Sep 04, 2024 Environmental Commission

RESI, EINHORN, KRUEGER, BEDFORD, BRISTOL, SULLIVAN.

UM, SO LET'S START WITH THE PUBLIC COMMUNICATION GENERAL.

NO WORRIES.

UM, DO WE HAVE ANY, OKAY.

NO PUBLIC COMMUNICATION FROM THE GENERAL.

SO LET'S GO TO

[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.

HAVE ALL THE COMMISSIONERS HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THOSE? ANY OBJECTIONS OR MOTION? I'LL, I'LL MOVE APPROVAL OF BOTH THE, UM, SPECIAL CALL MEETING ON AUGUST 28TH AND THE REGULAR MEETING ON AUGUST 21ST MINUTES.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HANDS.

ALL THOSE ABSTAIN.

ALL THOSE OBJECT.

BRIAN, ARE YOU VOTING FOR IT? OH, I, I'M SORRY.

NO WORRIES.

YOU, YOU HAVE TO WAKE ME UP.

SORRY.

SO, IS THAT FOUR? GOOD? I'M FORWARD.

[2. Name:1107 Castle Ridge Rd Wastewater Service Extension Request #5845 Applicant: Andrew Milam, Parkside Homes LLC Location: 1107 Castle Ridge Road, Austin, Texas 78746 Council District: Austin 2-Mile Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Staff: Kaela Champlin, Environmental Program Coordinator, (512) 974-3443, Kaela.Champlin@austintexas.gov Applicant request: Wastewater Service Extension Revision Staff Recommendation: Not recommended]

HEARINGS AND ACTION ITEMS. UM, 1 1 0 7 CASTLE RIDGE ROAD, WASTEWATER SERVICE EXTENSION, REQUEST NUMBER 5 8 4 5.

APPLICANT IS ANDREW MILLAM.

UM, PARKSIDE HOMES, LLC.

DO YOU HAVE A STAFF PRESENTATION? GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.

MY NAME IS KAYLA CHAMPLIN AND I'M AN ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM COORDINATOR WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT.

AND TONIGHT I'LL BE PRESENTING 1 1 0 7 CASTLE RIDGE ROAD WASTEWATER SERVICE EXTENSION REQUEST NUMBER FOUR EIGHT, SORRY, 5 8 4 5.

UH, BEFORE I DIVE IN, I'M GONNA DO A QUICK OVERVIEW ON THE SERVICE EXTENSION REQUEST PROCESS, SINCE YOU DON'T SEE THESE THAT OFTEN.

SO, A SERVICE EXTENSION REQUEST IS AN APPLICATION FOR CITY WATER OR WASTEWATER SERVICE FROM A PROPERTY OWNER OR DEVELOPER.

IT'S REQUIRED WHEN A PROPERTY IS MORE THAN 100 FEET FROM AN ACCESSIBLE WATER OR WASTEWATER SYSTEM, OR IF EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE ISN'T ADEQUATE FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT DEMANDS, IT MAY INVOLVE THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW, UH, NEW LINE OR ASSOCIATED FACILITIES OR UPGRADES TO EXISTING LINES OR FACILITIES.

THE APPLICANT PAYS FOR THE ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE AS OUTLINED IN THE SER.

SO, UM, SCRS REQUIRE COUNCIL APPROVAL WHEN THEY'RE LOCATED WITHIN THE DRINKING WATER PROTECTION ZONE AND OUTSIDE OF THE CITY'S FULL PURPOSE JURISDICTION.

UM, FIRST IT COMES TO YOU ALL FOR A RECOMMENDATION, AND THEN IT GOES ON TO WATER AND WASTEWATER COMMISSION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION.

AND, UM, ONE IMPORTANT THING TO REMEMBER IS THAT NO CONDITIONS CAN BE PLACED ON YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SERVICE EXTENSION REQUESTS.

AND THEN ONCE, UH, THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE MADE, THIS WILL GO ON TO COUNSEL ON THE SEPTEMBER 26TH AGENDA.

AS I MENTIONED THIS, UH, REQUEST IS JUST FOR WASTEWATER SERVICE AND IT'S FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1107 CASTLE RIDGE ROAD.

THE PROPERTY IS 2.85 ACRES.

IT'S LOCATED IN THE TWO MILE ETJ.

IT'S IN THE BARTON CREEK WATERSHED, BARTON SPRING ZONE, UH, WATERSHED REGULATION AREA.

IT'S ALSO IN THE EDWARDS AQUIFER CONTRIBUTING ZONE, THE TURKEY WATER PROTECTION ZONE, AND IS SUBJECT TO THE STATE OUR ORDINANCE.

THIS IS THE LOCATION OF THE SITE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CITY'S FULL JURISDICTION.

THIS IS THE LO SITE LOCATION IN THE CONTEXT OF IMAGINE AUSTIN'S GROWTH CONCEPT MAP.

IT'S NOT LOCATED NEAR ONE OF THE CENTERS OR CORRIDORS WHERE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SEEKS TO, UH, SEEKS TO DIRECT NEW DEVELOPMENT.

[00:05:04]

SO THE PROPERTY OWNER IS PLANNING TO SUBDIVIDE THIS 2.85 ACRE LOT INTO THREE LOTS OF WHICH WILL HAVE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITH DRIVEWAYS AND A FIRETRUCK TURNAROUND ENTRANCE.

UM, THEY'RE REQUESTING THREE LIVING UNIT EQUIVALENTS OR LUS, AND THERE IS AN EXISTING HOUSE ON THE PROPERTY, AND THAT'S PLANNED TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT.

