Okay, everybody.

Good morning.

Um it is 9 05 and we'll call the special uh planning commission meeting for January 16th, 2026 to order.

Would staff please do a roll call?

Commissioner Sanchez.

Present.

Commissioner Garcia.

Present.

Commissioner DeSucci.

Present.

Commissioner Ulett.

Here.

Commissioner Mylam.

Here.

Councilman Mendia.

Present.

Um Commissioner Siegel.

Here.

Commissioner Profit.

Present.

Chair Peck.

Here.

A quorum is present.

Thank you.

Can we get the Spanish English interpreter, please?

Hello, good morning.

See, buenos días.

Qualquer persona can necessite servicio de interpretación al español.

Favor de pasar a la cabina in la parte de atrás por su equipo.

Muchas gracias.

Thank you.

Okay, today we only have one thing on the agenda.

It is the uh consent or recommendation for the city to consent to the creation of the MUD for the Wahote Ranch subdivision.

A couple of housekeeping things.

Um we're gonna allow sign-ups until 9 30.

At 9 30, the sign up will be cut off.

Um the speaking time for each person will be one minute and 30 seconds.

If you want to approach the podium in group large groups, feel free to do so.

But if the if the number of people at the podium is more than three, the speaking time will still be four minutes and thirty seconds.

Um I'm gonna the way we're gonna do this is I'm gonna call numbers.

Um we're gonna start with numbers one through five and one through five.

We'll line up kind of in the aisle here, and then as each person speaks, we the next person can uh can just file up and then we'll call five through ten and so on and so forth.

Um when you get to the podium, please don't forget to state your name and address for the record um and just for uh staff's uh knowledge um after the uh city's presentation and the applicant's presentation.

We're gonna do the voicemails and then we'll move on to uh public comment.

So with that, we will uh start with the uh staff presentation good morning, commissioners.

Uh my name is Priscilla Rosales Pina, and I'm with the Cities of San Antonio's Planning Department uh Regional Planning Section, the planning manager, and today we have a presentation on a public hearing and resolution regarding the request for the city's consent to the Wajalote Ranch Municipal Utility District, which will also be known as the Burr County Municipal Utility District or MUD number two by TCAQ and also an associated development agreement with the uh property owners of the property.

Okay, sorry, thank you.

So on this slide, uh as you can see on the map, the property is look is located west of northwest of Scenic Loop and Babcock Road.

It is in the northwest part of the cities, ETJ and Burke County.

It uh the property owners are uh Wajalote Ranch and Sydney and Marcy Edwards, and they have submitted a request to TCQ to uh create the municipal utility district.

The purpose of this municipal utility district is to provide and finance services infrastructure for the development.

The development is approximately 3,000 single family homes, and it will provide water supply, sanitary storage system, a wastewater treatment plant, and other services.

The so we do with other agreements with other special districts.

There are some standard considerations and terms for this MUD district.

There are these uh other considerations that are part of the city's consent to the creation by TCQ of the MUD.

So it's um there were nine uh service uh you utility service agreements, development controls that were negotiated by SALS that's incorporated into the development agreement.

There's also a third party conservation easement holder, it will ensure appropriate ingress and egress to the development.

There's also limitations on the issuance of bonds by the district.

And it's going to comply with all the state and city regulations that are applicable in prop for all properties in ETJ.

And there's also terms for a future strategic partnership agreement along with the annexation of the of the commercial areas in that.

There's also an application provision fees, and they will pay development services fees.

By state law, uh it once a MUD petition is submitted to the city for its consent.

There's a 90-day uh time limit.

So the petition was submitted on November 10th.

Then we had the we had the December 17.

We had a briefing to this commission.

Um, and then whoops, got the wrong date.

January 16 is uh today's hearing, and uh then the council will consider this item on February 5th, and at that time they will either approve or deny whether they extend their consent for the developer to proceed to um TCEQ for their creation of the PIN.

I mean of the MUD.

So that is it is a statutory process that the city is participating in that's required by state law.

So that concludes my presentation.

Do you all have any questions I don't think so?

Thank you very much.

Uh would the applicant like to address the commission.

Good morning, commissioners.

Um I given 10 minutes, just wanted okay.

Do you have a timer?

No.

Okay.

Uh good morning, Commissioners.

Kevin DeAndo with Ortiz McKnight, uh, 112 East Pacon Street representative for the applicant and proposed developer, uh, Lenar Homes.

Um I'm gonna follow up quickly on staff's presentation.

Um I think we build pretty seamlessly off of each other.

Um my presentation starts with an initial slide showing the general location of the property.

You can see the property that we're discussing, it's approximately a 1,160-acre site, generally located northwest of loop 1604 and I-10, uh, but more specifically located at the northwest intersection of Scenic Loop Road and Babcock Road.

The property itself is wholly in the City of San Antonio's ETJ and Bear County.

You can see that we front on Scenic Loop Road, and the site is currently undeveloped.

Uh it's a little difficult to tell from this exhibit, but in the general vicinity of this site is traditional single-family residential development.

The request before planning commission today is we are requesting City of San Antonio consent to the creation of a municipal utility district or a MUD, which would eventually be created at TCEQ.

On this slide, you see a little bit about the development.

This exhibit here shows a typical rendering of a LENAR home.

Uh this is from another LENAR development in the San Antonio area.

Uh, the overall development proposed for Guajalote Ranch as we are calling it, is a single family residential development.

This would be a master plan community with a mix of lot sizes and home types.

We're proposing 3,000 total homes with mix of home sizes ranging from roughly 1,200 square feet to 2,004 square feet.

There will be a mix of single and two-story homes.

We will also include neighborhood amenities such as parks, open space, and potentially uh swimming pools, uh something that neighborhood residents can visit and enjoy.

But overall, what we're discussing here today is a typical single-family residential development.

This slide shows an enhanced view of the site, again, demarcated in red.

Overall, the intent of this slide is to show the planning and development process timeline and entitlements that we have received to date.

Specifically, there are three major entitlements that exist for this site.

Those are an approved SAWS utility service agreement, an approved master development plan, and a and an approved discharge permit.

I'll go into detail on the three major entitlements on the coming slides, but here it is important to note that with Guajalote Ranch, we've received standard development approvals that you would otherwise see with any other development in San Antonio in the ETJ in Bear County.

And as you can see from the timeline, this is a development that has received enhanced review, notably.

Notably, the process started in 2022 when SAWS approved their water USA for the development with special conditions on wastewater service.

I'll go into more detail about that here in a little bit.

And then we had an approved master development plan from the city in March of 2023.

And most recently, as you may have heard, we received TCEQ permit approval for a wastewater discharge permit.

As staff mentioned, in November of 2025, we filed a petition with the city for the city's consent to the creation of a mud.

As I mentioned, we do have a utility service agreement with SAWS.

SAWS has agreed to provide water service, but not sewer service.

And I want to take a minute to explain why we are not receiving sewer service from SAWS.

The reason for the lack of sewer service is that we are not in SAWS sewer jurisdiction.

So SAWS is not mandated to provide sewer to this site.

Although it's not mandatory for SAWs to provide sewer, SAWS did evaluate potential sewer options for this site when evaluating water service.

Notably, SAWS evaluated traditional sewer, septic systems, and a potential wastewater treatment plant.

For a number of reasons, ultimately, the wastewater treatment plant was the option that SAWS felt comfortable moving forward with.

Traditional sewer would have required that SAWS extend sewer line five miles from the closest connection point through the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone and would have required multiple easements from private property owners, which would have been costly and time consuming.

Moreover, traditional sewer would have opened traditional development in this area.

That is, anybody who had the ability to connect to a sewer line could develop property.

As you know, this property is in the ETJ.

A lot of this property is in the ETJ.

There are very limited land use controls in this area.

The next option that SAWs evaluated was a septic system, and SAWS found that this was an inferior treatment method for waste, and it really does not solve the environmental concern.

Specifically, septic systems lack supervision and maintenance.

When septic systems are permitted at the initial stage by Bear County, that is the only permitting that is required.

It is up then, it is then up to private property owners to maintain review, make sure that their septic system is not leaking or discharging.

And the leaking or discharging that comes from septic systems is raw sewage.

That's what we're talking about with traditional septic.

And in this area where Guajalote Ranch is, the topography has lent itself to septic systems failing or showing signs of where where raw sewage does leak.

The wastewater treatment plant provided clear supervision and maintenance.

It allowed SAWS to require enhanced developer obligations for the wastewater treatment plant.

And SAWS also found that there is a history of use in the area.

I have a slide that I'll show you to explain that in more detail.

But before moving on, I wanted to note that SAWS granted the water USA and as staff mentioned, included nine specific requirements for a potential wastewater treatment plant, which LENAR agreed to.

One, LENAR agreed to reduce their density from 6,000 total units to 3,000 total units.

So that is what has been presented to you today.

That is what we are limiting ourselves to.

Lenar agreed to limit impervious cover to 30%.

Again, this site is wholly within the contributing zone.

So the limits on impervious cover that we typically see in the UDC, those are only applicable to properties that are in the recharge zone, would not be applicable to this site.

It is something that we agreed to.

Our wastewater treatment plant would solely serve our site.

Also, during presentation at SAWS, I do want to note that staff noted the possibility of a special district to assist in maintenance and operation of the wastewater treatment plant.

I'll go into more detail about that here shortly, but I want you to know that when we initially started this process in 2021 and 2022, a special district was already on the horizon, was already being discussed.

So quickly about the approved master development plan.

This was the second entitlement that was approved for this site.

We received approval of the master development plan in March of 2023.

Just for some context, a master development plan functions as an umbrella for multiple studies required by the City of San Antonio's UDC.

Studies such as drainage, water quality, traffic, tree studies, and as it relates to Guajalote Ranch specifically, LENARD agreed to proactively mitigate development concerns.

Notably, they agreed to drainage and water quality items, including installation of on-site detention to mitigate downstreet downstream impacts and utilizing sand filter basins, retention ponds, and vegetated buffers for treatment of drainage runoff.

As it relates to traffic, Lenar agreed to widen Scenic Loop Road and Babcock Road and install multiple traffic signals, notably at the intersection of Scenic Loop Road and Babcock Road and Scenic Loop and Cross Mountain Trail.

Moreover, Lenar will construct dedicated turnlanes from the development onto Scenic Loop Road.

Finally, you have here in front of you the approved discharge permit, which again was the last major entitlement that we received for this development.

TCEQ reviewed vetted this discharge permit for over three years, and their review analysis centered on effluent discharge and potential effects on water quality and aquatic life.

In connection with this discharge permit, there were multiple public hearings before TCEQ and after the three three-year-long process.

You can see it highlighted in yellow there.

It is important to stop here to highlight that approval of the discharge permit was the final step before development of Guajalote Ranch could begin.

So just want to underscore that for you, commissioners, that today we have what we need to develop this site with a wastewater treatment plant with a single family residential development with 3,000 homes.

The contributing zone is shown on this exhibit as the blue highlight.

You can see Guajalote Ranch is highlighted in orangeish yellow, and there are a number of wastewater treatment plants that currently exist in this area and in the contributing zone.

So really underscoring the fact that what we are talking about today is not a novel concept.

It is something that has been used in the past and has been successful.

Getting to the heart of why we are here today.

We are requesting consent for a municipal utility district.

As I mentioned earlier in my presentation, a special district is something that has been contemplated, mentioned as it relates to Guajalote Ranch and the wastewater treatment plant since we started this development process back in 2021-2022.

This MUD that we are requesting follows through on LENAR's commitment to ensure that the wastewater treatment plant is properly maintained and functions as designed.

So again, in summary this request is to build a single family residential development with 3,000 homes with a wastewater treatment plant to service this site.

This proposed development is not novel and there are existing developments with wastewater treatment plants and the contributing zone in the specific area around Guajalothe Ranch.

The MUD request and the corresponding development agreement allow the city of San Antonio development regulation over Guajalote Ranch and without consent to the MUD that development regulation does not exist.

So I just want to underscore that for you today there are very limited land use controls in the ETJ.

If we were to develop this site currently there would be very limited things that the city and or county could regulate.

But through the MUD process through the consent to the creation of this MUD and through negotiation of the development agreement the city is able to impart some development regulations on this property.

We respectfully request your consent to the creation of this MUD before leaving I do want to introduce members of our team with me today is James McKnight from my office Ruena Spingler from Pape Dawson.

Thank you.

Thank you Kevin at this point we will move on to uh listening to the voicemails and remember that's a minute and a half Wilson and my address is 9923 Cedar Crest Drive Gray Forest Texas 78023.

I'm calling from 2103636863 and commenting on the Guadalote ranch MUD that will be the item number one on the January 16th planning commission meeting agenda I'd like to protest this as a poor idea if it was in the public interest then a public district would have been allowed now they're moving for a private interest that will basically destroy our water supply I think this is a bad mistake.

Thank you for your time Hello my name's Anissa Munson and I live at 3715 Matchlock Circle in San Antonio Texas.

That will be item number one on the January 16th planning commission meeting I am against the MUD and I wish that everyone was informed with all the information there was a belief that everyone is aware of the project and that they needed approval when that was not true.

The Bear County Fire Marshal Office was contacted to see if they knew or approved of this development and the fire marshal's office dated quote we have no record uh responsive to your request the Bear County Fire Marshall's office has not had any contact from the developers of this property end quote.

This means that the emergency responders are being asked to support this development without any emergency management oversight.

This will put first responders at risk which means a lot because I'm a first responder in San Antonio so I see how these scenarios can sometimes get out of control when not not all the information is out there and there's not enough oversight over some of these dangerous uh facilities for this reason and many others uh please deny the MUD during the meeting tomorrow thank you hello my name is Austin Browning my address is one zero four one nine Kendall Canyon San Antonio Texas my phone number 3098267556 and I'm submitting this public comment regarding the Guadalupe ranch MUD which is on agenda item one on January 16th planning commission meeting I'm honored against the creation of this MUD this proposal is not to serve an existing community need is financing and control mechanism designed to benefit a private developer and the long-term expenses surrounding residents nearby and nearby property owners the commission has responsibility to protect the long-term public interest not serve private convenience I respectfully urge you to vote no for the Guadalaj Ranch MUD that has been submitted thank you hello my name is Kathleen Henderson and my address is 10419 Kendall Canyon San Antonio 78255 I am commenting on the G Ranch MUD that will be item number one on the January 16th planning mission meeting I am against the MUD due to the obvious concerns about our water supply and also the um infrastructure that will be

My name is Kathleen Henderson, and my address is 10419 Kendall Canyon, San Antonio 78255.

I am commenting on the G Ranch MUD.

That will be item number one on the January 16th planning mission meeting.

I am against the MUD due to the obvious concerns about our water supply and also the um infrastructure that will be required to support a project of this size.

Again, just to reaffirm, I am against the MUD for the G Ranch.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is David Travillo.

My address is 19442 Sherwood Trail in Great Forest, Texas.

I'm concerning you on the proposed Guacamola Ranch Municipal Utility District meeting that you have on Friday the 16th, 2026.

Planning Commission agenda.

I am totally against this.

I don't understand number one why.

Well, keep it short, David.

Well, I'm totally opposed to this rockemular ranch building and especially the taxes that they would attach on to this.

Make it be known.

Thank you very much.

You can call me back if you want.

210-827-7130.

I appreciate you.

Thank you for this opportunity.

My name is Donnie Henderson.

I live at 11102 Mina Ridge at the Canyons on Scenic Loop in San Antonio, Texas.

I'm calling because Lenora proposed development in Guajalote Ranch would discharge an average of one million gallons a day of treated sewage into the Holy Creek watershed, which directly recharges the Trinity Glen Rose Aquifer.

It also contributes up to 15% of the total recharge of the Edwards Aquifer, the principal water source for over 2.5 million people across multiple counties.

This is why I'm calling to oppose the MUD formation, a municipal utility district for Gualdy Ranch with significantly degrade the watershed and the quality of the water recharging the Edwards Aquifer.

MUD MUD is a devious tech technique used by developers to issue bonds to build infrastructure, including wastewater treatment plants outside Simi Linux and impose taxes on their residents to pay it back.

