Travis County Commissioners Court
January 12, 2010,
Item 1
Number one is a public hearing to receive comments regarding proposed revisions to the Travis County code, chapter 64 and 82 relating to storm water management requirements in the Lake Travis watershed and other unincorporated areas of Travis County.
>> all those in favor?
this passes by unanimous vote with Commissioner Gomez temporarily off the dias, we expect to arrive momentarily.
>> good morning judge Biscoeing for the record I am tom weber with tmr today's public hearing is for chapter 62 and 82 of the Travis County code.
the public has been made aware of this proposal by news publication in the Austin americans statesman, county's public website prominently announceses this proposal and provides detailed information and links and tnr has made efforts to informally announce these proses and discuss them with various interested parties, as a short introduction to this rule I will describe the rule making in a very summary fashion and then why we are proposing these changes today.
principally the rule changes would combine existing requirements of the Travis County that were under the 2005 interim water quality rules with the lower colorado river authority's highland lake watershed ordinance and put this into a new section 62.211.
almost entirely the requirements of 82211 are the same requirements applicable to development today since a person developing must comply with both sets of requirements, the county and l c ra, highland lake ordinance.
the interum rules of the county and highland lake ordinance of lcra currently have different standards, some strain gent then others,ings new section would supersede the interim rule with the watershed and apply inincorporated areas of the Lake Travis watershed with the exception of city of Austin ekg because we have a city and county code that p applieses there.
the new rule would echtend Travis County requirements into those areaseseses -- extend Travis County into those areas, there is a few small things as I mentioned that are different than what is in the interim rule in these small etj areas, say, for example an etj of the city of volinte and they relate to the Travis County setbacks from environmentally sensitive features, cut and fill.
highland lake ordinance applies in those areas, there are a few other amendments that are also proposed as a part of this rule making that would apply throughout the unincorporated areas of the county.
we are proposing to revise is submittal requirements applicable to preliminary plans and final plats, an applicant for single family residential subdivision that is proposing to use ground water as a water supply would be required to submit information to the county for review substantiating there is an adequate supply of ground water available.
we are proposing to repeal 82.210, and this is kind of to clean up redundant requirements since there were new provisions of chapter 82 passed in 2006, relating to conservation developments in another part of chapter 82 and then we have some minor -- I characterized them as mostly nonsubstantive wording changes in chapter 64 .061, and then a couple other sections in chapter 82.
attachment one in your backup has a short table that summarizes the impact of this rule making and then that's followed by a markup version that shows line by line, word by word, all of the proposed amendments.
so why are we proposing these changes?
if consistent regulations are adopted, Travis County and lcra can revise its 1990 interlocal agreement.
the agreement is out of date.
a revised interlocal agreement would benefit the county and the responsibilities that we have for a cohesive and comprehensive storm water management program with a common set of requirements in our code, Travis County and lcra can more easily divide the work effort and reduce or eliminate overlap of effort in the promotion of water quality protection in the Austin lake area, the benefits -- in the Lake Travis area, the reasons for the adoption in your interlocal agreement are summarized in attachment four of your backup.
we expect to modify this rule proposal based on comments on the proposal in return to seek adoption of the rule changes and we are recommending that at the same time we come back for adoption, that we bring you an interlocal agreement that could be executed as well.
we are available for any questions.
we also have eric harris, an engineer for water resource protection from lcra here as well today.
>> you indicate in the memo that you hope the court will adopt some action, will take some action on February 2nd.
>> yes, judge, this is -- this is our projected date when we could come back -- as I was saying, we that we will make some changes based on some comments we have gotten on the rule, and then we can make those changes and bring them back to you at that time.
>> what action if any is expected in item 15 today?
>> I -- I would recommend that the court simply just act to keep the public comment period open, at least until the 19th of January, which would be 30 days from when we first made formal notice of it.
>> any questions from the court?
>> yes, I have a couple of them.
>> maybe -- there may be someone here that may want to give public comments since this is a public hearing, I don't know, if it is, I maybe want to hear what they had to say, because I had a couple of questions, also.
if you are going to come back -- I think it is something we need to look at but there may be someone here today that may want to make public testimony to this particular issue.
