See a fish or wildlife kill? Suspect a pollution event? Call Texas Parks & Wildlife Kills and Spills Team

https://tpwd.texas.gov/landwater/water/environconcerns/kills_and_spills/index.phtml

Kills and Spills Team

If you see a fish or wildlife kill or suspect a pollution event:

Call (512) 389-4848 or contact your regional Kills and Spills Team biologist.

Prompt notification is key to a successful investigation. The sooner we arrive, the better the chances that our biologists will be able to collect useful evidence.

What does KAST do?

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Kills and Spills Team (KAST) is a group of biologists who investigate fish and wildlife kills resulting from pollution and natural events. KAST staff are trained to assess impacts to fish and wildlife resources and to determine the causes of events.

Reporting a Kill or Spill

If possible, make a note of the following:

Location, date and time
Water color, clarity and any odor
Number, size and species of affected organisms
Recent weather
Condition and behavior of animals or organisms
Are plants or other organisms affected?

Living near a creek affected by the “White Water Event” on May 14, 2019? Please read

Dear neighbors of northern Hays County,

If you live, work, own property along a creek that may have been affected by the “white water event” of May 14, 2019, and believe you/your property may be affected by this event, and if you have taken pictures of the water in your section of the affected creek, of dead animals, plants, or insects in the water, and/or how the water has affected your well or your property, please email those pictures to:

[email protected]

with your address, phone number, location of the photo(s) taken, date of photo(s) taken, and your concerns.

Thank you in advance,

Friendship Alliance

Definition of Dewatering, etc.

https://www.thebalancesmb.com/what-is-dewatering-844520

Dewatering Techniques and Solutions for Construction Projects

Dewatering and construction dewatering are terms used to describe the action of removing groundwater or surface water from a construction site. Normally the dewatering process is done by pumping or evaporation and is usually done before excavation for footings or to lower water table that might be causing problems during excavations. Dewatering can also refer to the process of removing water from the soil by wet classification. The right dewatering plan can be used to be in compliance with some of the Best Management Practices related to the SWPP [Stormwater Pollution Prevention] plan.

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/permitting/wastewater/general

Available Water Quality General Permits

The discharge of wastewater and certain types of stormwater into or adjacent to water in the state (HTML) must be authorized by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). This authorization may come in the form of an individual discharge permit or a general permit. Seeking authorization under a general permit is generally less time-consuming than authorization under an individual permit and usually requires fewer resources.

The status of general permits that are being renewed or amended will be discussed at quarterly Water Quality Advisory Workgroup meetings, which are open to the public.

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/remediation/iop/iop.html

Innocent Owner/Operator Program (IOP)

The Texas IOP provides a certificate to an innocent owner or operator

Overview

The Texas IOP, created by House Bill 2776 of the 75th Legislature, provides a certificate to an innocent owner or operator if their property is contaminated as a result of a release or migration of contaminants from a source or sources not located on the property, and they did not cause or contribute to the source or sources of contamination. Like the Texas Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP), the IOP can be used as a redevelopment tool and as a tool to add value to a contaminated property by providing an Innocent Owner/Operator Certificate (IOC). However, unlike the VCP release of liability, the liability immunity acknowledged in IOCs does not cover future owners/operators. Future owners or operators are eligible to enter the IOP and may, if otherwise qualified, receive an IOC, but only after they become an owner or operator of the site.

Regulations

State laws associated with the IOP program are located in the Health and Safety Code 361.751-361.754.

State rules associated with the IOP program are located in the Texas Administrative Code 30 TAC 333.31-333.43.

Petition: Designate Texas Ranch-to-Market Roads 1826, 150 and 967 “Scenic Highways”

Here’s what our petition says:

From the wildflowers that Lady Bird Johnson adored, to the dramatic rise and fall of tree-covered limestone hills in the Texas Hill Country, our country roads are a treasure. Texas Ranch to Market Roads 1826, 150 and 967 reward travelers with natural vistas, cool clear creeks, and wide open skies filled with stars, sunrises, and sunsets every day.
We the undersigned want to keep the Texas Hill Country SCENIC.
Central Texas is experiencing explosive growth. Data from The U.S. Census Bureau shows Hays County is the 4th fastest-growing county in the United States (see https://communityimpact.com/austin/san-marcos-buda-kyle/city-county/2018/03/22/hays-county-ranked-4th-fastest-growing-county-country/ ).
The increase in the number of motorists along our Ranch to Market roads has triggered a proliferation of billboards on our roads. Billboards are not mere eyesores: their lighting endangers human health and pollutes the night skies that are iconic to this region of Texas.
Further, healthy Texans are productive Texans. We need our nighttime dark. Light pollution has a direct negative bearing on human health and circadian rhythms:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2627884/
Artificial lights at night don’t just affect people. Wildlife is also affected negatively, with impacts on migration and reproduction:
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/full/10.1139/er-2014-0005#.XFxfwdFJnwc
Last but not least, billboards may have a negative impact on property values of nearby homes and neighborhoods.
For these reasons, we ask the Texas Legislature to acknowledge the value of these roads we love by designating Texas Ranch to Market Roads 1826, 150 and 967 as “Scenic Highways” in Hays County.
We ask the 86th Legislature to help preserve the scenic beauty and character of Ranch to Market Roads 1826, 150 and 967 by supporting legislation that keeps the beauty of the Texas Hill Country intact.
The stars at night are big and bright, deep in the heart of Texas.
May they be so, forever.