New home buyers frankly have been hit with property tax double or triple those of the county or neighboring cities, plus monthly fees for basic services from trash pickup to police protection, resulting in non-affordable housing.

I live in an adjacent Guajote Ranch subdivision, which lot sizes intentionally zoned to accommodate sewer and waste treatment demands.

We have paid for the necessary infrastructure.

Thank you for this opportunity.

I'm calling because of your agenda item number one.

I'm calling because of Lenar's proposed development of the Guadaluche ranch that would discharge over a million gallons a day on average of treated sewage into the Holodys Creek watershed, which directly recharges the Trinity Glenn Rose aquifer.

It also contributes up to 15% of the total recharge of the Edwards Aquifer.

The principal water starts for over two and a half million people across Mouble County.

This is why I'm calling to oppose the MUD formation.

A municipal utility district for Guadaluche Ranch would significantly degrade the watershed and the quality of the water recharging the Edwards Aquifer.

It is a devious technique used by developers to issue bonds to build infrastructure, including wastewater treatment plants outside of city limits and the imposed taxes on the residents to pay it back.

New homeowners frequently have been hit with property taxes that double.

Hi, this is Ellen O'Neill.

I'm calling about the Wahov Wahaloote Ranch.

Uh um and I oppose their asking for a mud for for this project.

Um I can't believe you're even considering giving an out of state developer um this.

It's it it's I can't believe it's even considered is shepherdizing the whole city's water, not to mention running all our all all water and homes down the road.

Thank you.

Uh it's Ellen O'Neill 17915 St.

Loop Road, Helotus, Texas 78023 210823 8137.

Thank you.

Well, I'm calling about the planning commission meeting on Friday the 16th.

MUD number two.

My name is Ross Lawhead.

I live at 5975 Lock Hill Road, San Antonio 78240.

My phone number is 210859-2202.

I'm asking that the Planning Commission and the City do everything they can to prevent this MUD from going forward.

It's inappropriate the SOAS should be providing audible water to an area where they're unwilling to provide uh sanitary sewer if it's over the recharge zone in such an endangered area.

This is particularly noxious because the discharge will be into a creek that directly enters the recharge zone.

Um I happen to live down uh grade from it where uh we depend on a water well that could be impaired if there's a problem with this, and if this utility district is approved and then later fails or doesn't operate properly, it would be prohibitively expensive for SOAS to extend uh sanitary sewer as a cure.

Thank you very much for considering my comment.

My name is Jerry Dobbs.

I reside at 1860 Hillside Drive in Great Forest, Texas, and I would like to commit comment on the MUD requisite or uh request for Wahalote ranch.

I'm totally against that being approved.

I would like to see you not allow them to have a MUD uh and I just I hope you don't do it.

Thank you very much.

My number, yes, my name is Jerry Hominick.

Address is 19465, Nottingham Lane, Elotus, Texas, and I'm calling in regard to the um proposed Walodi Ranch Municipal Utility uh district.

Uh listen item number one on January the 16th Planning Commission agenda.

I am not in favor of this development, and my prayer is when will the county start taking this sensitive water area of Bear County seriously.

We need to protect this area if we're going to protect our water.

Thank you.

Bye-bye.

Yes, my name is John Chafey.

I live at 1872 Sherwood Trail, Helotus, Texas, 78023 in the city of Great Forest.

I'm calling about MUD number two.

I am expressing my opposition to allowing this mud to be formed in my area and try to prevent the wastewater from this location being pumped into the Holotus Creek.

Thank you very much.

My name is Martha Haynes.

I'm calling about MUD number two, and I I live on the Holotus Creek.

It goes through my property, and I'm really opposed to the dumping of thousands, millions of gallons of uh treated water into the water system.

I don't think it's healthy for the aquifer, and I'm I'm deeply opposed to it.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Alan Munson.

I live at 21285 Sam's Ranch Road.

My phone number is 210-317-5685.

I'm commenting on topic one, but the Wahalote ranch mud on your January 16th agenda.

My concern is that a MUD allows a self-governing group to manage something as important as wastewater.

We live next door to the development.

We will make sure our water isn't affected.

And when it is, who is gonna correct it?

I request you deny the mud application.

Thank you.

This is Ron Holliday.

I live at six six zero six country view lane, and I'm calling regarding the agenda item MUD number two for Friday, January 16th meeting.

The water ranch the ranch wastewater treatment plant facility that potentially feeds into the Helotus Creek and into the Edwards Aquifer will affect not only our well but also the water supply for the city of San Antonio.

I find it hard to believe that the city would support a project that has this potential to potenti negatively impact all the citizens of San Antonio with the only positive outcome being for Lamir, which is the third largest developer in San Antonio.

I ask you to vote no to fund this project.

Thank you.

My address is 23402, Joshua Creek in San Antonio, 7825.

I'm calling to a comment on the ranch every day to come to the agenda.

I am incredibly opposed to this mud that seems like another uh financial collapse by Lenar to run away to the project of their building while they try to see and not fail.

They've not such taxes to anything.

That neighborhood is not gonna have a lot of money and having now tax on top of what they already paid the houses.

They're gonna go bankrupt.

Please both know I'm gonna come up to us.

Thank you.

Hi, Tracy Haven Wallace, nine five one nine Marshall Point, San Antonio, Texas, seven eight two four zero two one zero four eight two zero zero four two item is mud number two.

You have got to be kidding me.

We don't even have enough water for the city, and we aren't solving that problem, and now we want to dump toxic items and material into it in the overflow into the the little bit that we have.

Is anybody thinking this through?

Plus we want to build right out there, huge gas stations, all these homes.

Don't build anything else until you figure out how to solve the water problem.

We are in a severe drought.

We don't need to be building more, we need to solve that, and we definitely don't need to contaminate what we currently have.

Somebody needs to sit down and rethink all of this.

And you need to take care of the water issues and keep the water healthy and clean and quit moving animals that are living areas until you have a safe place to put them.

We're taking their spot.

Hello, my name is Rossin Wood.

I live at 9739 Autumn Canyon in the canyons at Scenic Loop, and I'm calling regarding Lenar's proposed development in the Guatalate Ranch that would discharge over a million gallons of sewage into the Hilotus Creek.

And then it would contaminate the Trinity Glen aquifer.

It also contributes uh a significant amount to the Edwards Aquifer, and I'm against the municipal utility district mud for this feature.

I'm against the overall polluting of our uh aquifer, and I am opposed to the increase in property taxes to support this mud, the roads, and the businesses that they plan on adding that would add six thousand cars a day to this uh area of San Antonio, but really the concern is the uh terrible contamination risk to our precious aquifer.

Thank you very much.

All right, bye bye.

All right.

That is all the voicemail, so we will now move on to public comment.

If we could have uh numbers one through five formal line there in the middle, and number one may approach the podium.

Don't forget to state your name and address for the record, and you'll have one minute and thirty seconds.

Well, good morning.

I'm Lewis Vetter at 3911 Forest Creek Street in San Antonio, Texas.

I'm president of the Conservation Society of San Antonio, and I speak on behalf of over a thousand members and ten thousand volunteers in our organization.

And I speak in opposition to the proposal mud, and it's the only for the benefit of the Lenar homes.

They want taxpayers to pay for their infrastructure and a proposed sewage treatment plant situated over the top of San Antonio's primary drinking water source.

It disappoints me that you would even consider granting their request solely to have others pay for lenders project and provide their profits.

Each of you and your families living here depend upon the water from the edges of the aquifer.

All it takes is for one accident, one oops, one unintended overflow, and discharge of raw sewage to contaminate the aquifer.

No treatment plant runs perfectly forever.

Once that happens, it cannot be undone.

Even the sewage they plan to treat will still have pollutants that they can't filter.

It suggested that we simply might spray everything over the ground and pretend the problem doesn't exist, but it does.

I have visited third world countries where everyone must buy purified water and plastic bottles in order to survive because their water sources polluted.

If you approve and recommend this measure, you'll be seeing that you're okay with San Antonio's citizens' water supply might become that of a third world nation.

Finally, all of what we're concerned about today and been talking about will end up being in your glass of iced tea.

Thank you.

Please reject this proposal.

And uh just for the clarification, did number 56 donate their time to you?

Yes.

Yeah.

Okay, thank you.

Good morning, y'all.

My name is Elaine Milan Vetter, and I'm here on behalf of my family and future generations of my family asking you to vote against the municipal utility district for Lenar homes.

My family has lived in San Antonio for generations, and the water from the Edwards Aquifer is a life source which we count on.

The CEO of Lenar Home, Stuart Miller, lives on an estate in Florida.

He's not a Texan.

He doesn't drink our water or worry about his family getting sick from a polluted water source.

I do.

You and your family should also share my concerns.

It only takes one mistake, and our water will be tainted by their proposed sewage treatments plant forever.

It's just a matter of time before something happens.

Instead of endorsing the mud for Lenar homes, why not use that same money that y'all want to raise for whatever and buy the land for San Antonians and put a park or green space for all of San Antonio?

The Seminole Indian tribe in Florida is suing Lenar homes because hundreds of homes built on their reservation have water intrusion and mold and are inhabitable.

Don't bring those similar issues to San Antonio.

You heard the phone calls, they all said no.

There wasn't one.

Oh, let's hurry up and get Lenar in here.

Protect our aquifer for my family and for yours.

I'm a director of the Conservation Society of San Antonio.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Yep.

And you have three, nine, and ten on yours, right?

So you have four and a half minutes.

I'll do yes.

Yep.

Which one?

One in the middle?

Okay.

Good morning.

Uh, my name is Steve Lee, and my family lives at 9715-5 Park Drive outside of Great Forest on land that's been in my family for more than 160 years.

And we get our water from a well in the Trinity Glen Rose aquifer.

We got involved in this cause because Lenar's development at Guajalote Ranch would discharge an average of one million gallons a day of treated sewage into the Holotus Creek watershed, which directly recharges the Trinity Glen Rose Aquifer.

That watershed also contributes up to 15% of the total recharge of the Edwards Aquifer, the principal water source for about 2.5 million people across multiple counties.

The only science showing what this development would do was a comprehensive hydrological study by Southwest Research Institute funded by the city and concluding that additional wastewater systems from residential development in the Hillows Creek watershed would quote significantly degrade the watershed and the quality of water recharging the Edwards Aquifer, unquote.

A municipal utility district for Guajalote Ranch would practically assure that this would happen.

Notably, the only mud that currently has a wastewater treatment plant in the contributing zone of the Edwards Aquifer where Guajalo Ranch is located, has violated discharge limits of dangerous pollutants.

And you see that report on the screen there.

The Meyer Ranch MUD in Comal County was cited for wastewater discharges exceeding permitted limits for nitrates and phosphorus for two quarters in the last three years, according to the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency.

Lenar tells you that their wastewater plant will be advanced, but three of the four most advanced plants currently operating in the area contributing zone, and half of all the plants that they showed you on that map a while ago have been out of compliance during the past three years, all according to the EPA data.

But there's even more to the story, as you'll learn from other speakers here today, including a director of the only other MUD in Bear County, MUD Number One at San Antonio Ranch, who opposes LENARS MUD NUMBER Two.

As we know, a MUD is a scheme by developers to issue bonds to build infrastructure, including wastewater treatment plants, and imposed taxes on their own residents to pay it back.

Recent reports in the Houston Chronicle and published in the San Antonio Express News have documented how MUDs have been promoted statewide by developers as boosting affordable housing, but rather have resulted in the opposite while also straining local governments.

New home buyers lured by attractive list prices frequently have been hit with property taxes double or triple those of the county or neighboring cities, plus monthly fees for basic services from trash pickup to police protection, shattering the illusion of affordable housing.

MUDs have resulted in higher taxes for residents outside the developments, even, as cities and counties have been on the hook to provide services or even maintain infrastructure of MUDs.

Those costs often fall on all existing taxpayers and property owners, all of us, to expand roads, staff police departments, and provide city services.

Or provide other services.

Moreover, MUDs often function like invisible or permanent local governments, but without the same level of of upkeep and services and without the same accountability.

And you, the local government, would lose control.

Essentially, developers with deep pockets can just walk away, leaving unsuspecting homebuyers and local governments holding the bag.

Don't become one of those governments.

Please and respectfully, we ask that you reject this MUD.

The next presenters will further document all this and more on environmental impacts tied to the land development, as well as traffic circulation and connectivity, drainage, flooding, and stormwater management, infrastructure adequacy, consistency with the master code or adopted area plans, and compliance with the Unified Development Code.

Again, thank you for your time and thank you for listening.

So you have four and seven, so you'll have three minutes.

Thank you.

Good morning.

My name is Patricia Seidenberger.

I live at 11418 Hollow Tree Street, 78230.

Lanier's uh Guajalote Ranch proposed 2900 homes on 1,167 acres with a wastewater plant, sending 4 million gallons daily of treated sewage and pharmaceuticals down the Holodas Creek into the Edwards Aquifer will significantly degrade the watershed and the quality of water recharging the Edwards Aquifer.

Fourteen state legislatures have gone on record to oppose this Guajalote Ranch project, as well as the Bear County Commissioners, Mayor Ron Nuremberg and State Senators Donna Campbell and Roland Gutierrez.

The language of the concessions of the Lanier San Antonio Metropolitan Health District are vague, lacking enforceable definitions, measurable thresholds, or operational requirements.

As a consequence, Linair has no clear obligations to fulfill the intent of the concessions or the terms of the negotiated settlement agreement.

This has been demonstrated in the past with the Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance fining Lanier homes 175,000 in settlement for violating negotiated settlement agreement for the 4S Ranch.

The Edwards Aquifer is an irreplaceable state treasurer requiring immediate and long-term protection.

And elected officials at every level, along with non-elected regulatory bodies, should safeguard this quality and sustainability of one of the most valuable natural resources in Texas.

In closing, by voting no for the Guajalote Ranch MUD, you can stop a catastrophic project from fully restore destroying San Antonio's drinking water from the Edwards Aquifer, affecting 1.7 million people in San Antonio.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Well, number five is coming up.

If six through ten can approach our lineup in the middle.

You have five and twenty five, so you have three minutes.

Thank you.

My name is Lynette Munson.

I live at 21285 Sam's Ranch Road.

Holotus, and I'm speaking on behalf of the Cinecloop Holodus Creek Alliance neighborhood.

Our community submitted a public records request to the Bear County Fire Marshall's office dated November the 24th, 2025, request number R02490-112425, seeking all documents related to the fire marshal's review of the Wahaloti's Ranch Master Development Plan.

We asked three very specific categories of records.

Any recommendations or required modifications the fire marshal made to the preliminary NDP, whether or those recommendations were included in the final plan.

All documentation showing a review or approval of the developer's proposal to use a single ingress egress for a development of roughly 3,000 units, despite the unified unified development code requiring for two access points.

And any documentation related to roadway classifications, including the claim that Cinecloop Road is an arterial road rate, even though TextOt has not designated it such and has no funded projects to date.

The fire marshal's response was simply unalarming, as you can see.

We have no record response to your request.

The Bear County Fire Marshal's office has had no contact with the developer of this property.

Let me repeat, a 3,000 unit development, one of the largest proposed in the area, has had no contact whatsoever with the Bear County Fire Marshal, no review, no recommendations, no safety analysis, no approval for a single access point, no documentation supporting roadway clarifications claims, nothing.

This means the public, the county, and the emergency responders are being asked to accept a massive development without any safety, fire safety oversight at all.

This is not a paperwork issue.

This is a life safety issue.

A single access point for 3,000 homes is not a minor deviation.

Is a catastrophic risk to in the event of wildfire, structure fire, medical emergencies, road blockage.

Cynic Loop Road is already overburdened.

It is not an arterial roadway.

There are no funds planned to make it one, yet the developer is moving forward as if these facts simply don't matter.

If the fire marshal has not reviewed this project, then the public has not been protected.

If the fire marshal has not approved a single access point, then the project does not meet UDC.

If the fire marshal has not been contacted, then the MDP is incomplete and should not advance.

We are asking this body to insist on what should have happened from the beginning.

A full documented, transparent fire safety review before any further action is taken.

Our community deserves development that is safe, lawful, and grounded in real emergency response standards, not assumptions, not shortcuts, not silence.