>> any questions from the court?
>> I have a couple of them.
>> all right, then because I thought you said -- I was giving the court an opportunity to ask questions --
>> go ahead -- then we go into the residents -- okay, since the judge asked me to ask my questions first, let me do that from the court members.
thank you, judge.
my question is this, even though we see the new enhancement of really -- kind of really solidifies situation with the agreement -- the interlocal agreement between lcra and also Travis County and of course at some stage it is going to be required for Travis County, your staff, t.n.r.
staff, under osha to deal with the specifics as far as looking at -- to maybe make sure the requirements are being met and things of that nature.
my concern is this, number one, is if we -- if we attach ourselves to this situation, what type of cutoffs recovery are we going to be looking at as far as making sure that we have some cost recovery fee involved to offset the added workload on staff?
>> Commissioner Davis, we -- as we summarize a little bit in our attachment four, we are looking at a phase one and a phase two of an interlocal agreement.
under phase one, we are expecting that we will utilize the very same staff that we have.
>> all right, but --
>> and before proceeding to phase two, we are going to at least bring back to you as a completely separate item for discussion the idea of having a professional engineer added to the Travis County staff in t.n.r.
to assist in reviewing permit applications.
by the time we get to phase two, we are expecting that we would not need to have both lcra and the county issue a permit for the same thing, so we will be providing the service in one house and I think we need to have a little bit more staff to do that.
now, in terms of paying for that, we -- you know, we have -- we have just implemented a fee program for the storm water management program, and -- and it is -- with -- that just was effective January 1.
we -- so we have funding for that.
it's worth pointing out that we also will likely save the cost of implementing the program because we are talking about dividing the labor.
so there are some tradeoffses that might make this somewhat fiscally neutral.
>> but on the engineering phase of it, like the engineering planses and this kind of stuff, that we need to look at, my question is, will that -- will that be part of the trade-off, they do the interim plan and we do this and they do that?
I really don't know and I guess it will reveal it as time allows, too.
>> yes.
>> but right now it's kind of -- I just want to make sure that when you come back, that these particular questionses that I am asking are put on the table for further review, because, again, we have the engineering plans and we have this, we have our staff going out there looking for requirementses and a whole lot of other things that will be intertwined to some degree but there may be separation point at some time and if it all comes on the county then of course that separation point, in my opinion, would be more costly.
>> an additional level of effort -- we talked about this in previouses things when we talked about the feeses, that once development is done and there are storm water structures out there, say retention ponds and things, the state under our ms4 permit requires that we have some program to inspect those.
>> okay.
>> so we -- we expect that we won't need to initiate a program like that in the Lake Travis water shed because lcra already does that so we are talking about sort of putting our eggs in the construction, erosion, sediment runoff program in the development phase and lcra focusing on post construction and maintenance.
so when we come back, I think we will have the opportunity to show very clearly how those tradeoffs work.
>> that relationship.
okay.
all right.
thanks.
that's it, thank you.
>> let me add clarity, john white, t.n.r., we were talking about fees what about six weeks ago and we will continue to be exploring fees.
it's going to be a step wise process but we would expect that we would have the cost recovery that the court authorizeses.
it could be up to 100%, it could be something a little bit less than that but we will do that step wise over the coming, what, six months or so.
>> okay.
thank you.
>> this is a public hearing, if you would like to comment on this item, please come forward and if you would give us your name, we will be happy to get your comments.
good morning.