If you agree, please sign our petition here:

https://www.change.org/p/texas-house-representative-erin-zwiener-district-45-designate-texas-ranch-to-market-roads-1826-150-and-967-scenic-highways

North Rutherford Development: ~1100+ houses proposed for 781 acres in the recharge zone

Meeting to discuss North Rutherford Development Project
Thursday, April 19, 7:00pm
Southern Hills Church of Christ
3740 RR 967
Buda, TX 78610

Organizer: Jeannine Inbody <[email protected]>

From our northern Hays County neighbor Ryan Krause:

And from our northern Hays County neighbor Mark Strauss re: this same project, a petition:

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/rutherford-ranch-north?source=s.fwd&r_by=20000074

Notice of Proposed Rutherford North Development Agreement
A Concept Plan Presentation will be made by the Rutherford North Owner’s Representative during the April 24, 2018 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting at 6:30pm at City Hall located at 511 Mercer Street, Dripping Springs, Texas 78620. A Public Hearing will follow the presentation, during which time all interested persons have the opportunity to be heard regarding the proposed Rutherford North Development Agreement. No action will be taken during this meeting. The subject property is approximately 781.23 acres of land located southeast of the city limits in the City’s extraterritorial jurisdiction, north RR 967 and west of Oak Forest Drive.
The proposed development will be a master-planned residential community with open space and environmental preservation areas. The proposed Development Agreement will include several provisions, including but not limited to the following: provision of housing; provision of parks, open space, and recreation; environmental and water quality protection; maximum density and impervious cover; outdoor lighting; and signage. The proposed project includes, but is not limited to, the following proposed variances/alternative standards: building setbacks; maximum impervious cover; lot widths and depths; minimum lot area; sidewalks; street standards; and cuts and fills.
The draft Development Agreement is available for public inspection during regular business hours at City Hall. If you have any questions or comments, please contact City Hall in writing at P.O. Box 384, Dripping Springs, TX 78620, by telephone at (512) 858-4725, or by email to [email protected].

Three tracts combine to form the proposed project site, all of it sited in the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone.

Additional documentation:
NorthRutherford_300ftbuffer_map+City_notificationletter RutherfordRanch_DevelopmtAgreemt_PublicCopyDRAFT

Letter to Dripping Springs Mayor and Assistant City Attorney, March 9, 2017

March 9, 2017

City of Dripping Springs City Council Honorable Mayor Todd Purcell
511 Mercer St,
Dripping Springs, Texas 78620

c/o
Ms. Laura Mueller
Attorney at Law
Assistant City Attorney
City of Dripping Springs
511 Mercer St,
Dripping Springs, Texas 78620

Re: Site Development Permit – Mark Black Wedding Venue

Dear Mayor Purcell:

I write on behalf of The Friendship Alliance in connection with the City of Dripping Springs’ consideration of a pending site development plan application for the Mark Black Wedding Venue. The application proposes construction of two buildings for events, a front office and commercial kitchen with associated parking, sidewalk, septic system, private well water, and utilities located at Concord Circle, Driftwood, Texas.

The proposed site is located within the sensitive Edwards Aquifer recharge and contributing zones. Strict compliance with applicable water quality ordinances is required.

For all of the reasons stated below – and as presented to the City Council in writing at the public meeting on February 20, 2018, and later on March 2, 2018, and previously by way of a series of presentations and expert reports

(See Reports of Brian Dudley, P.E., Lauren Ross, Ph.D., P.E., and Jeff Kessel, P.E. The Friendship Alliance hereby incorporates by reference all its written submissions, presentations, and expert reports – and analyses of those reports – previously submitted to the City of Dripping Springs.)

– the issuance of a site development permit for the Mark Black Wedding Venue should be denied because such action will result in at least five if not more distinct violations of the Water Quality Protection Ordinance, and other laws, as follows.