AND A SITE PLAN HAS NOT BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN AS OF YET.

THE PROPOSED WASTEWATER EXTENSION INCLUDES 760 FEET OF GRAVITY WASTEWATER MAINE, FROM THE EXISTING EIGHT INCH GRAVITY WASTEWATER MAINE, LOCATED IN WHITE MARCH VALLEY WALK, AND WOULD EXTEND NORTH TO AND THROUGH THE SUBJECT TRACT TO CASTLE RIDGE ROAD.

NEXT SLIDE.

SO IF SERVICE IS NOT EXTENDED TO THE SITE AND WASTEWATER DISPOSAL IS REQUIRED, THEN THERE ARE TWO ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER SYSTEMS THAT WE TYPICALLY LOOK AT.

THAT INCLUDES LAND APPLICATION, EITHER VIA SURFACE IRRIGATION OR SUBSURFACE LAND APPLICATION, OR THE SECOND OPTION ON SITE SEWAGE FACILITIES OR O SSFS.

UM, THE SOILS ON THE SITE ARE PREDOMINANTLY BRACKET ROCK OUTCROP SOILS.

UM, THESE SOILS ARE GENERALLY NOT IDEAL FOR THESE ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS BECAUSE THE SOILS VERY THIN AND ROCKY, AND THERE ARE SEVERE LIMITATIONS FOR SEPTIC TANK ABSORPTION, FIELDS AND POND CONSTRUCTION DUE TO THE SHALLOW DEPTH OF THE BEDROCK.

UM, SOIL COULD BE IMPORTED, BUT SOIL PIPING AND PREFERENTIAL FLOW PATHS WOULD LIKELY FORM WHICH WOULD ALLOW WASTEWATER MIGRATION BELOW THE ROOT ZONE.

UM, IN THIS CASE, LAND APPLICATION IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE THE ESTIMATED FLOW FOR ALL THREE HOUSES IS MUCH LOWER THAN, UM, WHAT THE, LIKE THE GETTING THRESHOLD IS FOR A TCQ PERMIT.

SO THE OTHER OPTION FOR THIS SITE WOULD BE ONSITE SEWAGE FACILITIES, UM, WHICH COULD BE DEVELOPED WITH THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES.

BUT, UM, THESE WOULD BE, THIS WOULD BE REGULATED BY TRAVIS COUNTY AND THE COUNTY REQUIRES A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF AT LEAST ONE ACRE FOR OS SFS.

AND UNDER THESE RULES, BECAUSE THE LOT IS 2.85 ACRES, THEY WOULD ONLY, IT WOULD NEED TO BE REDESIGNED FOR TWO LOTS OR, AND SO IF, IF THIS WERE THE ALTERNATIVE, THAT COULD HAPPEN.

ONE THING TO NOTE IS THAT IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY REDUCE THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKELY MAXIMIZE THE ALLOWABLE IMPERVIOUS COVER, UH, WHETHER IT WERE TWO LOTS.

UM, OR THREE.

AS I MENTIONED, THE APPLICANT IS NOT REQUESTING WATER SERVICE EXTENSION AT THIS TIME, AND THEY AIRPLANE TO UTILIZE OUR WATER SERVICE FROM TRAVIS COUNTY, WCID NUMBER 10.

SO, ANOTHER ISSUE THAT WE HAVE TO CONSIDER NOW, UM, IS A NEW, UM, STATE LAW THAT WENT INTO EFFECT AFTER THE LAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION.

IT'S SENATE BILL 2038.

UM, STATE LAWMAKERS PASSED THIS BILL GRANTING PROPERTY OWNERS THE AUTHORITY TO FILE A PETITION OR REQUEST AN ELECTION FOR RELEASE FROM A CITY'S EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OR ETJ.

THE BILL ALLOWS PROPERTIES TO BE REMOVED ON A LOT BY LOT BASIS, WHICH SIGNIFICANTLY HINDERS REGIONAL PLANNING EFFORTS FOR LONG-TERM SUSTAINABLE GROWTH.

THE BILL NEGATIVELY, NEGATIVELY AFFECTS AUSTIN'S ABILITY TO REGULATE ENVIRONMENTAL AND WATER QUALITY PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS.

AND UNDER THIS NEW LAW, APOLOGIES, UGH, UNDER THIS NEW LAW PROPERTY OWNERS IN AUSTIN'S ETGA MAY OBTAIN SERVICES FROM THE CITY AND SUBSEQUENTLY RE REQUEST TO BE REMOVED FROM THE ETGA ONCE RELEASED.

THERE IS NO LONGER A REQUIREMENT TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS IN THIS AREA.

UH, THIS MAP JUST SHOWS OUR JURISDICTIONAL AREAS CURRENTLY, UM, THAT THE CITY, I WILL JUST MAKE A QUICK NOTE THAT LAS CREEK AREA WILL BE IS, IS GOING TO BE OR HAS ALREADY BEEN AN ORDINANCE THAT'S ALREADY BEEN PASSED AND THAT AN ELECTION WAS HELD IN THAT AREA WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CITY'S, UH, FULL PURPOSE JURISDICTION.

AND THAT GOES INTO EFFECT ACTUALLY ON MONDAY, I BELIEVE.

UM, SO THAT WILL CHANGE SOON.

BUT, UH, JUST FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS REVIEW, YOU KNOW, THIS PROPERTY LIES IN THE CAMELOT SECTION THREE SUBDIVISION, WHICH WAS RECORDED

[00:10:01]

IN 1969.