>> good morning, my name is hank smith, president elect of the home builders association of greater Austin.
we actually met with staff last week, I think pretty much here at table got together as well as other people from the home building industry and went over the rules, generally we support the rules.
we have a couple of questions we posed to the staff.
one of the main ones is the intent is to kind of take the lcra ordinance and the interim ordinance and blend them together and I think that's what their code has done but I think maybe there is an easier way to lay it out and coming saying we are adopting these portion of the interim ordinance and these portion of the lcra ordinance and these are the list of item that is don't comply with either one of those are merge together or somehow modified.
the ways the worded right now talks about interim ordinance requirement, and lcra back to interim and then 82 and back to interim and back to lcra and it jumps all over the place and it is hard to follow what requirements we are adhering to.
we don't have a problem hearing lcra and we don't have a problem hearing interim, we want it laid out simpler so we know exactly what the criteria are.
there are a minor things, one aspect is the definition of etj, it is a hard concept for people to understand as it is and in areas where Travis County has gotten an interlocal agreement with the city and maybe county has taken over the authority in the etj, these rules simply say that area is not considered part of the etj any more for purposes of these rules and to me that is going to be confusing to explain to a developer that yes you are in the city of lake way's etj but for purposes of this rule you are not in the etj and I think there is a way to re-word the intent.
we understand what they are trying to do and agree but re-word it so it is easier for us to explain to the clients, you are always in the etj, these rules don't apply in this area.
I think meeting with them -- they are working up changes and alternatives we have discussed and we have discussed here and we will be glad to meet with them again but we appreciate the staff time to meet with us and go over the rules and listen to the concerns and will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
>> questions?
>> I do.
>> thank you.
>> actually I have one question with regard to previous legislation, hank, sorry about that.
>> sure.
>> we had a buffer bill in some ways affects water, and I just wanted to get y'all's position with regard to the previous legislation.
>> right, the last legislative session, the home builders association of greater Austin worked with belinda bolten's office that supported a bill that was drafted the would give county areas buffer to set back incompatible land uses, it didn't pass, it was somewhere in collin county, somewhere in a part of Texas was opposed to the bill, I don't see the reason we would not support the same bill.
we have not drafted our legislative agenda yet but there is no reason not to support the same concept.
it protects the home industry more than anything and that's what we are here to do and when you are rock quarry and other incompatible land uses, it affects our industry and we will be involved with the discussions and will support that.
>> thank you for the recent support of the bill.
>> appreciate that very much.
>> yes.
>> my name is diane crumley dee and I am here to discuss on this and I think it would be easier if I read some of this but one of the things I kind of object to is that I noticed in a memo from mr. Gieselman on the 12th that there had been very little input from the -- I have gone blank this morning, sorry -- from the people, and I would think that because this came out because it was published 19th and 20th and website on the second, that is the time people are thinking about christmas, family and definitely not an agenda that would be changing the impact of floodplain rules involving their land.
this is equivalent to the developer of the proposed marina sitting next to my mother's house sending acknowledgment on christmas eve they would like to do her deposition in January.
commonsense tell you holidays are not a good time to put out notice, plus everyone who gets a newspaper or has access, not everyone has access to a computer or gets a newspaper.
if you were truly concerned you would advise in the surrounding area newspapers or simply notify in writing in a citizens that would be affected.
the tax office has addressed of the impacted landowners, my question is do you really want input.
I did talk with teresa kawkins of changes and told her I would address this add come's court and I object to this unreasonable notice, second you used letters or abbreviations used instead of true name of agency or ordinance.
most people do not know what hlwo means or iwqr and I object to this without an explanation.
why wasn't notice given at the Commissioner's court on December 22nd that there would be a public input meeting on the date that I thought it was January 14th, but I hear today it is a little later.
we are at the meeting and not told that the discussion will be postponed until January, nothing was mentioned about public input.
I know the last time that the county tried to pass something that would impact us, I knew nothing until a tv reporter came to my mother's house and asked me how I felt about our area being taken by the county by imdomain, the county acknowledges the concept of open government but in reality your job is much easier if the public doesn't have a voice.
I object to the way that this notice was given and I have tried to go over this, and what I have now is entirely different from what was pulled off the website.
I think there is a lot of things that have been brought up that are very beneficial to what is going on with the developers and everything.
I feel like that you can set up a -- where you have a balance.
I do feel like there is not too many permits any more nowadays that you can go in and get for free so I don't think it is unreasonable to ask the developers for that and I do agree with going and trying to get something done to stop this where a residential neighborhood, which is what we are, for 65 years and then you come in and try to put something commercial there.
I want to ask what, what is the taking impact assessment that doesn't seem to be in here.