I appreciate your time, and we we request that you denied this permit.

Thank you.

So you'll have four and a half minutes.

Thank you.

My name is Randy Newman.

Good morning.

The petition argues that the area lacks adequate infrastructure and that the health and welfare of future residents requires the creation of water sewer drainage parks and roads.

In my view, this is not evidence of necessity.

It is simply a description of the infrastructure required for the specific high-density project that this developer wants to build.

Claiming this mud is a necessity is like declaring an emergency to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

The necessity is self-created, and the public is being asked to solve it.

Just north of this property lies the canyons at Scenic Loop, once part of the same ranch, and separated today by nothing more than a barbed wire fence.

It shares the same topography, the same geology, and the same environmental sensitivities.

But that's where the similarities end.

The canyons was developed in the traditional hill country pattern.

Larger lots, aerobic septic system, stormwater controls, and all of that infrastructure privately financed.

No mud, no PID, no public debt, no special districts.

So what's the difference here?

One word, density.

Lenar originally proposed 6,000 units and later reduced that to 3,000.

But even at that scale, the project is dramatically out of step with Hill Country Development Norms, the SA Tomorrow Master Plan, and the environmental realities of this site.

We can go to number two.

This land sits atop the Balcones Escarpment, the Balcones Fault Zone with more than 200 mapped faults, the Trinity Aquifer Recharge Zone, the Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone, and all within five miles of the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone.

These are not abstract designations.

They are mapped, documented, and scientifically significant.

Bear County is the epicenter of Texas Karst geology, and the highest concentration of that cost lies in northwest Bear County, right where this developer wants to build a mini city.

The developer has also secured a permit to discharge one million gallons of treated wastewater per day into Hilotus Creek.

The scientific consensus is clear.

The Trinity and Edwards aquifers are transmissive.

What enters Helotus Creek has pathways into the aquifers that supply drinking water to two and a half million Texans, including the City of San Antonio.

Approving a MUD here would amount to a delegation of oversight, ceding San Antonio's control over an area that plays a direct role in regional water security to a quasi governmental MUD board.

MUDs were created to help rural communities finance basic infrastructure where none existed, not to subsidize high density development in environmentally sensitive terrain so that a private developer can be reimbursed not just for the incremental costs of building in a difficult area, but for the full cost of infrastructure, thus maximizing private profit through public debt.

There is no public necessity here.

There is a private preference for a financing tool that makes high density more profitable.

That is not a necessity, as the standards set forth in Texas MUD Law show, and it is not in the public interest.

I respectfully urge you to deny this petition.

The stakes are too high, the precedent too concerning, and the environmental context too fragile to justify this request.

Thank you.

Okay, well, A is I mean, yeah, well, A is coming up to the podium if 11 through 15 could line up in the middle.

My name is Mark D'Arazio.

I'm the state representative for House District 122 and members of the planning commission.

First, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

I'm going to keep this short because there's a whole lot of people with a whole lot more to say than I do.

If created this mud would be in House District 122, it's a district that I represent.

Since I first heard about the Guadalajara Ranch back in the spring of 23, I've had numerous meetings with about this.

I've stood before committees and commissions like this one several times and have met with literally hundreds of constituents.

From stay-at-home moms to scientists to doctors, all of them have opposed this project.

Never once have I heard a single person I represent advocate for this development.

I've never heard anyone advocate for this mud, and have heard plenty of people oppose it.

As I travel throughout the district, one of the top issues that we have is property taxes.

The whole district, property taxes.

From where I stand, it seems that government should be protecting the drinking water and lowering property taxes.

Most of the people to be purchasing these homes will not see the mud until it actually comes into effect and they have to start paying the property taxes to pay for the infrastructure on this job.

This mud does exact opposite.

It creates new taxes and it puts our water at risk.

Please oppose this mud.

Again, I'm marked a regio, State Representative for House District 122.

Thank you.

Susan Bevan 19807, Scenic Loop Road, Holodus, Texas, 78023.

There is nothing appropriate about this project or this process.

It is rare that the planners personally investigate a property but rely on maps and paperwork.

The planners only have the developer's input.

As registered neighborhoods and citizens within 200 feet of the project are notified at the end of the process.

Your planning commission meetings.

The Wahlode MUD application should be fact checked for its many errors.

I live in Grey Forest, have a well, and am located between two branches of the Hilotus Creek that could receive one million gallons or more a day of treated sewage if the Wahaloti development is approved.

Our area is subject to frequent flooding.

However, TCEQ does not concern itself with flooding, groundwater, or any area beyond one mile of the project.

It relies on antiquated science and doesn't accept that the area's contributing zone cost environment is a direct conduit to the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone.

TCEQ's approval of the Wahaloti Wastewater Treatment Plant will appear on this application.

The development also includes a gas station subject to surface runoff, flooding, and cars geology.

This not only puts contamination of the Hilotus Creek and nearby wells in jeopardy, but San Antonio's drinking water as the plant application includes the Leon and Calabra Creek watersheds.

This area was deemed so environmentally sensitive that the Northwest Sector Plan labeled it country tier with suggested lot sizes of 10 acres or more with septic systems.

We are told this is merely a suggestion for developers, yet you continue to amend this plan whenever a project is located in the area.

As a MUD must be requested by individuals, not developers.

Le Per and Edwards are Lenar's puppets, applied to obtain free money, and it will not provide affordable housing.

The Wahlodi development does not belong in this area, and the MUD should be denied.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak 13, 26, and 47.

You'll have four and a half minutes.

Thank you.

Good morning.

My name is Lisa Muries back, and I'm here to speak today on behalf of the Holodus, the Cine Cloop Hilotus Creek Alliance.

In 2018, our alliance formally registered the Cine Cloop Holodus Creek neighborhood with the City of San Antonio.

Our boundaries encompass 6,000 acres, making us the largest neighborhood by area of the entire city.

We did this intentionally.

We did it so that when development was proposed within our boundaries, especially development of significant scale or environmental environmental consequences, we would be notified, engaged, and able to participate in the process as partners of responsible planning.

Yet despite that clear purpose, our neighborhood received no notification whatsoever.

Upon Lenar's plan for the 23-acre Sydney and Marcy Edwards property, which lies squarely inside our registered boundaries.

It deprived our community of the very function the city established neighbor registr neighborhood registration to serve as early awareness, early dialogue, and early problem solving.

Because we were not notified, the Cynic Loop Hilotus Creek Alliance was denied the opportunity to raise concerns about density, aquifer protection, emergency access, wastewater discharge, and the cumulative impacts of large-scale development on one of the most environmentally sensitive regions of Bear County.

Instead, we learned about the project only after key decisions were already in motion.

This lack of notification has had real consequences.

It eroded trust in the development process.

It undermined the city's own stated commitment to neighborhood participation, particularly in areas like ours where rural character, water resources, and ecological viability are not abstract values, but daily realities.

We are not here to obstruct all development.

We are here to ensure that development is aligned with the land with the aquifers beneath it, and with the communities who have stewarded this region for generations.

That requires transparency.

It requires notification.

And it requires honoring the purpose of neighborhood registration.

We asked the commission to recognize this failure of process has harmed our ability to engage.

Weigh that heavily as you consider this mud petition.

Our community deserves a voice.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Howdy, my name is Emory Bloom.

I'm the president of Scenic Loop Holidas Creek Alliance, a registered neighborhood in San Antonio that will overlap with the Guajalote project.

I'm here today to touch on two serious concerns impacting the public.

First, the citizens of San Antonio and Bear County should not assume the risk of this hundred and fifty million dollar mud.

That risk can be associated with UDC 35506 secondary access points.

This project is operating under a variance up to a thousand DUs, and we have assurance from surrounding property owners this project will not gain additional ingress or egress, limiting this project to a thousand DUs.

Second, the developer egregiously indicates on their MDP and all other engineering forms that Scenic Loop Road is a secondary arterial roadway because they know that the UDC prohibits a project of this size more than one mile from any actual arterial roadways.

According to the Almore Area MPO and Text Dot, Scenic Loop Road is actually classified as a collector roadway, not an arterial roadway.

The TIA performed and agreed to by our public servants is more like corporate welfare.

The developer only has to widen the intersection of Cenicloop Road and Babcock a few hundred feet outside their development as part of the traffic to impact analysis.

See the blue section in the middle of the screen.

This leaves the citizens of San Antonio and Bear County to fund approximately 15 miles of roadway expansion when this developer increases traffic from 5,000 trips per day to 30,000 trips per day on these two-lane rural roads.

Please consider the greater public good and recommend that the city council deny this mud.

Make the developer reach into their own pockets.

Thank you.

What numbers are you?

16 to 17.

Okay, thanks.

Yep.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

My name is Michael Phillips.

I live at 18418 Hilltop Drive in Great Forest, and I represent the City of Great Forest as a councilman.

So I'm here today to talk to you about the dangers of flooding in this area in the Scenic Loop Corridor.

My predecessor, Mr.

Bloom talked about uh the three ways out of this area right here on Babcock.

I'm here to tell you that Scenic Loop, I'm sorry, Great Forest is never going to widen this little stretch of Cedar Coup Road that we own.

Never gonna happen.

So actually, you have two corridors out of this area.

I'm gonna tell you why.

So according to the Southwest Research Institute, the scenic, I'm sorry, the uh Lowish Creek watershed gets about 2.8 inches of uh rainfall per year uh per month, rather.

Lenar proposing to dump one million gallons of rainfall on average per day into this little area right here.

That's gonna effectively double that.

So that would effectively double the flow of the already flood-prone area in my constituents' area right here.

Uh about a one-third of my constituents' households are subject to flooding already, and you're gonna double that amount of rainfall right there.

Uh and that is over the recent time frame.

We're already in a drought.

We're in a drought right now.

So you can imagine when we return to normal rainfall, what that's gonna mean for us.

And even if the city was inclined to widen Cenic Loop Road, which or not, we couldn't afford it.

I'm gonna show you why.

Thanks.

So this right here, this is Blue Hill Pass.

This is our one low water crossing in Scenic Loop.

I'm sorry, in Grey Forest.

Uh, you can see right here, this is a low water crossing.

You see, that's a gas line, that's a utility line.

My estimation right here, just this one little area would cost us 10 to 15 million dollars to put a uh to raise that up so it was safe for a four-lane right there.

That's 10 to 15 years of our annual budget.

They're gonna happen, even if even if the county gave us that money.

That section was right about there next to Grandma's end.

The next part I'm gonna show you is uh this is right near Sam's Ranch Road.

Uh effectively you can see right here, there's a water gauge and another low water crossing up there.

That's about two tenths of a mile.

That would cost the county.

This is in county land right here, that would cost them up to 40 to 50 million dollars because there's a Sam's Ranch Road right there and a driveway back there.

Kind of see that, that's a little up close there.

That's what that would cost them.

So I've talked to you about the potential cost of preparing this stretch of road.

Now I'm gonna cost talk to you about the costs of the consequences rather of flooding here.

Right here, this is the map of the park.

This is Manchaka Road.

In 2007, we had loss of life.

And this is on a raised area.

This part right here floods still, and this is a raised bridge, an actual not just a culvert, a raised bridge.

We've had a loss of life here in 2007.

That's the cost of doubling the amount of water coming down Holotus Creek.

I urge you to reject the mud for the sake of my constituents.

Thank you.

I live at 16406 Anchor's Edge in San Antonio Ranch, part of Helotus.

I wonder if you've ever asked yourself why there's only a mud number one for more than 50 years.

There's no two.

And now you're being asked to join in a terrible idea.

The mud doesn't represent the people.

The mud is autonomous and responsible only to Texas state law.

I'm a member of the current uh San Antonio Ranch uh mud board.

Uh our history has been so conflicted and opened for corruption that there should never be another mud.

The mud takes 150 million dollars that Lenar um borrows and lifts it off of themselves and put it on the shoulders of the people like me who paid $1,500 extra uh every year in taxes for 38 years.

The mud itself doesn't represent the people.

We're we are responsible only to the state, and so there are opportunities for like the MUD group getting together and voting themselves 400 dollars per meeting each with no no one being able to do anything about it.

And so there are opportunities for like the MUD group getting together and voting themselves 400 per meeting each with no no one being able to do anything about it.

After that, the MUD also in our case has found a way around electing members and simply assigned those members that were going off the board to stay on the board again.

It's legal.

It was done.

We had a contract with a lawyer for $700 an hour.

Currently, we're paying for the same thing $150 an hour.

Now we pay one third of that amount.

So when Linair leaves before they leave, they appoint five people to be the new MUD board.

Those people don't know what they're getting into.

It's one of the most complicated things you can imagine.

That's why there's never been a MUD, too.

Thank you.

That's your time.

Okay, well, 20 is coming up if 21 through 25 could line up in the middle.

Good morning.

My name is Alan Montamayor, 2186 Jackson Killer Road No.

I represent the Alamo Group of the Sierra Club.

Our almost 3,000 members are opposed to the Guajalote development.

The North Sector Plan platted this for 10 acres or larger lots.

Lenar wants to come in and put 2,900 homes on 1,160 acres.

This is way beyond the carrying capacity of this land in any way you want to look at it.

That North Sector plan was put in place to protect the citizens of San Antonio.

Southwest Research Study stated that additional wastewater systems from residential development in Holodas Creek watershed, regardless of type, would significantly degrade the watershed and the quality of water recharging the Edwards Aquifer.

That's the water that San Antonio depends on.

We all depend on it.

You depend on it.

Other development depends on it.

I will remind you that we are in the Chris Morton Development Services Building.

That service is not just to developers, builders, and realtors.

That service is to the City of San Antonio, the residents of the City of San Antonio.

You have an obligation to protect us.

I'm asking you to vote no on this application for the municipal utility district.

Thank you for your kind attention.

Okay, good.

Good morning, Commissioners.

My name is Kate Hallfeist.

I live at 18419 Sherwood Trail in the city of Great Forest.

I want to call to your attention a critical issue that goes directly to the feasibility of the Guajalote ranch development and the implications of granting a municipal utility district in this location.

Pape Dawson engineers previously sought a hardship variance for ingress and egress based on three proposed access points, which are to the north.

You can see the arrows up there.

In fact, the stub out road shown there to the west is against uh against their fence line in the in the Guajalote Master Development Plan has caused great concern precisely because it implies a connection that has not been granted.

To the South, the MDP does not identify a clear access route.

Any potential connection would require cooperation from the Toperwine, SAMS, and SATOF ranches.

All these landowners currently have standing in an act of appeal in Travis County District Court regarding the Guajalote wastewater permit.

Given that ongoing litigation, the likelihood of securing access in that direction is extremely limited.

These facts matter because a development of this scale cannot proceed without reliable, lawful, and mutually agreed upon access.

And they matter even more in the context of a MUD petition.

Granting a MUD, particularly one that could include the power of eminent domain would set a dangerous precedent.

It would risk placing pressure on neighboring landowners who have already made their positions crystal clear, and it would shift the burden burden of resolving access problems created by the developer's own design choices onto the public.

A MUD is not a tool for overcoming private land disagreements or for forcing connectivity where none exists.

It is intended to serve genuine public necessity, not to solve self-created obstacles in a high density development located in one of the most environmentally sensitive regions of Bear County.

For these reasons, I urge the commission to consider the full context of the access constraints and the broader implications of granting granting a mud authority in this case.

We are respectfully asking the commission to advise against this permit.

Thank you.

Okay, if I uh 28 through 30 could line up in the middle.

I have morning.

232427.

Good morning, commissioners.

Thank you for your time and for your service.

My name is Diana Duncan, and I live at 21218 Babcock Road, and I'm here to speak about the proposed MUD2 and why approving the MUD would endanger public health and place our water supply at risk.

At the heart of this issue is governance.

If this MUD is approved, the City of San Antonio would have no oversight or enforcement over the wastewater treatment plant.

This means that no elected officials would be accountable to the public for compliance.

There'd be no mechanism for transparency and no effective way to safeguard to enforce safety standards.

If a leak, a failure, or ongoing compliance issues occur, it is the public that pays the price.

San Antonio leaders have long shown foresight in protecting our groundwater.

Since the year 2000, the city has invested $50 million, almost $50 million, to purchase land in and around the Guajalote Ranch to safeguard the aquifers.