THE EXISTING SUBDIVISION WAS NOT SUBJECT TO CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS, INCLUDING THE SAVE OUR SPRINGS ORDINANCE AND THE WATERSHED PROTECTION ORDINANCE.

BUT A FUTURE SUBDIVISION WOULD BE SUBJECT TO BOTH ORDINANCES AND THEN, UM, THE BARTON CREEK WATERSHED IN THE BARTON CREEK WATERSHED AND OUTSIDE OF THE EDWARDS AQUIFER RECHARGE ZONE, THE SOS ORDINANCE LIMITS THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF ALLOWABLE WATERSHED IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE, 20% OF THE NET SITE AREA, AND IT LIMITS CONSTRUCTION ON SLOPES, UH, GREATER THAN 15%.

ALRIGHT, SO A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE SITE CONTAINS SLOPES GREATER THAN 15%.

UM, ON THE PROP ON THE PROPERTY, UH, THERE ARE NO CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES, UH, LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY.

UH, NOR ARE THERE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE OR WATER QUALITY TRANSITION ZONE.

THE SITE DOES NOT DRAIN TO ANY OCCUPIED SALAMA HABITAT.

THIS SITE DOES, UM, CONTAIN PREDOMINANTLY UNCONFIRMED HABITAT.

ZONE TWO FOR GOLDEN CHEEK WARBLER HABITAT IN THERE IS A SMALL PORTION OF, IN, UM, THE NORTH, I THINK IT'S THE NORTHERN PART OF THE LOT THAT CONTAINS CONFIRMED HABITAT ZONE ONE FOR THE GOLDEN CHEEK WARBLER HABITAT.

HERE'S JUST A AERIAL MAP SHOWING THE PROPERTY AND YOU CAN SEE THE EXISTING HOME ON THE PROPERTY.

SO THE WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS WASTEWATER SERVICE EXTENSION REQUEST FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS.

THE SITE CONTAINS STEEP TOPOGRAPHY WITH MANY AREAS OF SLOPES GREATER THAN 15%, AND IS THEREFORE SENSITIVE TO IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT.

THE ORIGINAL SUBDIVISION WAS APPROVED PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE SAVE OUR SPRINGS ORDINANCE AND FACILITATING ADDITIONAL DENSITY AND IMPERVIOUS COVER IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD BEYOND WHAT CURRENTLY EXISTS COULD LEAD TO AN OVERALL INCREASE IN NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE SAVE OUR SPRINGS ORDINANCE.

OVER TIME, THE WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT DOES SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT THAT COMPLIES WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS.

AND CURRENTLY THERE ARE NO ASSURANCES THAT THE SITE WILL CONTINUE TO REMAIN IN AUSTIN'S ETJ IN THE FUTURE, IF THE PROPERTY OWNER RELEASES FROM THE CITY'S ETJ AFTER RECEIVING THE SCR, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO DEVELOP WITH FEWER ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS IN PLACE.

AND THIS INCLUDES THE CITY OF AUSTIN, SAVE OUR SPRINGS, UH, IMPERVIOUS CU LIMITS, NONDEGRADATION WATER QUALITY TREATMENT STANDARDS AND SLOPE PROTECTIONS FOUND WITHIN THE WATERSHED PROTECTION ORDINANCE.

UM, I KNOW THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO GIVE A AND WANTS TO GIVE A PRESENTATION.

I BELIEVE WE MAY HAVE A REGISTERED SPEAKER AS WELL, AND THEN I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO THE APPLICANT'S, UH, PRESENTATION.

UH, CAN YOU CHECK TO SEE IF YOUR MICROPHONE'S ON? CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.

MY NAME IS AMANDA BROWN WITH HD BROWN CONSULTING.

I'M GONNA WAIT JUST A MINUTE FOR MY PRESENTATION TO BE PULLED UP.

UM, AS KAYLA HAD MENTIONED, WE'RE HERE FOR A SERVICE EXTENSION REQUEST AT 1107 CASTLE RIDGE ROAD.

THIS IS THE GENERAL LOCATION MAP TO KIND OF GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHERE WE ARE IN THE WORLD.

UM, THIS IS A, A LOCATION, UH, ZOOMED IN MAP TO SHOW WHERE WE ARE.

UM, TWO THINGS I WANNA POINT OUT.

THERE IS AN EXISTING HOUSE ON THE PROPERTY, AND THEN, UM, OUR PROXIMITY TO WHITE MARSH VALLEY TO THE SOUTH.

UM, OUR JURISDICTIONS WERE LOCATED IN THE AUSTIN ETJ.

WE ARE ALSO LOCATED IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN, CCN.

UM, AND ALSO AS KAYLA HAD MENTIONED IN THE BARTON SPRING ZONE AND THE EDWARDS AQUIFER CONTRIBUTING ZONE.

OH, I THINK THERE'S A, YOU'RE MISSING A SLIDE THAT MIGHT BE HIDDEN.

UM, THE IMPERVIOUS COVER ON THE SITE PER THE WATERSHED IS ALLOWED TO BE 20%.

SO BEFORE YOU, WE HAVE SORT OF PLAN A AND PLAN B, UM, THAT WE WANTED TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT TONIGHT.

SO PLAN A IS, UM, ON THE LEFT.

THIS IS OUR IDEAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

IT CONTAINS THREE HOMES.

[00:15:01]

ONCE YOU TAKE INTO THE SLOPES, IT'S AT ABOUT 13%.

UM, FOR, FOR THE SITE, THE PLAN B ON THE RIGHT WOULD BE THE CONCEPT PLAN THAT WE PUT TOGETHER IN THE EVENT THAT WE END UP DOING.