1. Issuance of a permit will result in a prohibited material increase in storm water runoff into creeks and neighboring lands in violation of Water Quality Protection Ordinance Sec. 22.05.023;

2. Issuance of a permit will result in a prohibited material increase of pollutants into creeks in violation of Water Quality Protection Ordinance Sec. 22.05.015(c);

3. Issuance of a permit will result in a prohibited runoff from roads and parking lots into the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone of in violation of Water Quality Protection Ordinance Sec. 22.05.019(a);

4. Issuance of a permit will result in a prohibited construction of impervious cover downstream of water quality controls in violation of Water Quality Protection Ordinance Sec. 22.05.017, and;

5. Issuance of a permit will result in a prohibited failure to analyze phosphorous and oil and grease pollution in violation of Water Quality Protection Ordinance Sec. 22.005(c) (3).

In addition, required certifications for applications to governmental authorities by the Mark Black Wedding Venue are inconsistent and violate city and county ordinances as well as state law. Specifically, project plans approved by Hays County for the construction of the On- Site Sewage Facilities System (OSSF), including the site collection system, are inconsistent with the OSSF previously acted upon by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Edward’s Aquifer Group.

For example, the design set filed with the City of Dripping Springs and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality is believed to identify totally different sewage collection systems than the system actually approved for construction by Hays County. The defect is fatal to the applicant’s position because the sewage collection system, as approved by Hays County, requires the applicant to develop an Organized Sewage Collection System Plan (OSCS) in compliance with Chapter 26 of Texas Water Code and 30 TAC 213 and 217, and applicable regulations, and submit such plan to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality for approval.

The applicant has also declined to address material unexplained discrepancies in the volume of water to be used and disposed of by the facilities. These discrepancies are evident in project plans and applications submitted to Hays County, Hays Trinity Groundwater Conservation District (HTGCD), the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, and the City of Dripping Springs.

Estimates of water required, as specified in the HTGCD application – and the water usage and disposal rates in the Hays County OSSF application – are completely contradictory. The basis calculations specified are inconsistent. Assumption of domestic sewage rates do not include a demonstration or required basis for values provided for the proposed commercial kitchen. Moreover, no calculations are provided for estimating the Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) load to the domestic treatment system included with the plan set from the wedding venues or the commercial kitchen.

These material deficiencies should be considered in the context of other troubling violations. For example, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that it obtained a permit necessary to a “taking” of an endangered species in the designated habitat of the proposed development.

According to Texas Parks & Wildlife, the proposed development lies well within the habitat of the endangered Golden-cheeked warbler (GCW). However, to the best of our knowledge at this time, the applicant has not demonstrated the required permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Nor has the applicant addressed the fact that bulldozing, construction, development, amplified noise, and loud parties typically contribute to a finding of a “taking”2 under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Activities within the habitat of the GCW, including activity that may disturb its habitat, are prohibited during the nesting season of March 1 through September 1. The Code of Ordinances requires proper collateral permitting prior to issuance of a site development permit.

2 The term “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Moreover, the term “harm” may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering.

Apart from the serious deficiencies addressed above, please also respectfully accept this objection to the City’s decision to disallow a public hearing related to the completely new site development plan and design filed by the applicant after the February 20th public hearing.

Indeed, it was only recently discovered that the City Engineer privately informed the applicant before the February 20th public hearing of a request to defer City action on the application until March 13, 2018. The City Council – without informing the public on February 20th of the City Engineer’s request – granted it with the notation that no public hearing would occur on March 13th. By implication, the result is that continued material deficiencies and ordinance violations will not be addressed in a public hearing.

Unfortunately, the City’s position today is that it never needed to grant a public hearing in the first place on an application for site development permit, and that with respect to the proposed ordinance violations reported by the Friendship Alliance, the City can now decide not to allow resolution of continuing violations and engineering deficiencies in a public hearing.

Finally, the City also inexplicably extended the deadline it imposed on the applicant at the public hearing on February 20, 2018. At that time, the City – in response to numerous potential violations of ordinances – imposed a new deadline on the applicant to file a new, most- hearing site development design and engineering report. On the record, the City directed The Friendship Alliance to file a written response to the new report no later than the close of business on March 2, 2018. As we now know, the applicant effectively ignored the City’s request by filing a new report that failed to address any of the City Engineer’s questions.

On March 8, 2018, however, nearly a full week after The Friendship Alliance’s response was timely filed identifying these continued violations, the City inexplicably allowed the applicant to file additional expert reports after the deadline passed, all while insisting – in a significant change of the protocol announced on February 20th – that the Friendship Alliance would have only twenty-four hours to respond.