Approving this plan would effectively negate that good work and throw away hard-earned taxpayer dollars.

The TCEQ permit to pollute granted last October approved a wastewater treatment plant that would discharge and spread treated wastewater into one of the most sensitive environments in Texas, the contributing and recharge zones of the Edwards and Trinity Glen Rose aquifers.

Those areas appear on maps this way for a reason, because rainwater runoff and now potentially wastewater can move directly through this land and into the groundwater itself.

Many people may not realize this, and I certainly didn't at first, but aquifers in this region are classified as carst aquifers.

A quick search on Google will show that karst aquifers are among the most sensitive groundwater systems in the world.

A karst rock there, just like that, is basically holes and cracks.

Carst geology is like Swiss cheese.

Water moves rapidly through natural cracks and conduits.

Unlike aquifers with natural sand, soil, and filtration, contamination here moves quickly and directly.

And a failure would threaten private wells like my own and many others in my neighborhood, and the drinking water supply for 2.5 million of us.

The type of wastewater plant Lenar plans to install is an MBR membrane bioreactor.

While the water may look clean, it is not chemically pure, and it is not to type one human standards.

For all these reasons, I respectfully ask you to consider lack of governance issues, public health, and the city's prior foresight and investments, and the safety of our water supply.

I urge you to recommend denial of MUD II to City Council.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

My name is Gary Schindle.

My address is 11310 Whisper Don, San Antonio, Texas.

And again, I'm an independent Texas professional geologist, license number 911, and I'm a practicing carst hydrogeologist.

I have more than 40 years of experience working in water resources, water quality, and hazardous waste management issues in more than 30 states and 10 countries.

I've served as the chief technical officer for the Aqua Sciences Director and senior hydrogeologist with the Everest Aqua for more than 23 years.

And where I was hired to set up their science and data collection program, provide technical assistance to the board.

And among many of my tasks and personnel I supervised, I oversaw the development of the EAA's groundwater management models, set up and ran their dye tracing programs, and was a liaison for the City of San Antonio's Everest Opera Protection Program, and formerly known as Prop One.

I was the senior author of the US EPA's guidance document on source water protection and karst areas.

I've held professional certifications in five states, and I've managed investigations of national priority list superfund sites.

I'm also the past president of the National Speological Society and then visited thousands of caves on four continents.

So you may say that I know my rear from a hole in the ground.

I have direct experience working on the hydrogeology of the Holotus Creek Basin, specifically within the Grey Forest area.

I performed geologic assessments on more than 1,000 acres in the basin and made recommendations to the city on the acquisition of properties to protect the water quality of the Edwards Aquifer.

I speak to you today as an independent hydrogeologist with only the interest of the citizens of San Antonio.

I am not receiving compensation to be here today.

I want to ask that you turn down the request for Lenar's MUD application to Wawate Ranch with concern that high density development in the Hotus Area Creek surrounding basin and within the Everest Aqua contributing zone will adversely impact water quality in the Trinity and Edwards Aquifer.

This will place private and public water supplies at great risk.

High density development will exceed the capacity of the soil, shallow soils in the filter and retain chemical and biological waste, concentrating septic waste within the small public treatment works, does not treat waste contaminated with oil grease, paint solvents, PFOSS, metals, etc.

Those materials will be discharged into the waste stream and into Holodus Creek, where they will enter the Trinity and the Edwards Aquifer.

Water from the Trinity and the Edwards Aquifer receives very little treatment until it reaches the consumer, where it is highly filtered through your livers and your kidneys, placing the burden on the body and increasing cancer risk.

Groundwater contamination cars is exceptionally difficult to investigate and remediate.

Water wells will commonly have to have highly technical treatment systems or be entirely abandoned.

Yole saying that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure is very true in Karst.

High density development in the downgrading zone of the contributing zone of the Edwards Aqua is undue burden on the citizens of San Antonio, and I request that you deny the uh the mud application.

Thank you.

Okay, if uh 30 through I'm sorry, 31 through 35 can line up in the middle, please.

Ready?

Okay.

Good morning.

My name is Michael Williams Schick.

My address is 2307 Linwood Ridge in San Antonio.

It's a privilege to appear for you this morning.

Thank you for allowing me to speak.

I'm here to raise serious concerns about the hardship variants granted to the Guajalo Day Ranch subdivision.

This variance was approved in 2022 based on representations made by Pape Dawson engineer Justin Clark in a letter to Christina de la Cruz of the Development Services Office.

Mr.

Clark claimed that permanent emergency access would be provided at three points along the northern boundary of the proposed subdivision, as well as to the south and the west, as we just heard.

This sounds like having the camel's nose under the tent in this line here in the letter says that streets are projected to the south and west for future development.

But that is questionable.

If these access points were indeed true, then why didn't Pape Dawson name the streets and show images or maps of them?

And why didn't they provide evidence that they had prior permission to access any of these?

The neighborhood to the north is a private gated community.

We've heard about that before.

It's called the Canyons at St.

Loop.

That's my neighborhood, and my home abuts the east side of the Wajote Ranch.

It's astonishing to me that no one from Lenar or Pape Dawson has ever contacted the canyons to request or confirm access, emergency or otherwise.

In fact, as you'll soon hear from our board president, the canyons have made their position unequivocally clear.

We are a private gated subdivision.

And Wahote Ranch will not be gated.

Granting access would effectively convert the canyons into an open access community, which all of our homeowners categorically reject.

Texas law is clear.

Unless an easement is granted or streets are publicly dedicated, a private subdivision cannot be compelled to provide access, emergency or otherwise.

The presumptuous claim that any kind of access will be provided is not only speculative, but it's misleading at best and disingenuous at worst.

Strangely, the variance was approved.

Next slide, please.

The variance was approved by an engineer associate without a professional credentials, no seal.

This raises serious questions about the procedural integrity and legal validity of the approval.

And therefore, I respectfully urge the Development Services Office and the City Council to reexamine the basis of the hardship variants to require written documented grant and emergency access before any further approvals to investigate whether false or misleading representations were knowingly made to the city officials and to ensure that future variances are reviewed and signed by licensed professionals with appropriate credentials and authority.

This is not just a matter of technical compliance.

It is a matter of public trust, it is a matter of legal integrity and community safely.

Thank you for the honor of being here.

Good morning.

My name is Ken Kempf.

I live at 23802 Andorra Ridge in the Canyon Scenic Loop.

I'm the president of the Property Owners Association, and I'm here just to make a matter of record that the north section that borders the Wahalote ranch of our neighborhood is their entire boundary.

All of our streets are private.

We have no intention of allowing anyone other than the property owners to use our streets.

I have directed our lawyer who sent a letter today to Lenar, the attorneys of record, the corporate attorneys, of this matter, and that we do not have there's no way that we're going to be allowing our private streets to be used for the public use of another community.

Thank you.

The application submitted by the developer of the proposed Guadajote ranch subdivision, specifically the petition states that the mud bond proceeds will be used for the purchase of the acquisition of the land.

This phrased phrasing raises serious questions and concerns.

Under the Texas Administrative Code, Title 30, Part 1, Subchapter E, Rule 295 293.51 under the mud bond section says that it funds may only be used to acquire easements for public infrastructure, not fee simple land.

Easements for water, sewer, drainage, and recreational facilities are eligible for those mud bonds.

But the purchase of land itself is not.

Land acquisition is considered a developer's cost.

And it's a cost of them doing business, not public infrastructure expense.

In this case, the developer will already own the entire envelope of land outlined in the MDP, unless they intend to purchase land from themselves.

A maneuver that would raise ethical and legal concerns.

There's no need for further acquisition.

Let me be specific on three points.

SAWS has already extended water lines along both the east and north property boundaries, and a new water main for Guadajolte ranch has already been installed along Scenic Loop Road, right up to the property's entrance.

The subdivision will operate its own wastewater treatment plant, as we heard earlier, eliminating the need for off-site sewer easements and the required buffer zone around the plant lies within the land already owned by the developer.

The designated park lands as shown in the MDP are also internal to the envelope of the property.

Given these facts, the inclusion of purchase and acquisition of land in the summary documents that they outlined as covered under the bonds is potentially misleading and unnecessary.

This is not a technicality.

It goes to the heart of public trust, fiscal responsibility, and lawful governance of a mud.

I urge the commission to scrutinize this and all aspects of the MUD and this development.

What land is actually being purchased with bond funds?

If the developers seeking reimbursement for land they already own or intend to transfer to themselves under the guise of a public acquisition, that would violate both the spirit and the letter of the Texas law.

And therefore I urge you to look at all the issues that have been presented today today, take them to heart, protect our water, and deny this application request.

Thank you.

Perfect.

Hello, my name is Philip Manna, and I'm the president of Almo Farmstead's Babcock Road Neighborhood Association.

And I was the planning chair for the Heedner Leon Creek Community Plan.

And I participated with some of y'all as well as a lot of prior commissioners in developing a whole lot of plans for the City of San Antonio.

And so I think it's a wonderful thing.

And I think that the city in general does a great job for setting up these plans.

And so in the Headmer Leon Creek Community Plan, we have essentially Ross Lovehead, so in Oakland Estates, Allah Farmsteads, and Verde Hills, which have over 300 private wells in that community here in San Antonio that is down, I guess, downstream essentially from this development.

So we have a major concern with regards to what's going on, or the potential of what's going to go on.

And so and so some of this is you all know all this, but I'm just going to kind of walk through it.

So neighborhood plans, community plans, and sector plans are adopted components of the city's city's comprehensive master plan.

And so that they actually have weight and value.

And I think we forget that sometimes.

And it and you know, I like to remind people about that, because this is really the community's only off a chance to really kind of give their input and expecting you, you know, to help support them because a lot of people have nothing else but these plans, you know, to support your support and uh help their communities.

And these plans are not made in a vacuum.

And so it takes years and months, months and years.

And um, and so this this particular plan, the North Sector Plan, I was there, uh, city planners were there, uh, Jody Sherrill as a commissioner was there.

And so if you go look at his picture's there, so um for proof.

Uh but developers, realtors, businesses, residents, citizens, and so they get everybody together to make these plans.

And so so you know everyone gets a uh a spot at the table to kind of say, here's how we want this to happen.

So look at one stop, you know, it's a part of the plan, you you kind of lay out how you want this property to be managed.

And so um these proper these properties were designated as country uh county tier.

And so that says what the size to be developed.

And then the west portion and every actually um everything around it is kind of uh listed as low density residential.

And so um stop didn't identify all the rest of them, but but so it's either uh county tier or low density residential.

And and then also I think was kind of brought up with regards to there's registration for Scenic Loop Lotus Creek, and they weren't necessarily notified as well as they should have been.

And I'm fighting for that regularly on all kinds of other things going on, you know, for the city reach out to the communities, but you know, but but it's true that they probably weren't reached out as well as they could have been.

And so with regards to the master comp uh the comprehensive master plan, it talks about if the development is inconsistent with the land use plan, so we're talking about super high density going into what's currently county uh county tier, that's not consistent.

It says the request must be approved um by a zoning, you know, by the planning commission to make the change to support whatever they're getting ready to have.

That never that's not happening.

And it's kind of because it's in that ETJ, and so that's kind of a squirrely thing where we're gonna allow for this super intense development into a county tier and not really work with our work with the plan itself.

So that seems contradictory there.

Um the proposed MUD, you know, as I said, was surrounded by the county tier and low density.

With normal normal development standards, as we are going through all those planning means says you kind of move from less dense to more dense as you go outside the the you know, the the core is the the lower density and as you move to the to the outside, it becomes a lot more dense.

And that's where you put we'll say you know the arterial roads are, and so that's where you allow for the higher density.

So that's just natural development program or plans on how you do that.

Um so we talked about part of the reason for you know doing that with regards to you know core, not much people, not much traffic, and as you move out to the uh at more intensity where you want them to be on those major roadways.

And so we would expect this kind of development to be on a major arterial, and it's not.

It's on, as we were saying, on on a public uh low low density, low passing roadway, and is just not appropriate for this amount of traffic.

So a lot of changes would have to occur that the city is gonna have to fund, and that's a problem.

Um and then the whole dialogue with regards to the uh egress and ingress, you know, um a variance was given, and I don't know why, you know, because we talk about on the other board I sit on about life and safety.

And you know, I could not support something that's gonna put any citizens, you know, at risk for safety perspective.

Oh, really?

Okay.

Let me show the last screen.

Thank you, Philip.

Appreciate it.

All right, it is 1047.

We're going to take a 10 minute recess.

We'll be back at 1057.

Okay, it is 1058, and we will reconvene the meeting.

If numbers 39 through 45 could line up in the middle, and 39 can approach the podium.

Okay.

One.

My name is Madela McCloskey, um 18717 Lookout Mountain Trail in Great Forest.

And I would like to let you know that I would like to be on a MUD board.

Okay.

I would like to be appointed by either a developer who has made their money and left, or the board that has zero oversight and can assess MUD taxes without justification.

What's done with what would be done without what we do with our business would be our business.

I would vote, in fact, for us to be paid $500 per meeting.

We would be in control of how this money is spent.

Now, as a former teacher, okay, I had control of my class.

But what would have to, but what would it have been like if I had been able to determine how much money I got paid daily?

There was an article in the Express News this past week about Sandra Wilson who lives outside of Dallas, who bought a house with no knowledge of these mud taxes.

I went and looked at her taxes in Collins County.

Collins County, Collins College, Collins ISD are listed, along with the freeze ceilings for each except for Magnolia Point MUD number one.

It has no ceiling.

There will be no oversight on that.

So you know what?

I'd like to tell actually all teachers that if they'd like to make some good money that they should get on a mud board.

Uh what number are you there?

Uh 43.

It's 43.

Okay.

My name is Robert Mihara.

I live at 1807 Carousel Loop 78253.

And I am commenting on the Guajalute Ranch MUD, which is item one on the January 16th Planning Commission agenda.

Uh if we have learned anything from Flint, Michigan, uh, we can neither presume on the safety of the water supply where hazards exist, nor release from accountability, those assuring us that the water will be safe when the truth of the how those hazards may not be fully manifest for years.

Once contamination occurs, the damage cannot be undone.

And residents deserve stronger protections and clearer avenues for accountability than this proposed MUD can provide.

For these reasons, I oppose the MUD under consideration.

Thank you.

What is your number?

42.

Thank you.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

My name is Gretchen Ramirez.

I live at 1015 Trip Lane 78130.

The gentleman representing Lenar said that growth is paying for growth.

And I think he meant to say that greed is paying for greed.

May I suggest that we let common sense pay for public interest?

This is all very simple.

Economic considerations are made for businesses.

Environmental considerations are made for people.

Or of long-term investment for generations of millions to come.

We are paying attention to your legacy.

Are you?

Thank you.

Okay.

Um can is number 40 out there in the audience.

We seem to have skipped that.

Okay.

Uh if 45 through 50 could approach or could line up in the middle and 45 can approach the podium.

I'm 45, not that 45, but I'm 45.

Okay.

You're 45.

Hey, thanks everybody for your endurance.

I appreciate it very much.

My name is Peter Ballum.

I live at 110 Hibiscus Lane, 78213, and I'd like to speak in opposition to the proposed MUD.

I find disingenuous the presentation supporting the proposal that speaks to the number of existing wastewater treatment plants currently in operation over the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone.

Past mistakes don't represent justification for future mistakes.

In fact, chemical pollution itself has changed.

We now have concerns about pharmaceutical pollution in wastewater, microplastics, endocrine disruptors, and my least favorite new pollutant PFAS.

I first learned about PFAS a little over a year ago in reading in the paper that cattle were dying in the panhandle.

And farmers were pointing the finger at PFAS pollution.

Moreover, we live in a state in which the legislature sees fit to allow the oil and gas industry to perform fracking to recover minicals, minerals, to discharge the frack water, the toxic wastewater from their operations into surface streams.

Please say no to this construction request for the mud.

Thank you.

Howdy?

My name is Armando Cruz, uh 9139 Sycamore Cove.

Um 46.

Just want to point on the list.

Um I just want to keep it simple.

Um we have no water, and whatever water we do have is getting stolen by data centers.

