risk. There is no guarantee that homes being built now will not flood. What we are trying to do is puts them in an area that's -- that's the least risk for flood.

>> reduces the probability to something that's acceptable.

>> yes.

>> okay.

>> which brings me to my sort of -- it's a segue to the next question regarding the pipelines, I'm happy to see that y'all have voluntarily adopted the city of Austin's guidelines regarding performance based buffering. Will there be any -- is there a required disclosure to the buyers, the location of that pipelines as part of that?

>> I don't know if it's required. But it absolutely there will be disclosure to buyers.

>> and how -- how will that be guaranteed? Is that going to be -- it can't be a plat note I don't believe. How will we have assurance.

>> I think it can be --

>> I think the pipeline ordinance requires it. But it would make sense for the ordinance to do so. The other thing I wanted to point out, not just the city of Austin, whole federal office and regulatory regime called the federal office of pipeline safety that addresses pipeline safety issue as well. Fairly recent event, nation-wide to indicate they haven't been doing such a great job of it.

>> regimes that address it, but to the extent that the pipeline ordinance doesn't address it, that can certainly be inserted as a plat note.

>> I would like to leave that as a possibility to add that as a plat note, if it's not required by the city ordinance. I agree with you. There are many regulatory schemes out there regarding pipelines, we have seen that there are plainly some deficiency with that regime. I don't know if the county has any authority to wade into those waters, but I'm wondering does anyone know the age of those pipelines? You say that wandering creek is within one mile of the -- of the 130 corridor, I would just like to -- to point out that we attempted to get greater regulatory authority in that corridor in order to plan growth there because it will be so -- so -- the market there will be super heated because of the 130

>> [indiscernible] we failed and I'm very sorry for that was -- we failed in the last legislative session. I hope that we try it again this legislative session and I would hope that -- that you all as developers and engineers and attorneys working in this area might help us with this. So that we can have a more predictable scheme aren't in this ad hoc world of uncertainty for both the residents as well as the business community trying to develop it as well as the regulatory governmental community trying to -- trying to surf the vagaries of it. Those are all of the questions that I have for right now.

>> Commissioner Gomez.

>> I just have a follow-up question. Is your property for sale now?

>> > actually it is not the moment, we have taken it off the market.

>> it's going to be taken off for how long? Ance that question, I don't know ms. Gomez. We moved it about 30 days ago. Wanted to get through this process, wanted to get the off-site water and wastewater lines designed and approved by the city. Kind of get into that process. The market is such right now, the market is horrible at this stage of the game. I guess we could have left it on the market but frankly I think projects selling at this stage are pretty slim so we decided to move it from the market. Why do you want to buy it?

>> if the market improves will the signing back up.

>> one more time.

>> if the market improves, will the signing back up?

>> we are kind of ambivalent at this stage of the game. I really don't know the answer to that question. I'm not trying to be evasive, I just don't know.

>> okay.

>> leffingwell: have you done developments like this --

>> have you done developments like this before during your business.

>> yes, sir.

>> mr. Hilgers, I think that you wanted to -- to get some comments.