Such procedural irregularities – including ‘hopscotching’ from public hearings to nonpublic hearings with the result that important comments regarding potential violations of ordinances cannot be lodged – seriously interfere with the fair and proper application of the site development plan permitting process.

Respectfully, The Friendship Alliance reiterates its previous request for a public hearing on March 13th regarding issues of the City’s compliance or lack thereof with its ordinances.

For all of the reasons stated above, and pursuant Sec. 28.04.011 of the City of Dripping Springs Code of Ordinances, the application for a site development permit should be denied without leave for further continued opportunities to amend.

Thank you for your attention to this letter.

Sincerely,
RICHARDSON + BURGESS LLP

By: James M. Richardson

Commit now to safe roads, safe neighborhoods

From:
Carlos Torres-Verdin
President, Friendship Alliance

To:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Dear Mayor Todd Purcell,
Dear Mayor Pro Tem Bill Foulds,
Dear City Council Member Taline Manassian,
Dear City Council Member Travis Crow,
Dear City Council Member Wade King,
Dear City Council Member John Kroll,

Regarding: Mark Black Wedding Venue

PLEASE WATCH THIS 15-minute VIDEO!

On Saturday, March 3, 2018, at 3 PM, Friendship Alliance (FA) conducted an organized live traffic study to assess the effects of vehicular traffic on Crystal Hills Dr. expected from the operation of the Mark Black Wedding Venue (MBWV). The study was conducted with 78 vehicles, which would correspond to approximately 50% and 25% of the vehicular traffic expected from the operation of 1 and 2 of the venues projected for the MBWV, respectively, without taking into account additional traffic due to vehicles to be used by staff, caterers, musicians, and other venue operators, competing weddings held at the Wizard Academy, or circumstances requiring.

https://youtu.be/Nc8oJJ-94sg

Previously, in January, 2018, we conducted a formal traffic impact analysis based on road counts over a 5-day period. Results from this January study are here.

However, the live traffic study serves for the important purpose of visualizing a partial projected impact of vehicular traffic on Crystal Hills Dr and confirms professional findings from the January, 2018 study.

Please take a look at the video and judge the traffic impact of the MBWV with your own eyes! Seeing is believing beyond the calculations.

What you see on the video should be multiplied by at least a factor of 2 to visualize what Crystal Hills Dr. would be like with the operation of one single wedding venue at the MBWV. Multiply that by 4 and then you can visualize the effect of two wedding venues in simultaneous operation (actually, a factor of 4 is a very conservative estimate because of the “choke” effect at FM 1826).

Some important observations:

Current time of travel from the MBWV entrance to FM 1826 is approximately 2 minutes without venue operations.
Average travel time with one venue in operation = approximately 10 minutes.
Average travel time with two venues in operation = approximately 20 minutes.
These times are conservative estimates during the time window when MBWV clients will be entering and exiting the venue.

What does it mean to anyone driving on Crystal Hills Dr during Fridays or weekends?

(1) You will be significantly delayed if you happen to drive during the time windows of ingress and egress of invitees of the MBWV.
(2) The safety of Crystal Hills Dr. will be significantly degraded because of the excess vehicular traffic during ingress and egress of clients of the MBWV. The video shows that sharp curves and blind curves become alarmingly unsafe with the excess vehicular traffic.
(3) The traffic already generated by Wizard Academy compounds the safety problems because of the narrow and sharp ingress and egress of cars into that facility. The possibility of MBWV clients egressing under the influence of alcohol consumption compounds the problems even more.
(4) You won’t be able to walk, jog, or bicycle on Crystal Hills Dr. during ingress or egress of clients of the MBWV because of the deteriorated road safety conditions.
(5) The intersection of Crystal Hills Dr. and FM 1826 will become a serious “choke” point that will also affect residents of Rim Rock.
(6) You will not be able to safely evacuate in the event of fire because Crystal Hills Rd. will become a long, static parking lot with the traffic generated by guests of the MBWV and neighbors attempting to evacuate.

What are the solutions to the above problems?

(1) Reduce the size of the MBWV so that Crystal Hills Dr. is safe to drive during ingress and egress of their invitees with the current road conditions.
(2) Improve and widen Crystal Hills Dr. before the MBWV starts its operations. However, this will only be a partial solution because of the “choke” point at FM 1826.
(3) Widen and improve the bridge on Crystal Hills Dr. at the intersection of FM 1826 before the MBWV starts operations. The northbound turn into Crystal Hills Dr. is too sharp and becomes too dangerous with the excess vehicular traffic.
(4) Place a traffic light at the intersection of Crystal Hills Dr. and FM 1826 to partially alleviate the “choke” traffic point at that intersection.