And now we want to pollute whatever water we have left on top of that.

Um I am here to, and as everybody here has said before, against this mud.

Um, what happens should this development occur and wastewater facility fails?

80% have been known to fail.

What if something catastrophic should happen?

What if we have another big water system, another freeze, something happens?

Again, that water will get into whatever water we have left for the citizens.

And you know, sadly, what if we were to go on a boil notice for San Antonio?

That is just possibilities of what could happen, and I am just here to be against the mud.

Thank you.

What are your numbers, sir?

50 and 51.

Great, thank you.

My name is John Hooper.

I live on 9810 Minchaka.

Um, and I want to thank you all for being here.

Uh I served, I lived in the area for like five 50 years.

Uh lived and worked in the area.

The uh, but more importantly, I served on the ESD board as a county commissioner for eight years.

I was when they started the ESD board, I was on the board.

I was on the very start of the board.

And I've said on we built a firehouse during that time, and I sat on board just like you are now.

So I feel your pain.

Uh the my time on the board, we built a firehouse.

Uh and in the training that I had during that time, they said, don't build it for today, build it for 20 years from now.

Where's the development gonna go?

And they were exactly right.

Uh we saw our our budget when I first got on the board, we was 125,000 bucks.

When I left the board, it was over two and a half million.

In other words, I saw a lot of development during that time.

Uh and living now, this area that we're talking about is exactly in the middle of our ESD 8, which I served.

The so I know that area very, very well.

Now, when I look on the read the articles on the newspaper TV, such, they always show a beautiful flowing creek, and it looks like the Guadalupe River River to me, it's so big.

And if that were the case, no problem.

But let me tell you, I've lived out there for 50 years, and Holodas Creek, when I first got it, quite often we had to slow down because there was a water running over the road where it crosses the road going into Grey Forest.

Uh I haven't seen water running over the road for 10 years.

Uh it is a dry creek.

It's an auroreo.

It it has no water in it whatsoever unless there's a rain.

Now, the last rain we got out there was in June.

And we got like a quarter inch.

Uh still we had no water in the creek.

It takes an inch or more to water to get any water, an inch or more rain to fill up the creek enough to flow.

So if we don't have flowing water, what do you have?

You have a cesspool.

Now that to me is horrific.

Disease and such is gonna, I mean, this is gonna be very fertile water coming out of this a million gallons a day, and it's gotta flow for a quarter of a mile or so before it even crosses the first road.

It is gonna be horrific.

And the idea that uh approving this this proposal is insane.

If you you know, when I was on ESD board, I traveled all over the place talking to people, trying to learn what their needs were and such.

I'm sure you all do the same thing.

Well, if you take the word of the newspapers and the and and and the the news meet media, don't believe it.

Go up there yourself, please go up there yourself and look at it.

It's a dry creek.

Now, everybody in that area has thank you.

That's your time.

Okay.

Is number 48 and 49 in the audience?

Okay.

Uh 52 through 55 can line up and 52 can approach the podium.

Okay.

Okay.

Uh good morning, Planning Commission.

Uh, my name is Nathan Glady.

Uh, the technical director with the Greater Agber's Occuper Alliance.

We're located at H09 Blanco Road here in San Antonio.

Uh I'm beh I'm here on behalf of our 16 Bear County member groups and our 63 member organizations to urge the planning commission to deny the application request for the creation of Bear County Mud 2, which is Walhote Ranch MUD.

Um we have submitted more in-depth comments, which I provided hands-on copies for y'all this morning.

Uh but to summarize some of our key points in that letter, uh, the first point, it's been mentioned over and over again about the North Sector plan and how this area has been designated as country, suitable for 10 acres plus for development, a development that's slated for this area is being too dense and it's totally inconsistent with the current land uses, poses a real threat to San Antonio's water supply and to the well-being of nearby neighbors.

A development that's slated for this area is being too dense and it's totally inconsistent with the current lane uses, poses a real threat to San Antonio's water supply and to the well-being of nearby neighbors.

Uh second, while we agree that affordable housing is needed, we do not believe that the Wallahoe ranch development will provide homes that are affordable to most San Antonio families.

Although the sales price of these homes may be affordable, the additional property taxes to be assessed on homeowners in this MUD could equal or surpass the assessments collected by Bear County.

We further assert that there are plenty of sites in San Antonio where affordable housing could be built without threatening San Antonio's groundwater supplies.

And lastly, and worth noting, uh my organization has twice contacted these applicants for the creation of this MUD who currently own the property to inform them that the City of San Antonio was interested in discussing the purchase of a conservation easement through the San Antonio Edwards Aquifer Protection Program.

As far as we know, they have refused to consider this option, which could have been provided a more lucrative and more environmentally protective alternative to selling the selling to Lenar.

Okay, that's it.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

What numbers are you, ma'am?

Fifty-four?

You can come right up.

And 55 through 60 can line up in the middle.

Okay, good afternoon, uh commissioners.

My name is Olivia De la Garza, and I'm here on behalf of my dad.

Um he died from cancer, and he was a hardcore, the most toughest rancher in Texas.

I have a long line of family de la garças that some were some of the first ranchers here in the state of Texas.

And my dad unfortunately died of cancer, and that's why I'm here.

He always told me to stand up for what's right and for what's wrong.

And what these people are trying to do is absolutely wrong.

So let me get this straight.

You're having a Florida-based greedy builder coming into our beautiful state of Texas, and they want to poison our drinking water.

As most Texans would say, Don't don't mess with Texas, okay?

Because you are you are all being asked to authorize a project where Lenar, the private developer and the shareholders, takes the profit while the public board, y'all take the risk, and the citizens take the health consequences, such as cancer, like my dad, and communical diseases and all kinds of health hazards.

We ask that you refuse to accept the transfer of liability and vote no to this mud and not ever compromise the health and safety of your citizens and their drinking water.

Thank you so much and God bless you.

Okay, no, we're working on the overflow area, so we had called up 55, 57, 58, and 59 left, and 60.

Are they out there?

Has anybody found those numbers?

What number are you?

69.

60.

Uh my name is Lauren Guzman.

I've worked in potable water protection since 2019, and I'm an environmental science student.

I'm very concerned with long-term access to clean drinking water in Texas, and I'm strongly opposed to this development.

Last year, Texas passed proposition four to establish a Texas water fund to help address flood prevention and aquifer storage and recovery.

Voters passed this with over 70% approval.

The public is very clearly concerned with these water issues.

This wastewater treatment plan would go directly against public opinion.

Lenar states that there are already similar plants in San Antonio and uses to justify further polluting our aquifers.

Several of these plants have been or are currently out of compliance, and TCUQ has already imposed fines for serious non-compliance issues.

The best available scientific evidence tells us that building these wastewater treatment plants and dumping wastewater insensitive car zones will harm public health and endanger our long-term access to clean drinking water.

Allowing a developer to externalize their costs onto us at the expense of our health is not affordable housing.

I urge you to reject the development.

Thank you.

Okay.

Okay, come on up.

And then if we could get uh 61 through 65 to come in and line up.

You're 55 and 69.

Yes.

Uh Pedro Melinda's uh 605 Roosevelt.

As you can tell, I'm old.

Uh the reason I'm here is for the kids and the seven generations.

Our responsibility as adults are to the children, not an insatiable lust for paper and green ink on it.

You can't drink money.

Second to air, water is the most important thing on this earth to live.

Think about that.

It's more valuable than gold, diamonds.

The problem with money, it's based off of numbers.

Numbers are endless, which makes greed endless.

Greed is for the empty souls.

I'm indigenous to this land, and for thousands of years, my ancestors knew water is life.

Water is sacred.

Water connects every single one of us.

And we're made of 60% of water.

So it's vital to our composition.

You ever walk down to a creek or lake?

You look at the water, and you see yourself.

Water is the only natural substance you can look at, and it lets you know it's a part of you, and you're a part of it.

If you muddy the water, you're killing yourself and others.

If you approve this development.

When you try to try when you try to drink it.

57 and 68.

57 and 68.

Thank you.

My name is Ariel.

I was born and raised in San Antonio, and I live in New Bromfels now.

I have family all the way from San Antonio all the way to Austin, and most of us rely on the aquifer.

As we know, out of all the beautiful spring-fed cities, San Antonio is the only one that you probably never swimmed in the river.

It's not the first time we haven't taken water health, water cleanliness seriously.

If we're thinking about money, could we think about how much money our community would make if we had more clean water?

If we were able to take care of more people, we didn't have huge, huge hordes of people coming through the west side.

If you think about even the amount of traffic that mud would add to just some of our commuters, in addition to the concern of water.

Think about what they're asking really.

They're telling you, hey, approve this.

Otherwise, we're gonna do it anyway, and we're gonna do it without y'all's quality care.

And so if if you're citizens, if you live here, even going home and calling TCEQ and asking them, why did you approve this permit?

Why is this approved?

Call them, raise public service awareness, all of you.

Call, because if this continues, not only is it gonna be would MUD put the money and the cost on the people, but if we say, okay, we made it through mud and we didn't approve it, they're still saying we're still gonna try to do it.

Regardless of the people who are saying no, you can't use our roads.

No, you can't dirty our water.

And so don't just say no to mud.

As a citizen, be concerned, go back further into the process and ask why were these permits approved?

Why do we keep adding more negativity to the water?

Oh, there's so many wastewater treatment plants.

Okay, then that means it's okay.

Okay, so if we add more poison to an already serious issue, it's just gonna be not as bad.

That's not a good reason.

That's not a good reason, and they're not coming here to care for us or to give it give to us.

You can even Google that company and find not just one, but many, even in Texas, um court cases against them for many, many reasons.

We need to trust each other, not these big corporations coming in trying to take our land, our water, and our trust from each other.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for listening and have a beautiful day.

I know you're already you've heard so many, and you know the seriousness of this water situation, and then just thank you.

Thank you for taking it in.

Hello.

Um 62.

Yes, I'm number 62.

Um thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of ultimately water and just the human population, the citizens of San Antonio, and ultimately.

Can you please state your name and address for the record?

Yes, absolutely.

My name is Jessica Ramirez, and I live on 14500 Blanco Road, apartment 625.

Um I'm here drinking water.

Water is very important, and we have to consider all of the implications of what this development entails from everything that everyone that has come up here has talked about.

I'm not here to say anything new, but just to reiterate a lot of the concerns that um a lot of the residents here have talked about.

One of my main concerns from being uh a professional in craniocral therapy is the health of the human population, and water is an integral part in our mental health, in our physical health.

I see it all the time.

Water is important beyond any measure that any of y'all probably realize water is extremely important.

And when I'm listening to the developments, what we're really asking for is permission to be greed, to be greedy, and everything that entails it, and that can also include death.

Can you live with yourself knowing that you or me uh contributed to the death of someone due to flooding or right?

Well, thank you so much for this opportunity.

Thank you.

63.

63.

Am I ready?

Hi, my name is Melissa May.

I live at uh 10524 Black Horse in Helotus.

I'm also a homeowner and uh taxpayer in the city of San Antonio.

Please reject this municipal utility uh district proposal, this mud scheme that would pay for and eliminate public oversight of this proposed and disastrous wastewater treatment plant for Guajalote Ranch.

A mud is basically just a government subsidy for Lenar.

Lenar is a rich private Florida-based developer with a very long history of quality and environmental violations.

You can easily Google them or look on Facebook to see the many complaints about their business practices and their homes.

Hi.

My name is Midori Roan.

I live at 21765 Scenic Loop Road, and the Wahalote entrance would literally be a few hundred feet from my gate.

But that's beside the point.

The point is the Edwards Aquifer is important to not just San Antonio, but everyone around the area.

It's our water.

And when you guys vote on this muduction, you literally are holding the most important thing in your hand.

I hope when you make that vote that you vote for life and water and people and not money.

Okay, because that's what this is.

It's money, and there's literally not one person here besides Lenar home representatives that want this in our backyard.

I have golden cheek warblers in my backyard.

I have painted buntings in my backyard.

What happens when people start spraying chemicals all over their yard?

What happens when things get poisoned?

How will I know my well is poisoned?

Will I just die?

Is somebody gonna tell me?

Is everybody in my family gonna be in the hospital?

My family, my husband's family has lived there since 1882.

That's a long time.

It's been slow and it's been thoughtful development.

But this is a bulldozer to all of that.

And the people deserve better.

We all do.

So I really hope that with your great power, you choose the responsible route and you vote for the water and the people.

65.

My name is Nisha Robson, and I'm a concerned resident at Linwood Ridge representing my community to formally express my opposition to the mud.

I'm deeply concerned about the long-term impacts this project will have on our community.

Specifically, the impact of releasing water that would contaminate our source of water and affect those with well water.

Imagine 2.5 million people, including little kids that who would grow up with all kinds of health issues.

The development raises serious concerns related to traffic conditions, strain on water resources, specifically since we are on stage two restrictions, environmental degradation, and the burden it would place on existing infrastructure, such as roads, schools, and emergency services who have no idea of this plan.

The ranch itself is an important area for our open space, wildlife, and overall character of our community.

And this proposal threatens to permanently alter it.

San Antonio is at a critical point where responsible planning and conservation must be prioritized over rapid large-scale developments that benefit just the private developers at the expense of residents and future generation.

Approving this project would set a troubling precedent for the unchecked sprawl and inadequate environmental protections that they are planning to offer.

Growth should be thoughtful, sustainable, and at the best interest for current and future generations, not solely driven by large developers at the expense of the community.

Having studied and published all the ill effects, I am strongly approving requesting that y'all uh deny this.

I request the commission to set up an AI model to study the ill effects that this would bring in 20 years, 30 years.

Okay, sorry about that.

Let's act similar to Comfort Texas, who decided to protect the city.

Thank you for everything that y'all do.

I am speaking uh excuse me.

If uh 66 through 70 could line up in the middle.

I am 61.

I was in the restroom when I was called up.

Good morning.

My name is Julian Gonzalez.

I live at 16719 Worthington, San Antonio, Texas, 78248.

I'm a concerned resident of the city of San Antonio.

I've lived here my whole life.

I've gone to school here, and I've made myself a family here.

In addition to being a student at UTSA, I'm also a parent to a one-year-old who is the joy of my life.

Recently it came to my understanding that a developer is planning a wastewater treatment plant that would dump treated sewage into the Holodas Creek watershed.

I and my family, some of whom live in Filodas, Helotas, are very concerned about this.

City.

Excuse me.

Not only is Holodas Creek a major artery, but it is home to dozens of conduit springs and sinkholes that drain directly into the Trinity and Edwards Aquifers.

I can't say my concern was quelled when I heard that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality approved the permits to build this plant with little oversight or assurance that this water would not contaminate the drinking water for me and my family.

Furthermore, this plant does continue funding.

Who will bear the burden of making sure that our water resources are safe and usable for millions of Texans who rely on it?

I urge you to deny this endangerment of a vital resource and vote against this mud.

Thank you all for your time.

66 Sky Lenahan.

I love it.

415 Denver Boulevard on the southeast side.

So I would like to use my time for us to have a moment of silence to think about everyone that's going to be poison, including humans, animals, and land.

Just think about it.

For money.

To steal more land.

We're all on stolen land already.

Is this the direction we really want to keep going to Indigenous communities have dealt with this for centuries?

Indigenous communities have dealt with this for centuries.

I'm glad people are out speaking against it today, but um the fact that this is even being discussed is disgusting to me.

And I hope y'all go home and think about this tonight.

67.

My name is Hector Martinez.

I live at 415 Denver.

You people grab this land.

You people are colonizers, and even any indigenous people in this room.

We are part of a system.

That flag that has genocided the people who were originally here, and even people on this continent.

Do you all understand that?

You're voting on something that is going to impact generations upon generations.

You're setting a precedence for something that has been going on for a very long time.

Since the first colonizer boats landed on this place, all that it's been done is legal, has been by the books, has been official.

What's official is murder.

What's okay with all our approving of if you do this is murder.

Every single decision that's made in these places is upholding something that that flag stands for.

Not just to me, not just to the people of this community who have enough money to be there.

Not just the people.

Who can show up to these meetings and hear about it and have the capacity to listen to y'all's bullshit.

No, no, no.