UM, PLAN B, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE TWO HOMES WITH A, UM, WITH, UH, TWO NEW SEPTIC TANKS INSTALLED.

UH, SO PLAN A YOU CAN SEE HAS THREE SMALLER HOMES COMPARED TO PLAN B THAT HAS TWO SMALLER HOMES.

FOR, FOR OUR PURPOSES, PLAN A IS MORE IDEAL JUST GENERALLY FOR A BETTER DEVELOPMENT.

UM, WE FEEL LIKE IT'S MORE ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY, UM, FOR SEVERAL REASONS, PRIMARILY BECAUSE TAPPING INTO THE CITY OF AUSTIN WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE THAT ALREADY EXISTS IN IS ACCESSIBLE TO US, ALLOWS US TO AVOID, UM, PROVIDING, UM, SEPTIC FIELDS INCLUDED IN THAT WE WILL BE PROVIDING ALL THE SAVE OUR SPRINGS, UM, REQUIREMENTS TO THAT ORDINANCE.

ADDITIONALLY, THE THREE SMALLER HOMES COMPARED TO THE TWO LARGER HOMES GIVES US MORE AGILITY TO BE ABLE TO BUILD AROUND THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THAT SITE.

UM, I WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT BOTH OF THESE PLANS MAX OUT THE IMPERVIOUS COVER, UM, FOR ALLOWED FOR THIS AREA.

SO THE PLAN A WITH THE THREE HOMES VERSUS PLAN B WITH THE TWO HOMES, THERE'S REALLY NO DIFFERENCE IN IMPERVIOUS COVER E EITHER WAY.

I WOULD ALSO ADD THAT WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE, WE WILL BE BRINGING THE PROPERTY UP TO SAVE OUR, SAVE OUR SPRINGS ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE AS WELL.

UM, I ALSO WANNA NOTE IN TERMS OF DENSITY, THIS IS A THREE ACRE SITE.

SO WITH THIS NEW PROJECT, IT WILL STILL BE A VERY LOW DENSITY DEVELOPMENT HAVING, UM, ALMOST AN ACRE FOR EACH HOME.

SO THIS IS, UM, THE IMAGE ON THE RIGHT IS THE, UH, SERVICE EXTENSION REQUEST THAT WAS PROVIDED AND IT IS PRELIMINARILY APPROVED BY THE AUSTIN WATER DEPARTMENT.

THEY PROPOSE THAT WE TAKE ACCESS TO THE EXISTING AUSTIN WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE IN WHITE MARSH VALLEY THAT YOU CAN SEE TO THE SOUTH.

UM, THE IMAGE TO THE LEFT IS A, UM, IMAGE OF THE SUBDIVISION TO THE SOUTH THAT SHOWS THAT THERE HAS BEEN A, UM, UH, A PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT THAT'S ALREADY BEEN IN PLACE TO EXTEND THAT LINE TO THE NORTH.

AND AGAIN, WE ARE IN AUSTIN WATER, CCN.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT AUSTIN WATER HAS, UM, INVESTED IN INFRASTRUCTURE AND HAS MADE PLANS TO SERVE ALL THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE CURRENTLY WITHIN THEIR CCN.

UM, NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

UH, THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION, BUT I DID WANNA DO A QUICK NOTE.

UM, IN RESPONSE TO KAYLA'S COMMENTS ABOUT, UM, SENATE BILL 2038, WE HAVE NO INTENT TO DNX OUT OF THE ETJ.

UH, WE TRIED TO WORK CLOSELY WITH STAFF TO FIND A SOLUTION FOR THERE TO BE SOME SORT OF AGREEMENT, UM, FOR US COMMITTING TO THAT ON PAPER.

BUT UNFORTUNATELY, 'CAUSE AS KAYLA HAD MENTIONED, YOU CAN'T CONDITION AN SER.

SO WE COULDN'T LEGALLY FIND A PATH FOR US TO BE ABLE TO COMMIT TO NOT TO, TO NOT DN XING.

I UNDERSTAND THE POSITION THAT THEY'RE IN ON THAT.

UM, BUT AGAIN, I JUST WANTED TO REITERATE, WE, WE ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE SOS ORDINANCE.

WE WANT TO COMPLY WITH IT, AND THAT IS OUR INTENT.

UM, WITH THAT, I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS AND OUR ENGINEER IS HERE AS WELL.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE PRESENTATION.

UH, WE DO HAVE A, UM, A SPEAKER REQUEST.

UH, TANIA KAREEM.

HI, MY NAME IS TANIA KAREEM.

I'M WITH SOS.

UM, THIS IS A STATEMENT FROM BOBBY, I'M SURE HE EMAILED Y'ALL EARLIER.

UH, THE SAVE OUR SPRINGS ALLIANCE IS SUPPORTING WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION TO NOT EXTEND, UM, THE UTILITY SERVICES TO 1107 CASTLE RIDGE ROAD.

WE GREATLY APPRECIATE THE APPLICANT MEETING WITH US AND OFFERING AN AGREEMENT TO ENSURE LONG-TERM COMPLIANCE WITH THE SOS INITIATIVE OR ORDINANCE AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS.

WE GAVE THIS PROPOSAL SERIOUS CONSIDERATION, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, AFTER WEIGHING THE PROS AND CONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE S-C-R-S-O-S CANNOT, UH, FULLY SUPPORT THE EXTENSION IN A MANNER THAT WOULD FUEL SPRAWL.