Conclusion

It is highly irresponsible to allow operations of the MBWV with the current design of Crystal Hills Dr. The MBWV needs to be resized to be consistent with the level of service and safety standards of Crystal Hills Dr. Business operations of the MBWV should not start until Crystal Hills Dr. is safe and enables expedient evacuation of neighbors and MBWV guests in the event of fire. Who will be responsible and accountable for accidents and loss of life if the current design of the MBWV is approved by the City of Dripping Springs, by Hays County, and by the State of Texas?

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all the neighbors who participated in the live traffic study; they made a great difference in perception. Mike Dunmire and Carlos Torres-Verdin coordinated the preparation and execution of the live traffic study. Laurel Treviño organized and tabulated the times of travel submitted by most of the drivers in the study and measured the baseline times used in the calculations. Thanks to all!

Open letter to City of Dripping Springs Mayor and City Council, March 6, 2018

To: [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Dear Mayor Purcell,
Mayor Pro Tem Bill Foulds,
and Councilmembers Manassian, Crow, King and Kroll,

We are concerned about the many issues still to be resolved re the Mark Black Wedding Venue (MBWV) project. Namely:

Project plans most recently resubmitted by the Applicant to the City still do not address previously noted water quality ordinance violations. Recognized, professional engineering experts engaged by Friendship Alliance (FA) have shown that the water drainage/water treatment design of the MBWV continues to violate City ordinances and engineering design code adopted by the City itself. The City is compelled to comply with its own codes and ordinances, even if there is the threat of possible lawsuits by the applicant. The City should deny the Applicant its development permit because the latter has consistently submitted deficient engineering design and has not provided sufficient evidence of calculations and methods.
The Applicant did not adequately respond to technical comments requested by the City and stemming from the technical objections raised by Friendship Alliance on February 20.
The City Council should inform FA of any feedback given to the mayor and councilmembers by the City Engineer concerning the FA technical/engineering comments, in the same way the City informs the Applicant of comments received by FA. This communication should take place well before the City Council meeting on March 13, 2018.
The City Council should allow public comments about the MBWV on March 13, 2018 because the Applicant has systematically failed to abide by city ordinances and professional engineering code. As long as unresolved issues continue to be unaddressed, the public and especially all affected residents should be allowed to freely express their views about the design of the MBWV and its impact on the neighborhoods and the neighbors who live there now, some of whom have lived in for up to 35 years.
The City Council should allow public comments on March 13 about the MBWV by the recognized professional engineering experts who provided their feedback to FA.
Health and safety issues re emergency egress on an inadequate road as shown by FA’s traffic engineer expert have yet to be resolved by the Applicant.
The size (600-guest total capacity) and design of the MBWV are not consistent with Crystal Hills Drive and the spiritual makeup of the surrounding existing neighborhoods.
The Applicant has not made any written commitments / concessions to neighbors concerns, despite the fact that his project will overload Crystal Hills Drive beyond accepted levels of vehicular traffic service, will impair any fire evacuation efforts, and will forever disrupt the peaceful and spiritual communities around his property.

Mark Black Wedding Venue/Engineering and Code/Ordinance Review, March 2, 2018

City of Dripping Springs City Council
511 Mercer Street
Dripping Springs, Texas 78620

Dear Honorable Mayor Todd Purcell:

The three engineers previously engaged by The Friendship Alliance (FA) for this project have reviewed the Mark Black Wedding Venue (MBWV) design documents submitted with a letter from Kimley-Horn dated February 19, 2018. These documents were produced by the applicant in response to the February 12, 2018 letter from Dripping Springs’s (DS) City Engineer, Mr. Chad Gilpin, which included five “specific items that are being requested by the City to be included in the Site Development Plan Set and/or Engineering Report to address the FA letters”. Four reports from FA engineers were also referenced, which were provided to Kimley-Horn by the City.

The FA engineers (Brian Dudley, P.E., Lauren Ross, PhD, P.E., and Jeff Kessel, P.E.) have determined that the newly produced Kimley-Horn materials are unresponsive to the City Engineer’s letter and the other engineering review reports referenced therein. The deficiencies that remain in the Site Plan are summarized below in the order of the comments contained in the City Engineer’s letter, dated February 19, 2018. Additional details are provided in the attached FA engineers’ reports. The project remains materially out of compliance with the City ordinance provisions listed at the end of this letter.

Items requested by the City are listed below and followed by our summary review comments:

Final design for Curb Inlet/Bay‐Filter system that you volunteered to add to address a specific FA concern. Basic design was previously shown in supplemental data.

Sheet 41: Curbs adjacent to inlets need to be labeled and the drainage area serving the curb inlets needs to be correctly delineated (including the handicapped parking area downgrade from BF-1 and the roadway containing a ditchline downgrade from BF-2).