I want to say something right now.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Well tell you what, this is what I want to say.

Land back.

There's blood on your hands.

No, I'm not really.

That was a setup to make me look really mild.

I'm kidding.

I really do respect that position.

Um my name is Kelly Lyons and I live across the street at 1202 South Flores.

I'm a professor of biology at Trinity University, and I am a conservation biologist.

I was a long-term president of the San Antonio Natural Areas, but I no longer have any conflict of interest in this in that area.

Um I have seen the good and bad ways to go about a development.

And it is evident that this process uh of this particular case has eroded public trust.

Uh your constituents do not trust these private developers uh and or the future development to maintain a wastewater treatment facility.

Their strategy was to start as usual with a high density, untenable proposal and then walk it back.

That's really common.

It's getting really old, and you can see the outcome of it.

People are sick of it.

Um unfortunately the distruct is an outgrowth of a continued historic degradation of the regulatory end of environmental protection.

Um and this comes at the hand of the lobbyists, developers, all that kind of stuff that's working on the regulatory back end that makes people distrust when something like a a wastewater treatment plant needs to go into place and then nobody's trusting that it's actually gonna be maintained through time, right?

That's a regulatory problem.

And that's all of our problem.

So furthermore, it's clear that the public wants developers to take responsibility to pay for the utilities, um, the utility infrastructure of these developments, and I ask that you please set a precedent with this case to tell the developers that they need to think about that ahead of time and pay for the utilities.

It's critical that we protect and conserve this precious resource.

I'm impressed by the number of people who have come here from all sorts of walks of life, um, and who have come in a unanimous opposition.

I ask that your actions reflect the clear and strong public opposition on this matter.

Please deny the mud.

All right.

So that is all the public comment.

So we're going to close the public hearing and we're going to uh allow the applicant for uh rebuttal.

Thank you, commissioners.

Appreciate it again, Kevin DeNa with Ortiz McKnight, uh representative for the developer Lenar Holmes.

Um my rebuttal is going to be fairly quick.

I am going to remind us why we are all here today.

There's a lot of conversation about the discharge permit, about the uh master development plan, the development approvals that we've already obtained.

The question before us today is whether or not the City of San Antonio will consent to a municipal utility district to help manage the already approved wastewater treatment plant for the Guajaloate Ranch development.

That is the question in front of us.

That is what we are here to talk about.

The MUD itself has been mentioned by the opposition, and I want to drill down on it because it's been mentioned as something of a public handout to Lenar that we are going to tax our future residents or that we are going to issue bonds up front to pay for public infrastructure.

I want to be clear that the MUD does allow for the issuance of bonds, but these bonds are backed by the value that is on the ground.

So there is no way for us to go out and float bonds with raw dirt.

Lenar will have to construct and install the public improvements beforehand, and then they will be able to be reimbursed from the municipal utility district.

So it is a way for growth to grade to pay for growth.

I also want to talk about the high density development that was mentioned.

This is again 1,0160 acres, and we are proposing 3,000 lots.

That comes out to roughly three units per acre.

It was mentioned that we are in the north sector plan, which we do acknowledge.

But I do want to note that the North Sector Plan, as you saw on one of the slides, was adopted in 2010.

That was roughly 16 years ago.

We know that the city of San Antonio has changed rapidly in 16 years.

And that low density residential that was shown just to the north of us, that was imparted by way of the ETJ military protection land use that was installed in roughly 2019.

So that land use designation is more consistent with what is to be expected with development today.

Low density residential allows for a R5 zoning district, which if you were inside the city limits, R5 allows nine units per acre.

Again, we're at three units per acre.

Something was also noted about our traffic impact analysis about a gas station at the intersection of Scenic Loop and Babcock Road.

I just wanted to note that our development is a 100% single family residential development.

That gas station that was proposed is from an adjacent land user, wholly independent from us.

That is not our property.

That is their purview to use it as they want.

The lack of notice that has been brought up consistently, I want to reiterate how long we've been working on this development and the public process that has gone on.

Today is a public hearing.

We've been before TCEQ multiple times.

So for the claim that there has been no public notice, we have kept stakeholders and community organizations updated regarding this development.

This is that that's the end of my rebuttal, but uh my team and I are available to answer any questions if commissioners have them.

Thanks again.

Okay.

Um at this point in time, we're going to take a 30-minute recess and come back at well, let's call it 1140 at 1210.

All right.

Okay, it is 1210, and we'll reconvene the meeting.

Um we uh public comment is over, so the public hearing is closed, and uh we will now move on to commissioner questions.

So we can start way down there on the uh commit uh councilman Mungia.

Um just a point of clarification, Chair.

Am I able to make a motion at this point?

Um yeah, you can make a motion at any time.

Okay.

Uh at this point I'd like to motion to deny item number one.

Okay, so there is a motion on the table by Councilman Mangia to deny the item.

And the second was Commissioner Garcia, is that who it was?

Or Commissioner Sanchez?

Okay.

All right.

Well, we're gonna move on to Commissioner questions.

We're going to start on the left with Commissioner Sanchez.

Um, out of respect for the forum for the for the agenda for the customer for the public, um, I'm gonna withhold uh my comments just because they're not why we're here today.

And I understand why we're here today.

Um but out of respect for everyone, uh especially um this community, I'm gonna withhold my comments.

Um everything that was expressed today is on my mind as well, in addition to so much more.

Um but again, I out of respect.

I'm gonna I'm gonna refrain from expressing what's what's on my mind.

Um but I do know why we're here today, um, and I know what's at stake.

Um I I have to I have to um say I I do not support this at this time uh councilman.

Well, thank you very much, and I want to say thank you to everybody in attendance for making my first uh planning commission meeting a very exciting um and so you know I've been here at City Council uh as a staffer and now as a council member for over uh about 10 years already.

And I have to say that the folks here that have organized is is one of the most organized uh community that I've ever seen at council.

Uh and I think a lot of your points uh were you know based on science uh and based on traffic and based on some facts of the issues.

Um and I appreciate that there was very, very limited personal attacks um by everybody on the applicant and on anybody up here as well.

So I think that's extremely important.

Uh we don't always see that at City Council sometimes.

And I also want to thank the applicant for being here and and for doing the presentation.

District 4 is on the opposite side of town, southwest side of San Antonio.

We have a lot of Lenar developments, and I think most of the criticism here today was not about the actual product uh or the people who choose to live in Lenar homes.

It was about the location and most importantly the effects on the aquifer.

And you know, Southwest side of the city's San Antonio, very, very far from Grey Forest.

Uh I've had a residents come up to me, right?

And on social media and say, Councilman, what are you gonna do about this situation?

You know, the Edwards Aquifer is the main source of water for the city of San Antonio and for Bear County.

Uh and so we have to be very, very sensitive and very, very careful around developments in and around the aquifer.

Um so I was able to do a tour um with some of the folks here today um, you know, a couple months back and get to learn a lot more about your community because I'll obviously I'm not from there, I don't know too much.

Um and so I was able to see everything that you were talking about and visit properties where this creek is located, where this discharge would kind of come into and see that firsthand.

So I think that you all have done a great job in organizing, getting facts out there, getting people uh to the door, and it truly is a very bipartisan um issue.

Uh and I don't know any other times that I might be on the same side with Senator Campbell uh as someone on the left, but I do appreciate that everyone has taken this as a issue, not necessarily a political issue.

Uh and so that's why today I'm happy to make the motion to deny this, and I it will be at City Council.

I will also vote against that there.

Um but I appreciate everyone who's been here and took the time to come out here and take the day off and to be supportive of that.

So again, I appreciate all of you, appreciate the applicant for being here and for going through this process, uh, and look forward to see what the rest of my fellow commissioners have to say.

Thank you.

Commissioner Siegel Uh well I do have questions.

Um and I do respect everyone's time, my fellow commissioners as well as all the public participants who came today and the staff members who are here.

This is an important issue.

And um water quality, environmental degradation are critical, right?

Um but it's m it's a little more than that, and and I'm not asked exactly well, I would like to actually clarify what we're being asked to decide here today, right?

Are we being asked to decide whether or not there are sufficient ingress egress for emergency vehicles?

Are we being asked to decide whether the wastewater treatment plant um is uh meets certain guidelines?

Um are we being asked to decide whether the change in property taxes will affect neighbors or only the people on this property?

Are we being asked to decide whether this development can go forward, or are we being asked to decide how the water and sewer service will be delivered to this development?

I think that there are a number of different conceptions about what is being considered today, and not all of them are true.

Commissioner, uh what you are considering with the request today is for the city's consideration either to give its consent or to deny or take no action on the request for the creation of a MUD district, which is a financing district.

So it would help finance the services that are infrastructure is being provided.

So that's what's on the agenda today.

Is it if whether the city, whether you would recommend or the as a body, would y'all recommend if the MUD district is created and it heads to TCEQ, or if it goes through a different process?

Okay.

Just to restate, we're being asked today to, and and it's not really our decision.

We're going to make a recommendation to city council, and they'll be the final word.

Um but today we're being asked to make a recommendation on whether or not the creation of a municipal utility district as a governing body for this water and sewer service to this development is appropriate, or if not, then how will the water and sewer service be overseen if there is no MUD?

The MUD is for the financing.

So the T they will be regulated by TCQ because TCQ is the creating entity.

So as the creating entity, they have the regulatory powers.

So on this slide, you can see if, for instance, if the city were to decide to approve the MUD, then it the developer would go to TCQ for their consideration.

If the city were to deny or take no action, then the developer would go, would could ask the and this has to be done within 90 days.

And I have a little information about the administrative process and everything.

But basically, if it's denied or if it's no decision is made, then the developer can ask for a service to negotiate a service agreement with city and saws for the wastewater treatment plan.

If uh the city and the developer come to an agreement, then they within 120 days after the city has given its its a denial, then they have the ability to ask for another type of district.

They can go back to TCQ or they can come back to us or they can go to the county.

The city's role is is by state law, is that it requires participation as far as require giving us our consent.

We don't create it, but if we give our consent because it's in our city's ETJ.

So the other process is if no agreement is made, then the developer has exhausted all his means, and so the item goes back to TCQ, and TCQ can create that, can consider the creation of the district.

But this is the MUD is a financing district.

And they'll have and it's the purpose is to it'll be a utility, it is this municipal utility district is a utility that's going to be running in that area.

Thank you.

So okay, so the MUD is a financing district that enables this utility service to be paid for and maintained.

And so where does the money come from?

I I can allow the um develop I mean the representative, but it they have the ability to issue bonds and they also have the ability to assess uh some assessments or taxes on the property owners within the district.

Only within the district.

Only within the district.

Yeah, Commissioner, just to drill down on that, your question about who pays for the public infrastructure.

The public infrastructure is going to be paid up front by the developer, so it'll be paid by LENAR.

This financing mechanism, this municipal utility district will allow for reimbursement to LENAR from those adorm taxes that are paid by eventual homeowners.

Those eventual homeowners will have notice of the tax rates, they will have notice of bonding capacity for the district.

That's all statutorily required to be included in closing documents and filed in the real property record.

So there will be sufficient notice, but to again answer your question, the public infrastructure is paid for by the developer.

Okay, so it's fronted by the developer, but then the developer is reimbursed through ad valorum taxes.

Correct.

And does that infrastructure that the cost to us fronted by the developer?

Does that include the um street infrastructure as well as like the improvements to Cena Cloop Road as well as it includes everything that is considered a public improvement?

So that would be your roadways, your power, your sewer, your sewer line that is traversing the land from the wastewater treatment plant, the water lines that come through the property, anything that is for a public purpose and public is not intended for everybody outside of the district.

Public is talking about the eventual residents who will live in the district and benefit from these homes that are constructed within the boundaries of the district.

Okay, so the total infrastructure bill will be included, like invoice will be included in this mud, and the total infrastructure improvement cost will be paid for by the property owners within the Guajalote Ranch development.

That's correct.

Okay.

So the the wastewater treatment plant is included as part of that public infrastructure.

That's correct.

Yes.

So that will also be paid for as part of this MUD.

Correct.

Okay.

So then I do have some questions about the wastewater treatment plant and the plans for it.

Even though I believe that has that plant itself already been licensed?

Has it already been approved?

Like where are we with that?

So that has already been approved.

That was the last development approval that we received from TCEQ.

That was granted in October of 2025.

So we now have our discharge permit from the state.

We are in the process of designing the wastewater treatment plant.

And this was not a quickie review.

This wasn't just like, you know, put it on my desk and let me stamp it.

This was a three-year process.

Correct.

Our initial application for the discharge permit was filed in 2022.

And as I stated, we received final approval from the state in October of 2025.

Okay.

I I have notes.

Let me refer to my notes.

So where we've seen the map that shows that there are other wastewater treatment plants in the contributing zone.

That doesn't necessarily mean that one more is okay, and I understand that.

But let's just say that we're gonna have it there.

How many of the other wastewater treatment plants in the contributing zone are type A operators?

Um that I don't know if you have beyond spring 55 miles away.

Can you can you uh I don't know the answer to your specific question, the type of operator is tied to the volume of effluent being treated by the plant.

The closest plant to to the Guajalote ranch is the Leon Springs WWTP.

It's five miles away and it doesn't have the capacity to serve this development.

The closest city plant is the Meteo plant, which is 17 miles away, and that's infeasible, and SAS didn't want to treat this development from that facility.

Um and I don't even know if that plant based on the volume has a class A operator.

However, um the development agreement and that's been proposed, as well as the settlement agreement with Met Health requires a Class A operator under the TCQ rules, a class B operator would be required at the ultimate million uh gallon per day discharge.

So it's already above and beyond what's required by state law.

Thank you.

So in terms of the treated water.

Can we look at the map of the site?

Can we look at your master plan master development plan?

Yeah, I want the one that shows the site and shows where the phased developments are.

I'm sorry, sir.

Public comment is over for today.

That's great.

So I can see on this map, um, and I like I don't need you to walk me through it or anything, but I can see where Scenic Loop Road is.

Um I can see, and it's here listed as a collector type A.

Um, I see where the wastewater treatment plant is at the southern border.

I see there's a lot of green open space, and then all the um gradient that we're looking at is actually comes from the closeness of topographic lines, correct?

That's correct.

Okay, so it can be difficult to tell what's a high spot and what's a low spot.

Could you point to the low spots?

Is there a pointer?

So there are multiple low spots throughout this development, but one thing that I want to note that we agreed to do is to do mandatory detention and retention on site, which is not required for this development.

So there are going to be a new there are going to be numerous detention and retention ponds on site, and I will show them.

There will also be one here, and there is one here as well.

Okay, so we've heard this figure of a million gallons per day, which holy moly, right?

That's a lot of water.

So can you tell me comparatively the size of the detention retention ponds compared to that figure?

So I I don't know that number off the top of my head, Bruno, is that something that you would percentage of water is anticipated to be detained?

So let me uh let me say this before Bruno comes up here.

Our ultimate goal with this development is to retain all water on site.

All water that comes from this wastewater treatment plant, our goal is to keep it on site by utilizing these detention and retention ponds.

Um Bruna, did you have the okay?

My name is Brennan Spangler with Babe Dawson.

Uh so for uh we're talking about first drainage, right?

Separate from the the reuse water that's going to be treated.

The detention, we're gonna have multiple detention ponds.

And I'll get that.

You you mentioned using first, I'm sorry, you mentioned a couple of cycles of water reuse, right?

So I want could you just take me through like the life cycle of water, like if we flush it or it goes down the drain, it goes to the treatment plant, and then what?

So we're talking uh if we're talking about the the um sewer water, right?

It's gonna go down the drain, it's gonna go in the sewer system, it is a gravity flow.

Uh there will be one lift station on site so far that's planned that because there's lots of highs and lows, and it's gonna be pumped to another gravity main and is going to make it to the wastewater treatment plant.

There it's going to be treated.

Once it's treated, it's going to be pumped to a reuse tank.

So the treated affluent is going to be stored, and we plan to use that water for irrigation on site.

So is that water already ready to be used like as a gray water system for irrigation?

It's not potable.

Correct.

But it's appropriate to use in the landscape.

It's well used in golf courses, for example.

Okay, well, golf courses are notoriously pollutive to groundwater because of the fertilizers and pesticides that they use.