AND WE WERE UNABLE TO CONSIDER ENTERING INTO SUCH AN AGREEMENT BECAUSE THE EXTENSION OF SERVICES WOULD LEAD TO MORE INTENSIVE DEVELOPMENT THAN WHAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE POSSIBLE ON THE

[00:20:01]

SITE.

THERE WOULD BE A NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IN THE APPROVAL OF THIS SER.

WE ARE ALSO CONSIDER CONCERNED ABOUT SETTING A PRECEDENT THAT COULD LEAD TO THE EXTENSION OF THE LINE TO OTHER SITES IN THE AREA.

WE UNDERSTAND THAT ANNEXATION REMAINS AN OPTION FOR THE BUILDER, UM, WHICH WOULD BOTH GUARANTEE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS ON THE SITE AND, UH, PROVIDE FUTURE BUYERS WITH SERVICE, UH, CITY SERVICES.

SORRY, THIS IS A LITTLE OUTDATED SINCE I JUST WATCHED SHE'S PRESENTATION.

UM, FOR THAT REASON, WE HOPE THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION WILL JOIN WATERSHED PROTECTION IN RECOMMENDING AGAINST THE SER.

THANKS, COMMISSIONER EINHORN.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

UH, LET'S OPEN IT UP TO COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS.

UH, COMMISSIONER RESI.

HEY, Y'ALL APPRECIATE THE PRESENTATION.

NO QUESTIONS FOR ME AT THIS TIME.

COMMISSIONER KRUEGER.

I CAN TRY.

I'M ALSO STILL FORMULATING SOME THOUGHTS.

UM, YEAH, THANK YOU BOTH FOR YOUR PRESENTATIONS.

I WAS WONDERING IF THE STAFF COULD MAYBE TALK ABOUT THE WAYS IN WHICH APPROVING THIS SER WOULD THEN LEAD TO MORE DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE OF THE SOS ORDINANCE, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

IS IT ONCE THE INFRASTRUCTURE'S IN PLACE THAT JUST IS ENCOURAGING MORE DEVELOPMENT IN THIS SECTION THAT ISN'T PROTECTED BY THAT ORDINANCE? YEAH, THAT, THAT IS CORRECT.

UM, YOU KNOW, I I I DEFINITELY SYMPATHIZE WITH THE APPLICANT THERE.

UM, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WANT TO, TO DO THE RIGHT THING HERE, BUT WE'RE STUCK A LITTLE BIT.

UM, THERE IS A LARGER SUBDIVISION, UM, THAT THEY ARE PART OF.

THIS COULD BE SOMETHING THAT, UM, OTHER LAND OWNERS WOULD LIKE TO DO.

IT COULD CAUSE MORE DENSITY, MORE IMPERVIOUS COVER THAN THERE IS TODAY.

IF, YOU KNOW, IF WE GRANT THE SER TODAY, THEN IT WOULD, UM, WE WOULD NEED TO DO THE SAME FOR, UM, OFFER THE SAME, UH, SERVICE TO OTHERS, UH, TO BE, TO BE FAIR.

SO, UM, I, I THINK THAT THAT IS THE ISSUE THAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT.

AND SO IF WE REJECT THIS SER, DOES THAT THEN MEAN, WELL, MAYBE THIS IS A QUESTION FOR THE DEVELOPER THAT THE DEVELOPMENT WOULDN'T HAPPEN OR THAT THEY WOULD THEN TURN TO OSSF OR SOME OF THESE OTHER PATHWAYS FOR WASTEWATER THAT YOU SAID WERE INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE LANDSCAPE? CORRECT.

THAT WOULD RESULT IN PLAN B, WHICH DOES INCLUDE, UM, SEPTIC TANKS AND A POTENTIAL D ANNEXATION OUT OF THE ETJ AS WELL.

SO PLAN A INCLUDES STAYING IN THE ETJ COMPLYING WITH SOS ORDINANCES AND, UM, TYING INTO THE WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE.

SO IT SOUNDS LIKE STAFF CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE DOWNSIDES OF THE DEVELOPER POTENTIALLY DOING AN ONSITE WASTEWATER IS LESS BAD, QUOTE UNQUOTE, ON THE WHOLE THAN LIKE GRANTING THE SER AND THEN ENCOURAGING MORE DEVELOPMENT.

YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT IF THERE WAS A LEGAL WAY TO BIND THE APPLICANT TO THE SOS STANDARDS, THEN WE WOULD BE HAVING A DIFFERENT CONVERSATION AND THEY SEEM WILLING TO DO THAT.

UM, THE WAY THAT WE KNOW WOULD WORK WOULD BE TO BE ANNEXED INTO LIMITED PURPOSE, UH, JURISDICTION.

UM, SO, BUT, BUT BEYOND THAT, THERE ISN'T A WAY FOR US TO BE SURE.

MM-HMM.

, UM, YOU KNOW, IF THEY COULD SELL IT IN THE FUTURE, THEY COULD STILL, UM, REMOVE THEMSELVES RIGHT NOW.

SO I, I DEFINITELY TRUST THEM AND I BELIEVE THAT, THAT THEY'RE ACTING IN GOOD FAITH.

MM-HMM.

BUT HAVING THOSE ASSURANCES IS, UH, DIFFICULT IN THIS SITUATION.

YEAH, I GET, I GET THAT.

YEAR AGO AND IT WOULD'VE ALREADY BEEN COMPLETED.

I'M JUST TRYING TO, TO FULLY UNDERSTAND ALL THE PROS AND CONS HERE AND HOW YOU ALL ARRIVED AT THAT DECISION.

'CAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE, UM, YOU KNOW, THE DEVELOPER PUTTING SOMETHING ON SITE ALSO HAS NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RAMIFICATIONS.

SO I KNOW IT'S A LITTLE BIT, YOU KNOW, NEBULOUS IN TERMS OF WHAT HAPPENS DOWN THE LINE, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ALL WEIGHED ALL THOSE THINGS AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT NOT GRANTING THE SCR IS IN THE BEST OVERALL INTEREST.

I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

COMMISSIONER BRIER, THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATIONS.

I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE, UH, APPLICANT.

UM, SO IF THIS COULD BE SOLVED BY YOU BEING ANNEXED INTO THE LIMITED PURPOSE JURISDICTION, WHY AREN'T WE DOING THAT? UH, YES, GOOD QUESTION.

UM, WE, UH, I HOPE YOU CAN UNDERSTAND.

WE SUBMITTED THIS APPLICATION IN DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR AND HAVE GONE THROUGH A VERY LONG AND RIGOROUS PROCESS TO GET HERE TONIGHT.

UM, THE IDEA OF ANNEXING AND ZONING THE PROPERTY, WHICH WOULD BE ANOTHER POSSIBLY SIX MONTH PROCESS, UM, WAS JUST NOT FEASIBLE FROM A TIMELINE STANDPOINT.

BUT AGAIN, WE, WE, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT THIS PROCESS, YOU COULD HAVE STARTED, YOU KNOW, A

[00:25:01]

SO IT NECESSARILY ISN'T NECESSARILY A SEQUENTIAL EVENT.

IT COULD HAVE BEEN WORKED IN PARALLEL WHEN WE WOULD'VE NOW BEEN HAVING THIS CONVERSATION.

AS LIZ JOHNSON MENTIONED, IT WOULD'VE BEEN DIFFERENT.

YES, I, I UNDERSTAND THAT.

I THINK WE, WHILE EVERYBODY IS KIND OF FIGURING OUT THE IMPACTS OF THIS SENATE BILL 2038, WE WERE NOT MADE AWARE OF THAT OPTION UNTIL THE LAST FEW WEEKS.

WELL, IT SEEMS THAT YOU, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE KIND OF BACKED YOURSELF IN A CORNER HERE, WHICH YOU KNOW, IS UNFORTUNATE.

UM, I HAVE A SEPTIC SYSTEM AND, UH, I HAVE COMPLETE FAITH IN THE STANDARDS AT WHICH IT'S BEEN BUILT AND REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED AND PROPERLY SERVICED.

THEY HAVE A LIFESPAN OF, YOU KNOW, 25 TO 30 YEARS MM-HMM.

IN WHICH CASE THEN THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, ENHANCED OR REPLACED OR WHATEVER THEY DO.

AND I'VE SEEN MY NEIGHBORS HAVE THEM THAT DONE.

SO I HAVE COMPLETE FAITH IN THE ABILITY OF THESE TO BE INSTALLED AND IF PROPERLY MAINTAINED BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT THEY BE ABLE TO SERVE THEIR PURPOSE QUITE WELL.

SO I DON'T HAVE ANY PERSONAL, YOU KNOW, ISSUES ABOUT HAVING A PROPERLY UP TO CODE, UH, YOU KNOW, SEPTIC SYSTEM.

SO, YOU KNOW, THAT TO ME SEEMS TO BE A PERFECTLY REASONABLE SOLUTION.

AND YOU COULD HAVE REQUESTED ANNEXATION AS WELL.

SO, ANYWAY.

COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN.

UM, IS THE CURRENT HOUSE ON SEPTIC? YES.

SECRETARY BRISTOL COMM, COMMISSIONER EINHORNE.

THANKS.

COMMISSIONER NICHOLS.

UH, COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN ACTUALLY JUST ASKED THE QUESTION I WAS VERY CURIOUS ABOUT, SO THANK YOU.

NO QUESTIONS.

UM, LET ME FLIP THE PAGE IN THE, IN THE PRESENTATION THAT WE GOT FROM STAFF.

LOOKS LIKE IT WAS SLIDE 12.

CAN WE PULL THAT UP? STAFF FROM THE STAFF PRESENTATION? YEAH.

A FEW SLIDES MAY HAVE GOTTEN REARRANGED.

IS THAT THE, THE, UM, THAT'S THE MAP WITH THE, WITH THE LOST, UH, HILLS OF LOST CREEK.

THAT'S SLIDE 13.

AND I SPECIFICALLY WANNA ASK SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT LOST CREEK 'CAUSE I KNOW TOO MUCH ABOUT THIS FROM MY PROFESSIONAL LIFE.

UNFORTUNATELY, I WORK IN THE CAPITAL.

SO, UM, LOSS CREEK IS GOING TO BE THIS ANNEX RIGHT.

THAT IS HAPPENING.

DO THE, UH, UM, DO THEY FURTHER DESIRE TO BE REMOVED FROM THE ETJ AS WELL? HAVE THEY, HAVE THEY COMMUNICATED THAT TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN? NOT THAT I AM AWARE OF.

IT'S A TRICK QUESTION.

THEY DO.

SORRY, , THAT WOULD BE ANNEXATION, BUT AS I UNDERSTAND IT, NO, THEY, THEY HAVE TO FURTHER ANOTHER, IT'S ANOTHER STEP.

SO WHAT'S THE STATUS OF THE STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND LOST CREEK? THERE'S A, THERE WAS A STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT THAT LED TO THEIR ANNEXATION, RIGHT? AND IT'S STILL IN PLACE.