In reviewing the Bay Filter performance tables on Sheets 37, 38 and 43 (2 places), the TSS results are different in every one of the tables. Also when compared to the 12/18/2017 Plan set, the same areas, IC and results show up in the various tables. The filter system has not been redesigned even though K-H said that BF-2 would have to be “upsized” with the added curb inlets (2/12/18 letter). Also, nowhere do we find any required stormwater storage calculations that are discussed in the Guidance Manual Appendix that was part of K-H’s resubmittal. Thus, the added curb inlet system has not been engineered as proposed by K-H or as required by the WQP ordinance.

Other deficiencies are listed in both Dr. Ross’ attached letter and her February 17 letter. These have not been addressed by the resubmittal and additional engineering is necessary for compliance with City of DS’s Ordinance.

Clarification of the pollutant load removal efficiency of the Bay Filter units you are proposing.

The Technical Guidance Manual that was provided details design and calculation methods including pretreatment, bypass, stormwater storage and filtration. The Application does not contain complete calculations and the design features described in this manual. See also comment in No 1 above. Information on the Flexstorm product was included, but it is not apparent how this project may use this product. Dr. Ross’ attached letter further describes limitations of some of the provided resources.

Oil/Grease and Phosphorus removal back up calculations including VFS areas per BMP sub-basin.

Dr. Ross’ attached letter lists a number of factors that have not been properly considered or designed which result in the project failing to meet the 90% removal of the increase in Total Suspended Solids and Total Phosphorous.

Existing vs Proposed condition hydrograph(s) to clarify your statement of “no increased flow resulting from proposed conditions”. In addition, provide discussion elaborating on the “improved conditions of site vegetation” after development and resulting curve numbers.

The Engineer’s selected points of analysis (along the downstream creek channel) are too far from the drainage systems that would be most affected by the proposed development. In particular, the drainage channel immediately below the developed Venue A site will be subject to larger volumes of runoff, over longer flow durations as a consequence of the added impervious cover. The City’s water quality code (22.05.019 (e) is written to protect these on-site drainage ways from the erosive effects of the increase flow volumes and velocities. The Engineer’s updated plans do not comply with this code requirement. His original calculation was not done per code at this location or using the proper design storm as outlined in my original review comments (Feb 19), and this comment was not addressed in his recent (Feb 26) response. Applying this WQ code, we estimate a much lower allowable peak flowrate than that implied by K-H estimates near this location, by a factor of 10. In my opinion the natural drainage channel in Drainage Area 2 (PR-2) will be subject to a significantly higher erosion potential under the proposed conditions than under today’s conditions. A drainage analysis is required for this channel using the 2 year, 3 hour storm information and demonstrating a flow rate a prescribed in the ordinance.

Other analysis concerns, including additional engineering design needed for the temporary sedimentation ponds, are contained in Jeff Kessel’s attached letter. Dr. Ross’ letter contains information supporting use of more appropriate curve numbers in the drainage analyses.

Updated roadway typical section with notes and symbology to clarify your stated intent to place topsoil and revegetation up to the edge of pavement.

This is a nonstandard design as 2.5 inches of topsoil over compacted crushed stone is not a sufficient root zone to establish vegetation and create conditions significantly different from impervious cover. With calculations and maintenance provisions it may qualify for partial area credit towards the impervious cover percentage.

Because of limitations, errors, and calculation omissions listed above and in described in reports from our engineers, the design and alleged performance has not been demonstrated and is not verifiable. The Site Plan remains out of compliance with:

05.015 Performance Standards

90% Removal of 3 Constituents (Section (c)(3)), and

05.019 Erosive Flow Control

Stormwater discharge into a waterway (Section (e)).

Additionally, until BF-2 is engineered to filter water captured by the curb inlets, the design is out of compliance with:

05.016 Impervious Cover

Impervious cover downstream from water quality controls (Section (f)), and

05.019 Erosive Flow Control

Untreated runoff over a CEF (Section (a)).

Finally, the impervious cover calculations require revision using innovative method credits to demonstrate compliance with:

05.016 Impervious Cover

10% Impervious Cover Limit (Sections (a)-(e)).

In sum, the newly produced materials only serve to confirm that the Applicant’s design fails in numerous material respects to comply with the City’s own ordinances, which the City itself is required by state law to enforce. We remain seriously concerned about these engineering deficiencies and resulting regulatory noncompliance by the proposed Mark Black Wedding Venue. Supporting reports prepared by engineering experts are attached, and objections raised in their previous reports, which were attached to our February 19, 2018 letter, persist as significant problems that have not been addressed at all, much less adequately addressed by the Applicant.