So like Yeah, I'm not comparing, I'm just saying that it's it's gonna be water use for irrigation only.

Okay, so it's not to be used to grow food or no.

Okay.

It's not gonna be mixed with a potable use.

It's gonna be in a purple pipe.

It's gonna go to the reuse tank whenever we can.

We're gonna irrigate the open space areas with that water.

Um, but there will still be a discharge point.

If we cannot use all that water, it will be discharged, but the goal is to use 100% of the water on site for irrigation of our open space.

Okay, great, thank you.

So the water will be treated in the wastewater treatment plant, and that's gonna remove biological contaminants.

Is that correct?

Correct.

I am not the wastewater engineer.

I am on the drainage side on the civil side for roads and all that.

So I cannot speak so much about the treatment.

We have other members of our team here, but that was discussed for those three years, how much treatment we would be doing uh that was discussed with ECQ.

And we are uh doing an MBR system that's a membrane system that is probably the highest technology available for us to be doing for treatment.

Okay, so I would like to know more about that, right?

Because if there is a chance that this water gets into our aquifer, then we want to be uh, you know, very conscientious.

Okay.

Helen, do you want to speak a little bit more about that?

So during the contested case hearing, um, evidence was produced for the administrative law judges on the effluent limitations, it's tertiary treatment.

Um the effluent will be treated by a membrane bioreactor plant.

Um, as you've heard, the plan is to reuse beneficially on site to the maximum extent possible.

This is a term of uh the developer's settlement with the city of San Antonio.

And so the developers required by that standalone settlement agreement, which is also part of the development agreement, to use the effluent to the maximum extent possible.

However, in the case of inundation, rain, flooding, where they can't uh irrigate common space, and by the way, the irrigation has to be on common space, it cannot be on individual homeowner sites.

Um, and is discharged in, as the crowd pointed out, the dry Holodus Creek.

Um extensive geogra geological analysis was done by both the protestant side hired by the city of Grey Forest as well as uh the applicant showed that all the wells in this area are completed in uh the middle Trinity, and so there's a combining layer between the upper and middle.

This was conceded by the Protestants uh geologist, Dr.

Ron Green.

Matter of fact, uh the geology uh expert for the applicant also worked for the city of Grey Forest.

So we are not concerned, nor was the TCEQ concerned that there was a pathway of contamination to area groundwater wells.

And of course, you know that the state law allows in not just Bear County but seven other counties where the Edwards aquifer exists, discharge permits over the contributing zone.

We are not in the recharge zone, we are in the contributing zone.

Does that answer your questions?

It does, but you said something very interesting, and that is the confining layer.

So can you tell us a little more about the confining layer?

I'm not a geologist, I'm an attorney.

There's an aquitard.

This was the evidence produced at hearing again by both Dr.

Green and by applicants, geologist Cave Corzad, who had been hired by the city of Grey Forest.

So the upshot is that there is a confining layer of clay that prohibits the downward migration of effluent being discharged in the creek.

And remember, by the way, it's not going to be discharged into the creek by and large, it's going to be reused beneficially on site.

And when I say beneficially reused, the point of that is it evaporates off the top of the grass or in the root zone.

So it there's no downward migration from the irrigation process itself.

In any season.

Also recall what council said earlier, half of the uh 1100 acre footprint is not going to be developed, and that uh area is available for irrigation as well.

So there is lots of uh room.

There's uh gray forest public water supply is 2.6 uh miles away from the discharge point.

Um all the private wells are um more than 150 feet away, which is state law, and as well, you have that um aquatic situation prohibiting downward migration.

So there's essentially three different mechanisms to protect groundwater.

Thank you.

Um that definitely answers my question.

Um is there somebody who could talk about surface runoff and um flash flooding for this area?

Is there somebody here who can talk about that?

So that's the order of water that was going to talk to you about earlier.

The drainage water, right?

That's the rainwater.

That's what's captured by the storm uh sewer, uh, sorry, the storm system is all going to be routed through water quality and detention base, and we're gonna be following the UDC, the San Antonio code uh to show that we're not causing impacts downstream.

And you probably have run some models um reflecting a hundred-year flood.

Correct, yeah.

We go all the way from the one year event to the 100-year event.

And what happens in the event of a 100-year flood?

Uh the water is held in our ponds and it's released at the same rate as in existing conditions.

We're not supposed to hold the water so there's no water that goes downstream.

The code requires us to mitigate for existing conditions.

So what's happening now undeveloped, that's what we have to do once the project is developed.

Okay, so the maximum flow rate at Hilotus Creek would not change, just the length of time in which water flows down that creek.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Is the flow rate that's gonna remain the same?

Okay.

Thank you.

Um could I have somebody tell me what are the safeguards for the wastewater treatment plant against malfunction and accidental failure?

So in our utility service agreement with SAWs, there were nine specific requirements for the wastewater treatment plant, which I walked through.

Uh one of them being a class A operator, which we've discussed.

Uh in our settlement agreement with Metro Health, though, Metro Health drilled down on what is required for the wastewater treatment plant.

Uh, in the event that there is a uh malfunction with the wastewater treatment plant, it's going to be monitored 24 hours a day.

There is going to be someone on site to manage the wastewater treatment plant to help mitigate the impact or the possibility of the wastewater treatment plant malfunctioning or failing.

That is one of the requirements from our settlement with Metro Health.

Okay, thank you.

Um you mentioned that there will be a board of directors to govern the wastewater treatment plan, is that correct?

Or is are they governing the MUD as a whole?

Sorry.

Yes, the MUD would have a board of directors.

Uh the board of directors would also oversee the wastewater treatment plant as it is a public improvement within the boundaries of the district.

How will those board of directors be selected?

The board of directors are selected initially by the developer, um, but eventually the board of directors will be made up of residents from the district who actually own property.

So initially, when the district is in its infancy, it will be selected by the developer.

Uh, and the idea goal is to select experts in their field to help ensure that this wastewater treatment plant is built and managed correctly in order to ensure that there is no downstream impact, there is no negative impact to adjacent landowners.

Okay, and then um what kind of oversight do you anticipate there being to manage uh fiduciary responsibility of the board of directors?

So the board of directors, the uh I'll take a step back.

A MUD is a political subdivision of the state.

So think of it as a small city.

The board of directors will have the the MUD will have its own district council will have its own financial advisor, for example.

The board of directors will have to take oaths and also put up bonds in order to serve on the board.

Um in the event that there is any malfeasance or lack of fiduciary duty, other board members will be allowed the opportunity to uh remove them.

Okay.

Um lastly, um, I think this might be lastly.

Um is there like a ballpark figure for the anticipated cost of infrastructure improvements?

The rough estimate that we've put together is 150 million dollars in today's dollars.

That does not account for escalation of the public improvements, but in today's dollars, we're estimating 150 million dollars in public improvements.

And what is the term uh in which the developer would anticipate those being repaid by that through the advilorum tax?

Like is there a cap on how much tax property taxes, how much will be tacked onto the property taxes for these 1,000 property owners?

So the Texas administrative code requires uh special districts in Bear County.

We cannot exceed one dollar per uh 100 valuation.

I can't speak to previous MUDs that may have had higher tax rates that may have been before this statute was implemented, but the highest tax rate that we can utilize is one dollar.

But realistically, Commissioner, our tax rate is going to be set by the market.

Uh Lenar Homes is known as a uh attainable home builder who markets to first-time buyers, move up buyers.

Uh and as I indicated in my presentation, this development will have a mix of homes marketed towards first-time buyers and move up buyers.

We cannot price or we cannot instill a tax on this property at such a rate that we price ourselves out of the market, and we cannot put a advalorm tax on this property that would limit our market from being able to afford these homes.

Right, that wouldn't be profitable.

Correct.

I think that's it for me, but maybe there'll be a second round of questions.

Commissioner Garcia.

So right now, by state law, uh municipal utility district is allowed the ability to exercise imminent domain.

I can tell you, Commissioner, that in the draft development agreement with the city of San Antonio, that is a right that the city is not allowing to this municipal utility district.

So as currently written, the ability to exercise imminent domain would not be allowed for this mud.

I do think this is probably one of the most organized and best turnouts I've seen in being on planning commission.

So I applaud the community for for being a part of this and for making their comments.

And I think it's important that we do this, especially myself having uh been involved in politics for when I was much when I was younger, and to see this kind of organization, you know, I certainly applaud you for showing up.

But I also applaud the applicant for his detailed thorough analysis.

But I, you know, honestly, I'm not going to rehash what the my commissioners on my left-hand side have already gone through.

Um I just, you know, I look at it with the water quality, I know we've gone through that, and what we're voting on is whether we want to create a district to manage the utilities and the public infrastructure of this of this development.

Um we know that you know TCQ has already approved it.

Um I guess you know, I guess I have just one last little technical question to ask is that you know, looking at wastewater treatment facilities and going through the fact that you stated that number one, we looked at a um pulling in the sewer lines from SAWs, B septic systems, and then C the wastewater treatment plant.

Can you just, you know, walk me through one more time?

How did that, how did the ultimate and what were some of the factors that led to ultimately deciding, you know, is it all cost, was it feasibility of getting adjacent landowners to contribute to bringing the saw sewer line through participation agreement with SAWs, anything like that.

But what was, I mean, how did we get to this point?

Yeah, and then I have a follow-up question just on, you know, again, looking at adjacent developments that have ultimately springed up because you see San Tony is expanding so much.

Yeah, so thank you, Commissioner.

Uh great question.

So to walk through SAW's analysis related to sewer service in this site, and again, we are outside of SAW's sewer jurisdiction.

Uh that is why there was a full analysis of potential sewer options for this site.

Saw has looked at providing traditional sewer.

Um, but the closest sewer line to this site is roughly five miles away.

And in order to drag a sewer line to this site, you would have to negotiate with private landowners and acquire easements or acquire property to go through their property and reach Guajalote Ranch.

Uh so that would be very costly.

Uh two, what that would do is that sewer line would go right through the recharge zone.

So there is a very large environmental impact with providing traditional sewer service.

And lastly, uh Can you provide a little bit of detail on that?

What do you mean there would be an environmental impact?

So you're putting a uh sewer line right through the recharge zone, which has its own pitfalls, namely if there is ever a leak break in that sewer line over the recharge zone, then you're talking about raw sewage going right into our drinking water.

That is different from what is proposed with Coajalote Ranch since we are in the contributing zone.

The recharge zone is where we do get our drinking water from.

Traditional sewer would have opened up further development in an environmentally sensitive area.

So that is something that SAWs considered when they decided to move away from or decided against providing traditional sewer.

Septic has its own downfalls, pitfalls as well.

Namely, Septic does not treat wastewater to a level of a wastewater treatment plant.

That wastewater is raw, it is treated very minimally, and once it's treated minimally, it's dispersed across the property, and in heavy rain events, that wastewater discharge is carried into neighboring lands into neighboring waterways, and saws found that septic systems have a tendency to fail in this area or leak.

So we're talking about potential raw sewage in this area.

And I notice in surrounding developments, it's all septic.

Is that is that correct?

Did I hear that correctly?

That's right.

So the existing development to our north, which uh some residents indicated they were part of, that is a uh single family residential development that is primarily septic, if not all septic.

I'm not sure if somebody can answer that's here, but you know, just the overall effects of having a septic system, especially those many on in canyons.

Um what's what's the effect if say even half of them is there?

Is there a general understanding of the effect even half of them fail or or seep out versus having a wastewater treatment plant, you know, uh like you're proposing for this development?

I I don't have that number for you, Commissioner.

What I can say is that SAWs evaluated this very thoroughly, and when septic was mentioned specifically in this area, it was identified to have an issue with the topography and the rocky nature of this area.

And there was a there was a fear that if there were 3,001 uh septic systems, even one could damage our drinking water.

Yeah, a development north of it has quite a few, I assume.

It does.

And it was planned.

I I can't speak to how that development was planned.

I don't know if they ever approached SAWs about providing traditional sewer.

Um I just know that is a septic uh development.

Thank you for your time.

No further questions.

I want to echo Commissioner Alette.

Uh, this is probably the most organized community engagement for an issue that I've I've seen in my almost nine years on the commission.

Um your voices are heard and you have legitimate concerns, and the commission is here to listen.

Uh I want to applaud the staff for providing a special session so we have adequate time to debate, discuss, um, made the process hopefully seamless for you with the entry and the parking and allowing uh understanding where you're coming from geographically, additional time to sign up.

And our my fellow commissioners, we're all taking you know days off to be here today.

So why are we here and why you know as a planning commission, you were generally looking at plan amendments?

We do do look at PIDs and not only MUS, but PIDs, plan amendments.

Um this is not typically something that would come to our attention.

There's no plan amendment with this because this property is outside the military protection overlay.

Um again, it's in the ETJ.

So the sole purpose as I understand it is to provide um recommendation to city council where the city of San Antonio should consent and sign a development agreement with the with the borrower and with the uh owners.

Uh my question, I guess to Mr.

Deanda.

If we however we recommend, and city council ultimately denies participation.

This is private land.

This will not come back to planning commission as I see it for plan amendment or anything like that or zoning.

What could possibly happen?

Um so in this hypothetical planning commission takes action and city council denies.

Is that is that what we're talking about?

So in that situation, if city council denies consent, then the development agreement that we've discussed that would not come into effect.

Uh there would be no agreement between Lenar, the property owner, and the city of San Antonio.

So there would be no further development restrictions applicable by the development agreement to this site.

That does not stop the MUD process.

The next step in the overall process would be to uh petition the city to provide service to this site.

Um I can't speak to exactly what that would entail, but theoretically, it would entail reading um reapproaching the city about providing traditional sewer to this site.

And if the city is not uh cannot provide traditional sewer uh within a time frame that staff mentioned, then the developer applicant has the ability to petition TCEQ without city consent, without um the city uh ability to provide service.

We still have the ability to uh petition TCEQ to create the mud.

So potentially there could be a mud without I don't want to say protections because I don't understand completely, and I don't think the development agreement is finalized.

That's right.

But in um as it's currently sort of contemplated, could you maybe outline what the potential benefits to the surrounding communities would be with the city's participation?

Yeah.

As opposed to not.

So one of the big factors that we consent to in all of our development agreements, and which is again still in a being being negotiated between our side and the city is annexation.

Currently, the city of San Antonio has no ability to annex this property without the landowner consenting.

That would be a big item that the city would get with a development agreement.

This development agreement is a little unique from what we see with our other special districts in that it goes further because we are proposing a wastewater treatment plant for this development, and it restates the nine items that SAWs required in their USA and also restates the settlement agreement with Metro Health.

So effectively what it does is it gives the city the ability to monitor SAW's development restrictions, the settlement agreement.

And if the city has any issue or if there is any claim that we the developer breach those requirements, uh the city has the ability to claim breach under the development agreement and potentially annex the property.

So there is uh considerable uh weight behind the development agreement and our side wanting to comply with the development agreement.

So potentially without the city's um participation, private development can occur, single family homes can be built.

There's really no limit, right?

Because there's there's uh unless it's limited to the count county tier, I don't think it is because it's not in the military protection overlay.

Is that correct?

Um they sorry, just to clarify really quickly, uh, Commissioner.

So the utility service agreement would still be applicable, so we would still be limited to the 3,000.

Okay.

But um the further protection from the city to oversee um the nine restrictions from SAWS, that would be off the table.

It would just be SAWs who has to uh oversee the utility service agreement.

And not if you if you retain vested rights, you aren't subject to the free ordinance to impervious cover restrictions.

Is that right?

That's correct.

Uh we did um that those are requirements of the utility service agreement.

So again, we would be subject to those.

Um, but again, the big item with the city's consent is that we are agreeing to be annexed into the city limits at a future date.

Um that would be off the table.

So this development would continue to function outside city limits.

Um if SAWs had any issue with it, SAWs would be the body who would have to enforce those utilities service restrictions.

Okay.

Um just kind of putting it out there for public, you know awareness that um there may still be development there.

So I think the question to ponder, and this may be more towards city council, is what is the best outcome for these communities?

Uh what is the best outcome for the environmental impacts, the traffic impacts.