I -- I think that if a developer comes in and is putting in a -- in our case, a marina and putting a well to run a marina off of right next to ours, it is draining the water supply and will make the -- could make the entire neighborhood without water.
if that happens, you've allowed this to go in and that is an impact on a residential neighborhood, so I question that, why the -- that assessment has been taken out of there.
some of the other things I wanted to bring up is the enforcement part of this, there is -- doesn't seem a clear-cut thing as to how you are going to enforce this.
there is lots of rules and regulations out there and there is a lot of laws that apply to everything that has gone on out in our neighborhood.
I can't speak for the entire Travis County but I know in our area, there is a lot of rules and regulations, and I can tell you this.
I have been to every single agency, starting with the lcra, the next one is the corps of engineers, epa, Travis County t.n.r., and my most successful and I heard this morning they want to put an engineer in place over some of this to do that, I highly recommend teresa c arch wkins, she has been very helpful and very thorough and a blessing sent to us for help.
tceq, they came out, looked at stuff, said, well, we don't have any jurisdiction over it.
Travis County sheriff's office was told by the developer that he owned all of the land, including my mother's house, and so we've had to fight all of that.
I fought with the county attorney's office, had to beg them to take charges on people trespassing on our property, breaking into my mother's house, living there illegally.
we have 16 no trespassing signs posted on a three quarter acre lot and the county attorney's office at this time is saying, well, is that -- is that enough?
is this not civil?
is it criminal?
these people have been warned, there is nothing in anything that says anybody is going to have any jurisdiction over any of this, the dumping and bliding, we had county people come and look at that.
nothing was done about it and because of the lack of enforcement from various agencies, we are now em brawled in a legal bat toll try to redefine my mother's deed and take her rights away, she will be 100 years old on may 1st and shouldn't have to go through this, the county attorney's office wants to talk to my attorney instead of filing county trespassing charges, what is my attorney going to say this.
>> anything else relevant to storm water management.
>> I don't think there is anything in this that is written up that will enforce any more laws or rules that are already on the books.
that I have a press -- problem with.
I have a problem with the fact that it says that there will be formal and informal.
what does that mean?
you either have a set of rules that they are going to enforce or you don't.
and I don't see anything in this that says that there is a definite set of rules with punishment, and how the law is going to apply to that.
thank you.
>> you still have ms. Cawkins' phone number?
>> yes I do.
>> we will take additional comments between now and February 2nd so make sure she understands any other concerns you have.
>> okay.
I do have a problem with the fill.
you say it's against the law to bring in fill.
they have brought in enough fill to change the entire thing.
I can throw a rock from our house and hit at least six or 7 houses that have brought in enough fill that it brings one of them up almost to the roof here to get out of the floodplain, nothing has been done about any of that.
nothing.
>> so you have filed complaints about the various matters that you've mentioned today?
>> yes.
yes.
>> thank you, ms. Dee.
>> thank you.
>> yes, I am suzanne brown, diane dee's neighborhood, I live at 1314o.
curse road.
>> can you bring the second mic towards you there, ms. Brown.
>> sorry.
my name is susan brown, I live at 1413ocursed road, I am a neighbor of diane dee, and I would like to speak to this ordinance and I have a poster that I would like you to see.
>> media, is that new microphone working?
I was told yesterday there would be a cordless mic, that they are experimenting with, joe, is the new microphone working?
>>
>> [indiscernible - no mic]
>> does ms. Brown need to hold the mic that we normally use?
the one she is holding now?
>> yes, that is fine, judge.
>> okay, thanks.
>> this poster shows evidence of blite and dumping going on in our neighborhood in commercial marinas, building docks and ignoring our deeded property rights for 65 years, our deeds, they dumped welding rods by the thousands.
they had a chair that they would and poop in, excuse me language, but they disregarded environmental laws, they disdisregarded our deeded property rights.
and they and they disregarded the land and water and everything, there were petroleum based pipes -- this all happened -- there was an old dog they say that was grandfathered, that wases dumped and they dragged out during the flood and drove equipment in, nobody did anything.
the lcra rewarded this dumping and bliting with a marina permit in 2007.
this area was only cleaned up after the lcra permit was given to them.
the dumping and the bliding, went on, they came up, chased us on our land, they had headlights on our house, it is a 2.5 buffer acre area that has very uncumbered land and these people came in and tried to take us over and tried to force us house and talk about terrorism, it was terrorism in our neighborhood, we had the police in wait while my neighbor was belly butted and then she threw rocks an they would arrest her and I was afraid to call the police because of of this.