IS IT NOT? I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO THAT.

I THINK WE WOULD NEED SOMEBODY FROM LAW.

OR FROM PLANNING IT.

IT IS, AND IT PREVENTS THEM FROM BEING RELEASED FROM THE ETJ, BUT THEY'RE IN THE ACTIVE PROCESS OF TRYING TO GET THAT TO GO AWAY IN THE BUILDING THAT I WORK IN.

SO, UM, IF LOSS CREEK, WHEN LOSS CREEK DIS ANNEXES, THIS PARCEL WILL NO LONGER BE CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN.

CAN IT THEN? I MEAN, ISN'T LIMITED PURPOSE ANNEXATION OUT THE WINDOW BECAUSE OF, OF CON IDEALLY, I THINK THAT IT, IT WOULD BE BETTER TO BE CONTIGUOUS.

I DON'T THINK IT IS REQUIREMENT.

UM, I THOUGHT ANNEX PORTIONS OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN WERE REQUIRED TO BE CONTIGUOUS TO IN COURT WORDED LIMIT.

WE WOULD NEED OUR STAFF FROM PLANNING.

BUT THE LAST I HEARD WAS THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE OKAY.

I, I FEEL BAD FOR THE DEVELOPER 'CAUSE I AM MINDFUL THAT THIS IS NOT A GREAT LOCATION FOR SEPTIC.

UM, THERE ARE ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGES, UH, AND, AND I WANT TO TAKE THE DEVELOPER AT FACE VALUE THAT THEY WANT TO DO THE RIGHT THING.

BUT THERE ARE TOO MANY DEVELOPERS THAT DO NOT WANT TO DO THE RIGHT THING TOO CONSISTENTLY.

SO THAT'S ALL I GOT TO SAY.

UM, IT IS IMPORTANT TO KEEP THAT CONSIDERATION IN MIND.

MAY I RESPOND REAL QUICK? JUST ONE THING JUST TO KEEP IN MIND, JUST ADDS LIKE, ANOTHER LAYER OF COMPLICATION TO SER IS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT IS NOT TIED TO THE SURFACE EXTENSION REQUEST.

IT'S JUST THE NUMBER OF, UH, LUESS.

SO, UM, ALTHOUGH WE DO REVIEW IT AND WE TRY TO REVIEW AS MUCH INFORMATION, UM, SO THAT WE CAN, YOU KNOW, COME TO A, A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION,

[00:30:01]

UM, AND, AND WE HAVE FAITH THAT THE APPLICANT IS, YOU KNOW, DOING WHAT THEY SAY THEY'RE PLANNING TO DO.

BUT AGAIN, IT IS JUST SOMETHING THAT JUST ADDS ANOTHER LAYER OF COMPLEXITY TO THESE SECRETARY BRISTOL.

THIS ONE'S TRICKY.

UM, THERE'S, THERE'S GOOD AND BAD.

UM, SO I DO AGREE, UH, WITH COMMISSIONER EINHORN, UM, THAT SEPTIC IS, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT IT'S PROBLEMATIC IN, IN THESE AREAS.

UM, HAVING A MOTHER WHO IS A COUNTY COMMISSIONER FOREVER AND SPENT, UM, A LOT OF TIME, UH, WORKING ON, UM, LEAKING SEPTICS, UM, IN THIS AREA, UM, IN, IN PARTICULAR.

SO, UM, ESPECIALLY GETTING THOSE CLEANED UP TO BE COMPLIANT WITH SOS, UM, MANY, MANY YEARS AGO.

SO, UM, IT'S DIFFICULT.

IT'S ROCKY, YOU KNOW, UM, THOSE KIND OF THINGS.

ON THE OTHER SIDE, AS A TAXPAYER, UH, IT IS OFFENSIVE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE, WE SPEND ALL THIS MONEY, WE SPEND ALL THIS TIME, UM, LOSS CREEK.

I'M, I'M TALKING TO YOU.

IF YOU'RE OUT THERE LISTENING, UM, YOU KNOW, TO PUT IN WASTEWATER WATER, YOU KNOW, ALL THESE SERVICES, AND THEN THEY LEAVE, THEY GET WHAT THEY WANT AND THEN THEY LEAVE.

THAT'S REALLY PROBLEMATIC FOR ME.

UM, AND IN MANY, MANY WAYS, ESPECIALLY AGAIN, AS A TAXPAYER AND A CITIZEN OF, OF, UH, YOU KNOW, THIS GREAT CITY, UM, THERE WAS INTENTION WITH ANNEXATION.

THERE WAS INTENTION WITH, UM, YOU KNOW, THESE, UM, YOU KNOW, THESE, UH, JURISDICTIONS.

SO, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE HAVING THAT UNDONE BEFORE US.

AND THAT'S NO ONE'S FAULT IN THIS ROOM AT ALL.

NO ONE, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS DECIDED WELL OUTSIDE OF, UM, THESE, THE, THIS ROOM SO THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT COMPOUNDS, UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE THINK HERE, IF I DISLODGE THAT FROM MY MIND AND THINK ABOUT THIS PROJECT, UM, WITHOUT THAT, UM, I ENVIRONMENTALLY, I, I DON'T HAVE TOO MANY PROBLEMS WITH IT.

IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THERE'S A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES ON THERE.

IT IS IN THE WASTEWATER.

I MEAN, IT IS IN THE, YOU KNOW, BARTON CREEK ZONE.

IT'S, IT'S REALLY OVER ALL OF THE IMPORTANT WATER ZONES.

I MEAN, IT'S, IT REALLY HITS THEM ALL.