>> if we can make one of those chairs available for mr. Hilgers there. I will have several questions for legal when we go into executive session. Brief comments. Come fort. Come fort. Come forth neighborhood organization. All the officers of the neighborhood organization are here today and as far as any of us know, there have been three meetings. Most of those meetings have had a total disdain for the interest of the neighborhood or anybody caring to interfere with what's going on. The attitude has been typical of this formation from the beginning is we're going to do what we want to do and nobody is going to stop us. That's been the impression that I have. But if anybody wants to say that we have failed to respond or failed to answer questions, I want to be more specific. At the inception of this application, there were 2200 lots proposed. At that time several of the lots were included on land owned by neighbors, but by the developer. The measurement of the impervious cover and other factors in the development were not accurately stated and the engineers recognized that, corrected the fact that they had made a gross mistake in the description of the property and included property and lots being designed that were not owned by the developer. We went through a series of -- the problem that we have here, and I don't want to belabor it, but let's say you approve it. The consequences to the develop rer nil. He has 10 years to do all or nothing of what he's proposed. In the meantime, his plan is on the docket and so anybody who wants to do anything else that's in conflict with that plan is locked in. They don't have a choice because this is confronting them. As far as the -- all the infrastructure problems that we've addressed, we've just touched the surface of, but when the first application with 2200 lots, there was no mention in the application about the clomr pending with fema. That involved 311 lots. That's equivalent to the whole subdivision of stoney ridge right next door. 311 lots is a lot of houses and they are going to dam up the flood plain, enclose it all and build up an unknown structure and put -- build houses on it. What happens to the water that was going through that flood plain? Well, it's going to violate the state water code and divert water into other people's property that would otherwise be in that flood plain. Another substitute solution, they are going to cover up the wetlands built by the corps of engineers in the 1930s to prevent flooding. Those wetlands, 14 of them, to be specific, were designed specifically to stop flooding in the area. They recognize in the corps of engineers in the 1930s this was a flood-prone area so they specifically took those steps and decided to try to prevent flooding that was incredible and involved in this project. I want to mention one thing about the traffic control. The study that was done was done before 130 was built. It did not include any reference to figure quest road, jacobson road, 812 or 130. At 17,000 cars a day means as far as anybody else's property is concerned, they are locked in. There's no way they can accommodate that kind of traffic flow. It's very reassuring to know in 2030 there's going to be a maja loop that gets land through the new subdivision. In 2030, I'm going to be 105 and my wife is going to be 107 and it's not going to do us much good to have access through that property at that time. What this does, the developer has no obligation at all to do anything once this is approved. This is like a marketable commodity. He's got this license, he has no fiscal responsibility at all. He doesn't have to put up any money. The city has put up all the money for the pipelines, all the highway has been done for him so what's his obligation, what's his responsibility, how is he accountable to the public? I can't conceive of how he is accountable for anything. He walks away from it and does nothing, he's not liable. If he wants to sell it to somebody else, use it like a commodity and say somebody else pick up the tab and pay for the differences, he can make a big profit off of that and come out free. He has no responsibility or accountability. I want to say the problem with this whole subject, in my judgment, is title 30 and the single office was not designed for a flood plain project. It was not intended to cover this sort of situation. There are all sorts of gaps in that law that make it impossible for anybody to know what the law really is. We have no way, no recourse as property owners, as participants in this process to find out what the facts are. The single office is not a single office, it's a multiple office with a whole group of experts looking at the specific segments. And what the -- what happens is the developer is an objection to something, so the developer goes to that person off the record and decides what is his advice about getting it corrected. The public records, there's no access to the public records about it. That's all, and I'm not faulting the people at the review level. They are reacting to inquiries by legitimate developer who wants to know the answer and so they give him a suggestion and come back and make a correction, but the public has no way of knowing that. So the open records act and the single office act in this situation have just been almost completely ignored. So how do we go, for example, the zoning and platting commission looks at this issue. If the offices recommend approval, their counsel has advised them that if they refuse to honor that approval, they are personally liable for anybody that wants to sue them for finding any kind of reason to reject it. The zoning and platting commission does not have a real review process. They listen to the staff and then they -- there are hearings for people, very brief, uncontested, undocumented hearings in which they listen, but the action -- like 5 minutes per person, respondent. So the problem right here is not one that I'm trying to find fault with, I'm trying to say it's a major gap that needs to be corrected. It's going to take time to do it and brought in to the developer it may be a -- the iraq war may be over by the time he may be able to develop it so there's no real rush bit. You need to set a moratorium on this process and let us have about 90 days to six months to come up with a format that will give you a future. This does not present a future to anybody. The consequences are the developer walks away, does or doesn't do anything, if he can make a profit out of it and sell it, you are trading in a commodity, the license of this court, to market the approval that you've rendered. I don't think that's the way for Travis County to succeed or prosper. I don't know how you feel about it, but when we have -- when I first heard this, this proposal, said that's impossible. This is Travis County. This is -- nobody is going to approve this. Well, the process has been tedious and it's been long and we've gone through endless exchanges with people that -- trying to correct the errors of the engineers and trying to get things straight in the record. But when we say that we met nine times with the developer and all of us in the neighborhood association can only remember three, it kind of gives you an indication of where we are as far as communication are concerned. We don't think that -- I think there's a way this can be resolved if the developer were interested in looking after the future of the people. And I hope that would be the case. As far as what's been done so far, nothing has been done so far except what the city has done and the infrastructure putting up about $15 million of money to build the infrastructure up to the place, but the developer is not responsible for that. The roads have been built, not the developer's responsibility. So far he hasn't incurred anything except the expenses of the engineers, that I know of. Anyway, as I said, I think there's a way to solve this if we do it in an orderly way and recognize the flood plain is a different animal. You shouldn't put a subdivision on a flood plain unless you guarantee the consequences to the public. The density of this property and what it does to the school systems, what it does to the whole environment, I think is tragically shortsighted.