I had moved in the neighborhood.
I was new and I was in the -- my house had been on sale two years, the marina builders could have clearly bought it before I did and maybe changed the rules themselves, but we objected.
we went to lcra mediation and at lcra mediation, we were told that the lcra was not responsible for looking not our old deeds of record and that this marina was going no matter what we did, the grammiris and richardson and dunham did that and we were told to be quiet when the marine developer came to speak and tell us that he was going to make the area better.
he had no right to make it better.
we have restrictive covenants to say we have the right beautify and are the dominant property and have been for 65 years and this buffer zone has protected this area for 65 yards, plus watershed and water and we have private well that is go down and in the cone of influence when there is a drought, toxins get sucked in, these cumulative toxins over a wider area and even in a flood you cannot drink the water for a period of time because all of the cumulative hydrocarbons are all turned up.
now, the lcra granted this permit and, because it was granted and our deeds all say no commercial, we have been to court twice, I wases slap suited because I got injunction to get these guys out.
they lied and said I cut 91 trees down, toad the judge she cut 91 trees down, which was a lie and confused the court, misled the court in numerous cases.
the court still has not ruled on -- and ruled that we had the right to these guys out and then we went to court on June 8 and the court has not ruled on this and we are awaiting a decision on our rights, our deeds say to the lake and they say no commercial enterprise ever, and this is one of the oldest residential communities on the lake, it should be valid -- it should be valued, not exploited, manipulated and destroyed and it had pitted neighbor against neighbor and it has been a struggle.
it is very difficult to get people up against corporate marina developers or any corporate developer who has teams of lawyers that seek to drain you emotionally, physically and in every way.
it's very difficult to stand up to them and -- and pay lawyers and be uncertain, to be -- to have this uncertainty, what to do, you know, I don't have a kitchen since 2004.
should I put money into my house, what should I do, how much money should I put in?
I don't want to stand up and sell out my neighborhood because there are three key properties and these deeds are all equally the same and it should be honored, the neighborhood should be honored it is a residential neighborhood for 65 years.
>> do you think these rules are a good or bad thing.
>> I am wondering because I have lost seats in Travis County, tceq has -- is on the board of directors of lcra, the ttq chairman for six years was appointed.
they did nothing but reward these dumb pers and bliters and are trying to all distance themselves from each other and, you know, corporately, but they are not distanced.
they are all trading land and doing things and we are just people.
we are just -- they bought this marina since 1987.
th doesn't belong here, it is dangerous on land and water.
they have come up with variances and new fuel and marina repair that wasn't there, it was moved over.
there were ten people at the mediation, four neighbors cut deals.
the six of them, the rest of uses, we said no and they said we had no right to object.
that's a constitutional right.
>> those matters are pending in court?
>> yes.
our deeds and other lawsuits are pending in court.
and it seems improper to change rules unless theying are go to benefit us but do we know they will benefit us because if you fill in the area, it will change the water table underneath.
it did my farm in massachusetts, they came and did that.
>> why continue you take a good look salt proposed rules and if you have any ideas, share them with ms. Webber, or.
>> I also want to ask about the taking.
this is a taking, it is a taking of our deeded noncommercial neighborhood, our clean drinking water by corporate developers, it is a taking of our individual deeded property rights of record that should be honored.
we -- we have --
>> is that one of the issueses pending in the litigation?
>> yes.
and we --
>> I don't know that we can really address that for you.
>> I am not asking you to.
I am trying to give you information about this situation.
>> all right.
but we are posted.
>> the real change --
>> we are posted with specific.
>> -- before the changes, that is what I am saying, it is coming before the court rules.