Based on the engineering deficiencies and proposed code/ordinance violations associated with this project, which are again confirmed by the newly produced materials, the Application should be denied, as Kimley-Horn has already been granted more than sufficient time to achieve compliance. If additional revisions are made by Kimley-Horn, we respectfully request that we be given sufficient “quality” time to verify and vet those revisions.

Finally, pursuant to state law and the City’s own procedures, please also accept this letter as a formal request by The Friendship Alliance to submit public comments at the next City Council meeting with respect to the late filed materials produced last Monday at 5 p.m., which were required to have been furnished by the Applicant prior to the last city council meeting. Unfortunately, through no fault of anyone except the Applicant, Kimley-Horn did not timely furnish any of these materials or other data necessary to correct previous deficiencies. However, the omission deprived citizens of the legal right to comment on those materials.

Accordingly, please advise us in writing before 5 p.m. on Wednesday, March 7, 2018, whether the City will allow public comment at the March 13, 2018 City Council meeting regarding the newly furnished materials.

We thank you for your consideration of this letter requesting that the application be denied, or alternatively, that any decision by the City be postponed in order to bring his project into regulatory compliance with the City’s own ordinances and state law.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Respectfully,

Carlos Torres-Verdin, Ph.D.
President, The Friendship Alliance, Inc.

Brian Dudley, P.E.

cc:
City of Dripping Springs’ Council Members, Michelle Fischer, Ginger Faught, Chad Gilpin, P.E.

Tuesday March 13, 2018: Dripping Springs City Council to vote on site development permit application

A site development plan for Mark Black’s Wedding Venues (now “Black Ranch”) in the Goldenwood, Goldenwood West, Radiance neighborhoods (and for individual landowners along Crystal Hills Drive) is pending approval with City of Dripping Springs City Council in a council meeting on March 13 at Dripping Springs City Hall. Many thanks to the City Council for giving us all some extra time to work on this agenda item.

YOU MUST ACT NOW TO PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY VALUES AND WAY OF LIFE

1. We ask the City of Dripping Springs: please enforce your own water quality ordinances to protect our water. If you have a well, whether as a sole source of drinking water or as a backup for your rainwater catchment system, etc., you know the important of protecting your clean water supply!
2. The Mark Black Wedding Venue / Black Ranch project proposes two large wedding venues with a total capacity of 600 people, with vehicles and buses clogging our two-lane county road. Many wedding venues typically run more than one wedding per day. Black Market Investments LLC has millions of dollars in loans to pay back. Do the math.
3. No consideration is being afforded to your reduced property values. What you can do now: get your home and property appraised now to establish baselines valuations, prior to beginning of construction of the Mark Black Wedding Venue. Contact your HOA or POA re: getting a bulk rate on appraisals. Most appraisers will drop their fees if there are multiple appraisals in the same neighborhood.
4. Hundreds of extra cars, plus commercial trucks etc. on Crystal Hills Drive, a county road so narrow it cannot be legally striped with a center line. There is no legal requirement for Hays County to widen Crystal Hills Drive to deal with this added traffic. In case you want to share your thoughts with our county officials re this road:
  Transportation Director Jerry Borcherding [email protected] phone (512) 393-7385,
  County Commissioner Ray Whisenant [email protected] phone (512) 858-7268,
  Development Services Director James “Clint” Garza [email protected] phone (512) 393-2150.
5. No consideration for additional traffic load during an emergency evacuation of residents using Crystal Hills Drive in the event of wildfires: all of this is entirely legal. Fire Chief Scott Collard of North Hays County Fire and Rescue has literally signed off on this project. Chief Collard recommends “sheltering in place” if you can’t get out. In case you want to share your thoughts about your safety and your family’s safety with him: [email protected] phone (512) 894-0704.
6. Huge commercial operation with loud, amplified music impacting our neighborhoods and families, including at night.

WHAT CAN YOU DO? Join the Friendship Alliance’s opposition:

Tuesday March 13, 6:00pm-9:00pm
Public hearing: City Council chambers
City of Dripping Springs City Hall
511 Mercer Street
Dripping Springs, TX 78620

Some facts at a glance:

Who: BLACK MARKET INVESTMENTS LLC
208 North Main St.
Lockhart, TX 78644

Members: Terry Black, Christina Black, Mark Black, Michael Black

Where: MARK BLACK WEDDING VENUE (also called Black Market Wedding Venue and now apparently “BLACK RANCH”)

Proposed for: 130 West Concord Circle, Austin, TX 78737, impacting Goldenwood, Goldenwood West, Radiance, and other neighborhoods