>> mr. Hilgers, is there a number density-wise that you all think that this property should have? Is there a number? If it's not 17 is it 14, is it 12? I mean give me a number, give me something kind of tangible to hold on to. What, in your opinion --

>> well, what I think is the size of the lots is too small. I think the density of this property needs to be downsized. This is my personal view. Most important thing about it is besides the lot size is control of flooding. We've got flooding going over off of this property on to swiss alpine village which threatens that village. That could be done with a berm that could be corrected. The traffic control is impossible. We don't know what the actual traffic is going to be like, but it's going to be more than 17,000 cars a day for sure. If we say that the lot size would be cut in half, I mean it would supposedly be 1200 lots. Nobody has given me that number. I'm just saying suppose it were and the lot size were 50 feet instead of 40 feet and the flood control and the highway problem were solved, that would give us a window to talk about. It's gooding to take the developer a willingness to make some considerations for the future of the public. Mainly it's going to need to have this Commissioners court look at the future of traffic. Because you've got the same problem downstream all the way down flood plain, onion creek, dry creek and maja creek. How that's dealt with in this case is going to be a precedent from now on. That's the reason, personally, that I feel that the Commissioners court has a great deal to do with the future of Travis County. It's very important. This is the case that's going to test it.

>> yes, sir.

>> my name is clem bitters. I would like to respond to a few of the topics discussed. One was parkland fees being paid in lieu of actual park lad. I have the title with me and nowhere do I see anything about fees and the calculations of how many acres. If it is in another part of title 30 that I'm unaware about, I would like to see that explained. But I don't see it in 30-2-214.

>> let's get an answer. One at a time, let's -- because that's a good question. Let's see what the answer is.

>> I'm waiting for the cite. I know there is a cite regarding fees in lieu of parkland. It exists. We do it all the time. Requirements. And they can't use flood plain -- they can't utilize the green space that they have there because of flood plains.

>> so where is it?

>> it's in 30-2-217.

>> okay.

>> additionally they've also mentioned that it's at another phase at which they start talking about clubhouse and pool and whatnot. So I'm thinking that perhaps the assertion that there will be no place for the children to play could be specious. A pond and green space and --

>> in regards to the water flow, and we heard about peak flow and diverting water. The part of the Texas water code I was referring to is not them diverting land across their own land with detension ponds. The park you see on the right is one of the highest points in Travis County and the park at the bottom is one of the highest in Travis County topographicly speaking. Water flows off of this property on to my property, on to mr. And mrs. Lincoln's property and to all the people's property across the street. We all have cattle, livestock and agricultural purpose. That's the part I'm referring to. I don't know how they are going to get water from the streets and whatnot down to my pond without sending me more pollutants. The airport overlay was addressed. And okay, it is a mall part of the overlay that's on this part and they are not building any houses in it, but what I read in the law, if there's part of the airport overlay or property being rezoned or developed, it has to go out to bergstrom. We met with the man and he confirmed that. Interested parties. We were notified of this meeting today. What we were not notified of was the variances and the administrative decisions. And title 30 requires us to be notified of administrative decisions and variances.

>> did you appear before the city of Austin zoning and platting? In this issue?

>> I was not there.

>> were you notified?

>> yes, sir. Yes, sir. I was not notified of the variances in the administrative decisions.

>> that wasn't discussed?

>> clem, can I ask a question right here to clarify? On this application, the one that was submitted in December when staff, environmental staff issued those variances, you got notification, correct?

>> I never got notification for the variances or administrative decisions.

>> in either application? Remember, there have been two.

>> that's right. And if you remember on the first one, we were told we would be informed by mr. Hintonhouseen and when we asked him why we weren't informed he told us you didn't do it in writing so I didn't have to. You remember that conversation? Okay. As far as the wetlands go and the big lake, just earlier today we were told that the lake was going to be a drainage easement earlier today she said that. I don't know if you remember.

>> is that true, that the lake is a drainage easement or is it a protected environmental feature?

>> hi, theresa caulki n s, turn. That wetlands was within an easement as it's within the flood plain that goes through the property. There's actually a critical environmental feature setback that contains that and that will be a part of the project.

>> when you say wetlands, you are referring to the 6-acre pond?

>> correct.

>> so it's functioning both as an environmental -- a -- an identified environmental feature and as a drainage area that will then filter the water for --

>> it will provide detention for the project.

>> one of the solutions of the wetland things, they cover up the wetlands and they are drilling water wells supposedly to replace some of the water that's going to be displaced. And unfortunately there's no potable water in that area. So the wells that they drill are not going to be acceptable water as far as the water pollution is concerned.