UM, AND, YOU KNOW, UM, ADDING DENSITY IN THAT TYPE OF AREA IS, IS TRICKY.

BUT, YOU KNOW, IT IS A THREE ACRE PROPERTY.

SO, UM, I, I AM ALMOST OF THE MIND OF SAYING IF YOU HAD MORE TIME, UM, WOULD YOU, WOULD YOU PUR PURSUE THE ANNEXATION? LIKE IF YOU HAD MORE TIME? I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.

THEIR FINANCES, YOU KNOW, THESE ARE ALL THINGS THAT ARE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF US AS A COMMISSION TO FIGURE OUT.

I'M SORRY.

SO COMMISSIONER BRIER, UM, DO YOU FEEL LIKE THAT, UM, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT YOU MIGHT WANNA TABLE TO SEE IF THERE IS MORE TIME? WELL, GETTING BACK TO A POINT YOU MADE, UH, ABOUT THE CITY SPENDING, YOU KNOW, INVESTING AND THEN GRANTED THE DEVELOPER WILL PAY FOR THE INSTALLATION OF ALL THE STUFF THE CITY IS THEN RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING IT GOING FORWARD.

SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE GET OFF SCOT FREE GOING FORWARD, THE CITIZEN, EXCEPT FOR ALL OF THE STAFF TIME THAT IT TAKES TO DO ALL THIS, WHATEVER.

BUT, UH, SO MY TAX MONEY GOES TO SUPPORT SOMETHING THAT'S OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS THAT THEY DON'T PAY ANYTHING FOR, YOU KNOW, GOING FORWARD TO A GREAT DEAL.

SO I KIND OF FEEL LIKE YOU DO THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE TAKING THE CITIZENS OF AUSTIN FOR A RIDE AND THEN DOING THAT.

NOW, I KNOW THERE'S ALWAYS PROBLEMS WITH LEAKING SEPTIC SYSTEMS, BUT THESE ARE BRAND NEW HOUSES AND, UH, THE ODDS OF THIS HAVING A LEAKING SEPTIC SYSTEM IN THE NEXT 25 OR 30 YEARS ARE PRETTY SLIM.

SO I DON'T SEE THIS BEING A TERRIBLY LARGE RISK AT THIS TIME.

AND, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE TRAVIS COUNTY REGULATIONS AS FAR AS INSPECTIONS AND THAT SORT OF THING, BUT WHERE I HAVE A SEPTIC SYSTEM, THERE'S VERY STRINGENT INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS BY THE STATE AND THE TOWN AND EVERYTHING ELSE.

AND SO THESE ARE MINIMAL PROBLEMS THAT I CAN SEE THAT CAN BE MANAGED.

SO THERE'S A, YOU KNOW, SO THAT'S, THOSE ARE THE WAY I FEEL AS FAR AS THEM COMING BACK.

THEY SHOULD HAVE EXAMINED STATE LAW, YOU KNOW, PRIOR TO GETTING INVOLVED WITH THIS SIX MONTHS AGO, TABLING IT FOR SIX MONTHS.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR TIMELINE IS,

[00:35:01]

WE'RE NOT HERE TO DO THAT.

WE HAVE TO VOTE TODAY ON THE PRESENTATION THEY'VE MADE, YOU KNOW, AND IF WE WERE TO TABLE IT, THAT MIGHT NOT FIT INTO THEIR THING.

AND THEN IT WOULD SEND A MIXED SIGNAL TO WHOEVER'S DOWN THE LINE FROM US AS TO WHAT OUR INTENTIONS ARE.

NOW AT OUR LAST MEETING, WE DISCUSSED ABOUT HOW WE CAN PHRASE A DENIAL OR APPROVAL OR SOMETHING IN A MORE TACT MANNER TO PASS OUR INTENTIONS FURTHER DOWN THE LINE.

AND THAT MIGHT BE ONE WAY TO DO IT.

THERE IS, BUT REMEMBER, THAT'S NOT WITHIN AN SEO.

WE CAN DO WHAT THIS, I UNDERSTAND.

BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SURE TABLING IS GONNA CHANGE MY MIND.

IN FACT, YOU KNOW, ON THE BASIS OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP, YOU KNOW, THE COST OF THE CITIZENS, THE FACT THAT THERE IS A SUITABLE ALTERNATIVE.

THESE ARE NEW HOUSES, THESE ARE NOT EXISTING HOUSES WITH FAILING SEPTIC SYSTEMS THAT WE HAVE TO SAVE BY PUTTING IN.

UH, YOU KNOW, THIS, IF IF THESE WERE, YOU KNOW, HOUSES THAT WERE BEING A RENOVATION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, AND THEY WERE 30 YEARS OLD AND THE SEPTIC SYSTEM WAS IN DANGER OF FAILING, MY THOUGHTS MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.

BUT THIS IS NOT THE CASE AS PRESENTED.

THANKS.

I JUST WANTED TO CHECK WITH YOU.

THAT, NO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM ME.

UM, I SHARE THE SAME SENTIMENTS OF THE, OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, UM, WITH THE UNCERTAINTY OF WHAT MAY HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE.

SO LET'S, UM, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION COMMISSIONERS? OKAY.

UM, I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SECOND.

SECONDED BY EINHORN.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HANDS.

AND IT'S, UH, ARE YOU VOTING PRIMER IN FAVOR OF THIS? UH, NO.

IN FAVOR OF CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I'LL .

I HAD TOO MANY OF .

NO, TOO ABOUT CAFFEINE.

NO WORRIES.