I mean no disrespect.
but we have been through a lot here.
>> the changes -- generally speaking, any rule change will not affect your litigation, your litigation is frozen in time, but --
>> but it's improper to make changes --
>> let me finish the statement.
with regard to a civil action that you have between two private parties, it's a snapshot in time for what the rules were at that moment.
it will be decided --
>> June 8th --
>> based on the rules in place at that time, so any rule change subsequent to the issues you are disputing won't affect your private litigation, generally speaking.
>> what I am worried about is them being able to come and feel if the rule changes don't benefit us and there hasn't been enough time like diane said to understand this.
we haven't felt like we could trust anybody.
>> if there is a particular rule that you believe we ought to adopt, propose that language to us, we will look at it and if we can legally do it --
>> I want to put the watershed to the ultimate degree and not allow parking and filling and changing something that is natural that does protect the water.
this is a pristine neighborhood, a lot of propaganda out thereabout it being flooded.
that is a lot of balone and it's about doing thing that is protect the neighborhood, not pitting neighbors for years, this has been going on since 2004.
>> thank you, thank you.
>> and they didn't clean it up until after they got their permit.
>> those rules, as powerful as they ma be, may want address all issues in our community but with regard to storm water development and it can help, so any language you think we should consider including that, send it to us to see if we legally can.
we have to move on.
we have two other public hearings.
>>
>> [indiscernible]
>> very quick.
>> we are not lawyers or engineers, and we -- the thing is what we need is good science, logic and commonsense, and we need help, and the lcra has run rough shot over us and allowed these developers to run rough shot over us.
we need help to know, we are just two or three neighbors, to know what is what.
I mean commonsense would tell you you need to protect the drinking water and I don't know how a huge -- the largest marina ever, with marine repair and fuel slips and all of that is going to help us and be good for that, and you know, just property rights should be honored.
>> have we received complaints about these issues that --
>> I have written to every legislator.
>> have we received complaints -- specific complaints about some of these matters?
>> over the years.
>> I am talking to staff.
and then we need to move on.
>> okay.
with t.n.r., yes, sir, we have received complaints.
I do want to mention the fill complaints are -- our floodplain regulations changed significantly on September 26, 2008, we no longer allow people to put fill in the floodplain without taking an equal amount of fill out of the floodplain to maintain the floodplain storage.
>> let's get ms. Brown's address and if there is something to address her concerns let's do that, okay.
moving on.
>> and just so you know, I also -- we forward this information to the county attorney's office because some of what you raced sounds like it is not in the purview of our permitting authority.
it may actually be in the purview of a separate elected division that is -- that is the county attorneys or the district attorney's office and we will forward that information on to them.
>> could I ask a question on this.
what is the difference between the Lake Travis watershed compared to onion creek, schole creek and Williamson and del valley area that is flooded for yearses an why is this for the Lake Travis watershed and why would this not be for if entire county.
>> the Lake Travis watershed is basically separate geographical area of of others you mentioned.
in terms of these regulations, we have addressed the Lake Travis watershed because we are trying to develop this better partnership and sharing work effort with the lcra and their ordinance area is the Lake Travis watershed.
we have -- do we short range or medium range plans to look other unincorporated areas of the county.
so some of those watersheds as you mentioned are outside our authority, they are in municipalities like the city of Austin.
>> the other thing is, as far as permitting, I worked for the state and you had to get, just say for a tabc license, every agency that had anything to two with that had to sign off and then the last person would be the controller's office that it would go to tabc and they would sign off and I would suggest that some type of permitting would be like that, with the county being the final say, and the sign off, but there needs to be a checkses and balance, it should not just be one person making the decision, and that's what it sounds like in this ordinance that you are saying that the county is going to have the say so that joe gieselman will be the one that would sign off on it and I feel like that there -- that would make no checks and balanceses towards being sure that everything was in place.
>> well, would anyone else like to give testimony during this public hear somethings this item number 1.
>> second.
>> all those in favor?
>> this passes by unanimous vote.
thank you very much.
make sure we have ms. Brown's address and try to raise these concerns.
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, January 12, 2010 4:03 PM