>> I just wanted to clarify that. It's supposed to be a critical environmental feature. Nothing happens within 50 feet. We're kind of told a little bit that's what is happening, but that is not what's happening. It is part of the drainage easement. The engineer brought up their cross-sections and I'm not an engineer, but we met with a highly respected engineer and their cross-sections the way they measure water flow, do not cross elroy road. They just measure around the subdivision. Going under elroy road is a few pipes where dry creek tries to drain and it doesn't work so it comes over the road. There are barricades in the pasture. Their cross-sections cannot take into consideration the other side of elroy road downstream at all. Another thing we pointed out to them eight months ago, idon't know if it's been corrected, the water they use the calculations for that are flowing into the development are supposed to usefully developed upstream conditions. In other words, when the neighbor on this side upstream and all those neighbors develop how much water is coming in. Our engineer found in their calculations that they didn't usefully developed conditions. This is one of their drainage easement maps right here. Something I pointed out some about it eight months ago is this section up here did not include a set of -- a water feature. Did -- a gauge easement. Right here on this plat map, it doesn't show the large pond that has wetlands and plants growing in it.

>> what you are pointing to is the northeast corner here?

>> yes, ma'am.

>> okay.

>> and it was, I believe, picture 6 in the pictures I showed you earlier. So all these computer calculations as to what's going to happen to every drop of water rely on human data entry, and not everything is perfect. You talked about the flood plain building out successfully, Commissioner Gomez, and what would happen. Well, if it was all perfect, we wouldn't be coming out with new fema flood plain maps that are due out I think now or in the next few months, so the things are change, the flood plain has changed, that's why they are coming up with new maps. Being on too steep hills, and you can see this property from downtown. It's beautiful. When you put 40-foot lots with 22-foot driveways that's half the lot covered with a driveway and home. That's a lot of impervious cover on very steep slopes it's going to increase the volume and vel ossify of water and there's going to be less area for it to go. You brought up mobile homes, Commissioner Gomez, and they told you no. We've been asking them about that since the get go and that's all -- what we heard today is the first time we've heard no. But it's not in writing and these are being approved as single-family residences. So they could tell you no today and I believe change their mind tomorrow. And right here is notes that I obtained in the open records act and it says regarding houses versus mobile home per anna, traffic count is the same whether mobile homes or houses. Travis County can't make them do houses. And that's written right here.

>> and you are absolutely right about that. We can't make them do houses. We can't make anyone -- we have absolutely no authority in either the -- what kind of structure, the size of the structure, what the structure is used for or how many structures they pack on the lot.

>> right. But she was told no to her question earlier today and that's not 100%, right?

>> right. All she could ask and all they could answer is what their intention is.

>> Commissioner, could I ask a question about that. Commissioner eckhardt?

>> yes, sir.

>> is the hazard mitigation ordinance effective as proposed to that density question?

>> no. I mean we are specifically prohibited under 232-101-b in withholding -- withholding our approval of a plat based on the use of the land, the size of the building, the density. I mean these are specific prohibitions. The hazard mitigation goes to a natural disaster circumstance of an existing subdivision. Am I correct about that?

>> that is correct. Our hazard mitigation plan is designed to correct problems that were developed under substandard regulations.

>> so if the clomr is successful, then hazard mitigation is, at least from a legal perspective, is not a requirement. Am I correct about that?

>> that's correct. By come pliening with our regulations, by meeting our correct code, there would be no need to go in and mitigate a flooding hazard.

>> I always understand mitigation was prevention, and prevention is not paying people for houses that are already flooded and letting the flooding go on. The idea is to prevent the flooding. That would be true of the hazard mitigation rules, which applies to density as well as other aspects. If you are building up something that's going to wash away so you can buy them out after it washes away that is correct doesn't seem to be mitigating anything.

>> while I agree with you, I also see that the rules are written to reduce the probability, not to eliminate it. And we are bound to rely upon fema to tell us whether the probability has been reduced below a level that they will still allow us to participate in the fema program. And I -- I hear what you are saying and it is very difficult for moo to watch this because I agree we are dealing with a subdivision of lower income houses, very densely packed in on a piece of property that is flood prone, in the flight path and in an overburdened school district on inadequate road system. You are absolutely right about all of that. And our state says buyer beware.

>> one of the things --

>> let's let him finish.

>> it was brought up about the meetings with the neighborhood. I've met with them. There have been no compromised reached obviously. When I've taken off my time to come downtown and meet with them from work, you know, I came in good faith and I thought maybe we could reach some agreement. So I was really disappointed to read in the notes here from your Travis County file, anna, tell kit meeting with the neighbors will be good in the eyes of zap and the city council. So then I came to the realization that maybe this meeting wasn't about compromise but it was so they can get up and say we met with the neighbors so many times. So we kind of lost faith in that part of it. As far as the pipelines go, I'm still counting four pipelines. And you mentioned that they are voluntarily accepting the city code recording the pipelines. -- regarding the pipelines.