What: 2 event buildings capable of hosting 300 guests each for a maximum total of 600 people onsite
+ assorted staff (caterers, setup and breakdown crews, office support)
+ 3000+ square foot commercial kitchen
+ administrative office building
+ 1 well
+ 1 On-site Sewage Facility
+ 2 parking lots: approximately 153 parking spaces at Venue A and 136 at Venue B, and since one venue alone may accommodate up to 300 guests and up to 300 cars. Thus overflow parking can be expected on naturally vegetated areas affecting water quality control devices and fire lanes.
+ Wedding DJ music (noise)
+ Live bands (more noise)
+ Aerial Fireworks (noise/fire hazard and no commitment not to use)
+ Reduced property values

Rebuttals to common misconceptions about the Black’s proposed project, including rebuttal to “it could be much worse.”

“The Blacks say they have been meeting with neighbors and are responding to neighbor concerns.”

Answer:
The Blacks showed a presentation to some neighbors at the Driftwood Volunteer Fire House on 27 July 2017, informing attendees of this project. Neighbors voiced concerns after the presentation. These concerns still stand–they are neither addressed nor resolved.
There has been one listening session in 2018 by Terry Black, Mark Black and Mike Black, resulting in zero commitments, in writing or otherwise. Concerned homeowners and property owners sharing common boundaries with the Black’s parcel have outstanding concerns and no fruitful, meaningful dialogue with the Blacks.

“Be happy it’s not a 200-house residential development.”

Answer:
Superficially plausible but actually wrong and in fact illegal. The entire 64-acre parcel lies either in the Barton Springs Contributing Zone or Recharge Zone (even more stringent rules). The maximum density for any residential development on the Black’s land would be 10-15 houses by law: 10% impervious cover for the entire tract, or about 6.4 “paved acres” is the maximum allowed.

“Be happy it’s not a cement factory or pig farm–it’s only an event venue.”

Answer:
Superficially plausible but actually wrong. The amount of engineering required to keep everything on 6.4 paved acres and observe water protection rules (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality) would make a pig farm or cement factory economically unfeasible to operate. No banker in his or her right mind would loan money on a business plan with those parameters; the return on such an investment would be far too long. And the project itself has two buildings at 300 guests each (600 total), each building could easily be used for several events per day.

“You can’t do anything. The laws aren’t on your side. Just give up.”

Answer:
We have been doing things from 27 July 2017 up to this point, and the Blacks do not have their permits yet. Those could have been had August 2017.
We have found multiple flaws in their processes (engineering 1, 2; public notification, etc.), all along the way. We are still committed to working with the City of Dripping Springs to forge a written commitment from the Blacks. We have all legal means at our disposal to register our dissent with this project. We are still working to get unresolved issues addressed sensibly, properly and effectively.

“I like barbecue.”

Answer:
Do you like the possibility of drunk drivers close to your home and family and pets? Like the idea of escalated wear and tear on our narrow county-maintained road? Do you go for a walk (maybe with your dog) outside in your neighborhood with no sidewalks? Are you sensitive about property values? Thinking about additional fire hazards? Emergency evacuation complications? The Black’s have applied to TABC for a liquor license for their 600-guest event venue. You will undoubtedly be sharing your neighborhood and its roads and connectors with people who have had alcohol to drink.

“I am too busy to deal with all this.”

Answer:
The lives and property and value you can protect are your own. What are those truly worth to you? We have been advised, and now we do need as many people as possible to show up at Dripping Springs City Hall. Bring a neighbor who may be unable to drive at night. Bring your kids or the neighbor’s kids, and show them what civil engagement and public participation in our great nation’s political process looks like. It’s Civics Class 101 only real.

“Roy and Penny Williams run Chapel Dulcinea wedding venue, and everything is fine so far. What do you have against wedding venues?”

Answer: Chapel Dulcinea and Tuscan Hall (and Wizard Academy) are well-run.
Talk to our neighbors (some with infant children) affected by the Garden Grove Wedding Venue who can’t even sleep in their own houses with the doors and windows shut–every single weekend–because of fireworks, live bands, wedding DJ music and more. These affected homeowners lost their first lawsuit and are now on appeal. We all need good neighbors. We need livable neighborhoods. We need homes that feel like homes, and not, as one neighbor said recently about Garden Grove, feel “like a warzone.”

Friendship Alliance community organizing meetings are hosted by Radiance Foundation, a 501(c)3 Texas nonprofit directly affected by its proximity to the Black’s Wedding Venue project. Its building, the Radiance Dome, has been the home of silent meditation for more than 30 years. As you can guess, silence and wedding DJ music and live bands and fireworks definitely are not compatible. We are grateful for their donation of meeting space.