>> that's my understanding in the backup. My understanding is that legally they can't be obligated to adhere to those. Am I right about that? Because --

>> they have agreed to do it. They are on record. We have a -- we'll have a copy of this, plus we'll have a copy of this video today as well a the tape.

>> which means replatting the property, right? Because the homes are to be 250 feet from the pipeline.

>> [inaudible].

>> whatever the city ordinance requires is what you all will meet. Is the commitment today. And they are nodding their heads in the affirmative.

>> thank you. They said it's a small section of the 100-year flood plain that they intend to recapture. Just moments later they mention that area is 350 to 380 homes. It's not a small area and I have the flood plain maps with me here today if anybody would like to take a look at them. He said that 90% of the property is not in the flood plain. I beg to differ. Over 50% of the property is in the flood plain. Maybe not the developed section, but the overall more than 50% of this property is in the flood plain. They said they don't want to do anything that could be a burden on anybody, but, you know, what they have been trying to do is sell this project. Mr. Gilmore said that all these arguments were given at the city council meeting, and I'll beg to differ. One, I was the only person there. Two, I was allowed to speak for three minutes per thumb. And three, I was specifically instructed only to discuss items related to the extension of the utilities. So none of these issues were brought up by any of these other neighbors, I was the only one there. And then it was only about the utilities and the service extension.

>> what you are saying is that the testimony that was given here today was not discussed before the city council as far as the subject matter. Only the utility aspects.

>> correct, sir. I was the only one there. It's on video. We can review it. And the mayor specifically said to talk about the extension of the utilities and not all the other issues. And I was the only one there. None of my other neighbors were there.

>> all right. Thank you.

>> and as far as the -- pardon me?

>> [inaudible].

>> okay. But we were not bringing up all these issues. In meeting with the zoning and platting committee, met with some of the people and they understand that, you know, if they didn't vote in favor of this that they would be personally sued so they felt like their hands were tied and they had to and that's what they told me. So anyway, those are the only really points I wanted to review that I heard. Thank you.

>> thank you.

>> if I might, could I quickly respond to the open -- or to the notifications. Mr. Betters not be notified. I have returned certified mail, I have -- there was one the person we sent we had the wrong zip code, but after that there's one, two, three, four, five return mails. The address, the p.o. Box, your address on these envelopes matches the address from the t.c.a.d. Records. And it looks like on some of these they showed -- on some of them it shows multiple attempts trying to reach to you get you this notification. The notification today -- or that was sent for today's meeting was not certified mail, but the single office notification was certified mail. So attempts were made to get you this information. I just wanted --

>> but those were returned is what you are saying.

>> right.

>> mr. Hilgers. Final words. Brief final words, please.

>> I would just like to add this final comment. The rule of hazard mitigation is the rule that gives the county the authority to protect the public safety and health and welfare. That rule is a very widely important rule for everything that goes on in the colorado river flood plain. You have the authority to make a decision about how this flood plain is developed today and in the future. My feeling and my urging is this, you can be creative about this and use your authority to be sure that the public interest is protected. The developers are well protected against any kind of -- any kind of problem because they have the resources to see that it's implemented. But there's no protection to the public to pay people whose houses are already flooded at a low price, discounted price with money that is uncertain and unavailable most of the time. It doesn't stop the flooding. It doesn't mitigate anything. So the importance of this decision today and for whenever time it's going to be made, I think, is very critical to the whole southeast part of Travis County because these flood plain areas are going to be with us until you solve the problem. And it's solvable. Thank you very much.

>> thank you. Now, by the way, laurie is making note of that hazard mitigation. We may as well get legal advice on that too. We'll have only four people here July 1. Will we have four? It's either July 1 or July 8 depending on whether we're ready. That's just to let you all know. We will have questions for legal in executive session today, but in my view no action will be taken today. And when we post it again, we can let you all know. Do we know how to contact everybody that was here today?

>> certainly.

>> we will give you a phone call or a note. Probably a phone call, e-mail if you have e-mail addresses for you, and let you know the specific date so if you wish to come back down on that day you have an opportunity to do so.

>> ? We appreciate your coming down today. It will be probably 30, 40 minutes before we go into executive session, but we will not take any action on this item today. And we appreciate your patience also. Now we see joe geese he he will man here. If you have business with the Commissioners court head this way. We are about to put it in overdrive.

The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.

Last Modified: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 2:31 PM

June 17, 2008 Item 19

June 17, 2008
Item 19