I understand the developers doing signals and doing some infrastructure improvements for I was surprised there's not signals at uh Babcock and Cross Mountain.

So I think those are beneficial to the community, and maybe are maybe should be there regardless of this development.

Um I'm just trying to weigh that, you know.

I understand the concerns, I understand the optics and the political um appearances.

So I'm just I'm aware that you know it's important.

Um I am thinking about the community.

So I appreciate you answering those questions and have no further comments.

Well, I guess one of the benefits of going towards the end is a lot of my questions have been asked and answered.

Um but I do want to echo what everyone has already said too.

Thank you all for really thought-provoking, interesting process.

The community have been so well organized and have brought so many excellent things.

And I think they're in our break down a big radical looking up membrane bio reactors.

Trying to understand a little bit more about that.

And the the rest of the commissioners have reminded me of what our duty is here too.

So not to decide about that.

It was fascinating.

Um thanks again to the applicants and to the staff who made this the least painful process as it could possibly have been.

Because I actually don't have any questions, and I'm going to sit here and ponder until it's time to so nobody left me any question to ask but me, since I'm the last one.

Again, you've been thanks enough from all my fellow commissioners about all the organization that uh has been taking place today from the staff, from the residents, and the thorough presentation from the applicant.

Um there was one point that is not clear to me.

Uh if the mud is established, and now it is time to issue bonds that eventually will be to reimburse the developer.

Is this bond coming at some point in the future to the residents to vote on it on a ballot to yes or no whether this bond should be issued or not?

So potentially, Commissioner, the way that this special district would work is there would be an election up front where bonding capacity is set for existing public infrastructure that is proposed.

Uh anything outside of that at a future date uh that is not covered by the bonding capacity, if future residents would like to increase it, they have the ability to call another election.

But for this 150 million dollars that we are projecting now, that election would take place at the beginning of the district.

So there is an election would take place?

Correct.

The election is to confirm the district.

That is statutorily required.

That is we we create the district, but there is a election that is required to ratify the district.

Correct.

What happened if that election deny the MUD?

If that election denied the MUD, then the MUD would not be ratified, and we would it would be a MUD on paper only.

That is, it would be a special district, but it would not have the ability to exercise any of the powers that is reimbursement to the developer or oversight maintenance of the public improvements.

You could always call a second election, but we wouldn't like to do that.

Ideally, we are able to get the first election approved.

Okay.

And that election will happen early before the three thousand halves will be filled with the residents inside the district.

Yes, that's correct.

And the residents who will most likely go to the election to these ballots would be the residents who are sitting today in Hilotis area and the surrounding the district.

No, no, no, no.

The residents who would vote in this election would be residents who live on site currently.

So residents within the boundaries of the district.

So they would vote to either confirm or deny.

Because remember, this district is only taxing residents within its boundaries.

It is not taxing anyone outside.

So it is wholly the district's purview.

So residents outside of this district will not see a raise in their tax as a result of this MUD development.

So that that's an important distinction.

Someone mentioned it earlier, not from this MUD.

This MUD will not charge a tax outside of its boundaries.

But more specifically to your question, Commissioner, this MUD will not tax any residents outside of its boundaries.

Okay.

If if you clarify to me here that if the fifth hundred fifty million dollars is requested from the residents of this district.

And there is an essential development and improvement.

It needs to be coming to this district from the outside, which is a public improvement.

Does the 150 million dollars that's coming to the district will be not paid by the residents outside the district, although it is in the right-of-way outside of district, just to deliver maybe utilities, water lines coming to the front of the district.

This is going to be spent into that as well.

I I think I'm understanding what you are saying, Commissioner.

If it falls within an improvement that we're contemplating for this 150, so say it is a utility improvement that we're contemplating and it falls within this 150 million, then yes, the district would be able to reimburse for that pursuant to the bonding capacity that we uh elect at the outset.

But if it is outside the 150 million, then we would have to hold a subsequent election to increase our bonding capacity.

Okay.

My I guess my question is to make improvement inside the district, you need to send utilities to it.

You see to make improvements to the district outside.

All right.

This is now outside the boundaries of the district.

Okay.

And you're going to use the taxes only from collected from the inside residents to cover that.

So the residents outside the district will benefit from the improvements in road expansions in utilities coming to their but there is road expansions going to get benefits.

Is that true?

Correct.

Yes, sorry.

To answer your question, yes, there will be improvements made that are that the public, the general public benefits from, not only the residents of this community, but the residents at large, the signal lights, the expanded roadway, those will be improvements that the general public will benefit from.

But the payment for those improvements will come from the district.

Those improvements at time at that time at one point in the future will not be built to the outside residents from the district, although it is a public improvement.

Correct.

So I think that gets to a question that Commissioner Siegel had.

The developer will front all those costs, and the future residents within the district will repay the developer for fronting those costs for building those improvements.

There will be no impact to uh outside residents.

They will not have to pay a special tax for those improvements.

Okay.

Another question on recruiting the board members initially to oversee the water treatment plant.

Why initially this has been done and selected individuals by the developer?

Why not you can hand it over to SAS, for example, or some other professionals to operate it initially until qualified board members come later?

Why the transition in the beginning has to be through developer choice?

So, Commissioner, I'll say this.

I think Lenar is open to discussion about potential board members.

Our goal is to provide this waste this district with uh the background and board members who would allow it to succeed.

What we would want is experts, but we are open to negotiating who would serve on the board.

Um I don't think that it's open and shut about who would serve on the on the MUD board.

Yeah, I just find it very difficult to accept the fact that you will build it, you will operate it, you will control it, and then you will hand it over.

What happened during this initial transition time to have a full transparency of operating a water treatment plant and over-contributing zone?

That seems to me a very critical infrastructure at this point.

So just this little thing is is not a comfortable comment from you when you mention that.

It is initially, but I'm I'm glad that you clarified is that this is an open discussion that can be handled.

Correct.

It's again, don't want to close the door on it.

There again, it's a political subdivision of the state.

So there are certain rules that we have to follow, like, for instance, a county commissioner would not be able to serve on this board because there would be a conflict.

However, somebody from SAWS, some expert, subject level expert, they would be able to serve on the board, and again, we're open to discussing that, negotiating that.

If that is something that the city would like.

One more comment.

It's regarding the TCEQ as a regulator regulatory entity that oversee the water treatment on site.

What is SARS control comes in place when it comes to a malfunction in the water treatment plant and issue with the water treatment?

Who would revise and oversee whatever happens?

Because I don't think TCEQ would come in from the state to frequently oversee and monitor that.

How about our local entity, the water entity in town?

Where the role would be?

So remember, SAWS is not providing sewer service to the site.

However, SAWs required certain restrictions on the wastewater treatment plant.

One of them was a type A level operator.

A type A level operator has to report within certain time frames to the state.

And if we ever fall outside of certain parameters, then the state dings us or they send a notice to us that we are outside of the parameters.

And the time frame is not days.

And if anything came out from the monitoring of this water, what actions needs to be taken at that point?

Then we would be subject to typical TCEQ regulations, and if we are ever outside of the balance, then we fall into remediation efforts or fines from TCEQ.

So there are heavy, there are heavily heavy penalties with not complying with TCEQ's rules.

Fees and penalties on the board who operate the MUD, correct?

Correct.

And these fees and penalties would be paid eventually by the taxpayers later.

Not no.

And just so we're clear, a wastewater treatment plant operator.

That is something that is taken very seriously.

A type A class operator, it is very hard to get classified as a type A.

So type A class operators want to ensure that their wastewater treatment plants do not run afoul of TCEQ rules and regulations.

Have Lenar before have done a similar project at that level where a MUD has been established and operated where it can show previous work that fulfill a success operations of a MUD.

Yep.

Clifton, do you want to come up and talk about hidden trails?

I'll tell you this, Commissioner.

Lenar has a, it's not a MUD, but it is a water district.

It's called a water control improvement district.

It's very similar to a MUD in an existing community just north of San Antonio in the spring branch area.

And they are utilizing an on-site wastewater treatment plant for that community as well.

I'll turn it over to Clifton Karam from Lenar to uh walk through that.

Hello, Commissioner.

Uh yes, sir.

We do we do have the hidden trails project, as Kevin mentioned up in the Bulverdi area, very similar setup with uh on-site wastewater treatment plant.

Um it has been a very successful project.

We're we're built out of there now.

Um answers your question, unless you're yeah, I I need to know the performance of the water treatment plants that was developed by LENAR and other nearby developments to the MUD in question today.

How their performance is, have they proven to be run as expected?

Hopefully no violations and the meet exactly because all what I'm hearing today are speculations and potential that this is what's going to happen.

So as a company in the size of LENAR, have they done a similar development where they have established a water treatment in the past that show today a results that provide a confidence that if this is going to be happen again, we shall sh repeat our success because we have other successful developments.

If this is the case, what are those developments and how they are, the specifically the water treatment, how they are performed as of today?

Do you have an answer to that?

Not a complete answer.

No, no, Commissioner.

Um, no, sir, I can I can oh yeah, I can that's a lot louder.

I do not have a a um I don't have the data with me right now for the the you know the water testing for our hidden trails treatment plant, uh Commissioner, I did not bring that with me today.

Um I can tell you that um it you know about the history that it's been a successful project and that I am uh let me simplify this.

Have there been any violations from the TCEQ and other weight or water treatment plants that the NAR have developed before?

I'm gonna show some ignorance.

I don't have a good answer.

You can go back to to the record and take your time.

Maybe I can allow other fellow commissioners to ask more questions.

Yes, sir.

Uh the last question I have to the to the applicant.

I I I didn't hear any comments about involvement of Sarah or the Edward Aquar authority.

Have they been engaged in any recommendations, approval, input to the process that you've been taking since this has been coming to play?

Sarah?

Commissioner, I'm gonna try to kill two birds with one stone.

Um as of October 8th, EAA Um sent a letter to the City Council saying that the EAA doesn't take a formal position, but they were not opposed, and they found um just like the ALJs, the two ALJs in the Commission, um, that the permit was compliant.

Also, as to your earlier question about compliance history, um LENAR has a satisfactory compliance history with the TCEQ.

You referred to water treatment plants, I assume you mean wastewater treatment plants.

Um and I I also wanted to clarify that the MUD would not be operating the plant.

The MUD would be contracting with the Class A operator that's required.

And because of that, because they are retail public utility, they would be overseen not just by the TCQ but the public utility commission as well.

So there's two layers of governmental oversight on the retail public utility aspect of the sewer service, and of course the water services provided by the city.

Does that answer your question?

Yeah, thank you.

Questions back.

All right.

Well, I want to again, like all my other commission or my fellow commissioners, thank everybody for their uh time today for being here on both sides for the for the uh community and for the applicant.

Um like everybody has said, um, it's very rare we have such well organized uh people on both sides of the fence.

And the thing that was really nice to see was that yes, there's a lot of differing opinions in the room, but there was no yelling, screaming, and pointing fingers.

It was very good conversation.

And we don't get to see that very much anymore.

And uh just want to commend everybody for keeping cool heads and just having the conversation.

Um with that, um, Mr.

Deanda, so I just want to clarify one thing.

So based, you know, on the past few hours of of comment, what I've come to understand is that the um no matter what the planning commission does, no matter what city council does, the mud will still be created.

There is an opportunity for us to go around the city, if you will.

Yes.

Okay.

So that's likely going to happen because there's already been TCEQ approval, and apparently that that's who would be creating the mud at that point in time.

They're the ones that have to create the mud no matter what.

That's right.

It's ultimately up to TCEQ.

So what it all boils down to then, the train has left the station on the mud.

That's what it appears, honestly.

The MUD is moving down the road.

Yes.

Yes.

So what it all boils down to then, if you want to just get down basic simple facts, is is the city going to have a seat at the table, or is the city not going to have a seat at the table?

That's essentially what this commission is trying to decide today.

Correct.

And the way that the city has a seat at the table is through the development agreement that we are currently negotiating.

And that development agreement is tied to city consent to the creation of the MUD.

Okay.

So if we deny you, the city has, and then it moves on to city council and they deny as well, then the city does not have a seat at the table and the extra restrictions and regulations up to and including annexation at 30 years in the future go away.

If if we approve and the city council approves to the consent to the creation of the MUD, and we're not approving the creation MUD, we're approving the city's consent to the creation of the MUD.

I think that's an important distinction.

That the city now has a seat at the table.

And the city can implement those additional regulations which will hold the developer accountable and keep the project to city standards.

Correct.

That's right.

That's a fair statement.

Okay.

Well, I mean, I know there's a lot of differing opinions on the Commission probably in the room, but to me, I would rather have the city at the table than not.

And when since we're not approving the creation of the MUD, my purview is would I rather have the city at the table or not?

I'd rather have the city at the table, therefore I think this commission should consent to the creation of the MUD.

Recommend the city consent to the creation of the MUD.

That's my thoughts.

Okay.

Is there any further questions?

Councilman.

Thank you, Chair.

I certainly appreciate everybody's thoughts and opinions up here, but I think, especially at the Planning Commission and what we should do at the City of San Antonio is not just think about the development when it's the first begins or how it's going to be done, but also, you know, 20 to 30 years from now, what's going to happen.

And, you know, I understand TCEQ is going to be, you know, overseeing this.

They're severely limited.

On the far south side of San Antonio, years ago, we had a huge property, had a lot of tires, and it took months, if not years, for the state to get involved and rectify that issue, even with the state rep pushing uh on the state to do that.

So TCEQ's ability to come down swiftly to implement fines and to motivate an operator or a neighborhood to fix an issue is not quick.

Not at all like we have with SAWs, thankfully.

The PUC, I would say, as an actor is not necessarily going to always be fair to the residents of Bear County or San Antonio.

In fact, I think they were, if I remember correctly, after a winter storm, they were trying to sue CPS or get more money out of CPS because of their beliefs.

So those two state entities I do not have a lot of faith in helping or representing people who end up choosing to live there.

Or the surrounding areas that are going to be affected by this the water treatment plant, you know, I understand we're going to have an operator for that.

Uh and who's going to hire the operator for the wastewater treatment plant.

That would be the permittee who would be hiring the Class A operator.

So basically the neighborhood.

The neighborhood, I'm sorry.

The development would pay who's going to hire the person overseeing the wastewater treatment plant.

So that yes, it would be a contract between the developer and a Class A type operator who once the developer builds this out and leaves, who then is going to be overseeing the contractor?

It would still be the Class A operator who is overseeing.

And again, they are overseen by the PUC and TCE.

Okay.

So once you as the developer select that contractor who's going to oversee the wastewater treatment plant, the residents there who end up living there will have no say any more about who controls the wastewater treatment plant.

Is that true?

No.

I'll try to figure out what's going to happen five years after you guys built it out.

Currently, the permit is municipal operations LLC.

They are who applied for the permit.

They would operate the plant.

However, if the MUD is created, the permit would likely be transferred to the MUD, the political subdivision, and the MUD would contract with municipal operations to operate the plant.

If there are problems with municipal operations per a contract, the MUD can hire a different operator.

And because the MUD is comprised by uh elected board members, all those board members stand for election within the governance of the MUD, they can change the operator as well.

But at all times, the permittee is under the oversight of the TCQ and the PUC, and they're subject to administrative, civil, and criminal penalties, which are significant.

Administrative penalties per the legislative recent changes are a minimum of $25,000 per day.

And as in addition to penalties, of course, those entities can require technical requirements.

Um technical council mentioned remediation, changes to the permit.

The executive director and the commission at the TCQ can also instigate changes to the permit as they um feel are necessary.

And as federal regulations are also promulgated, for example, PFOS.

So we've heard a lot about PFOS.

PFOS is not regulated at this at the state level, nor is it regulated at the federal level.

However, when and if it is, this permit, like every other permit in the state of Texas, will be reopened, and those requirements will be imposed on this site.

Okay.

Thank you.

That answers my question.

So ultimately, if there becomes a problem with the contractor or issues with the plant itself, the basically the residents, the neighborhood are paying for that.

Okay.

The the Medial Creek that they mentioned, all the city ones, we all assaws ratepayers pay for that at a very small rate due to each of our bills, right?

Cover that if there's any issues with that.

Um think about another winter storm urine.

What's going to happen to that wastewater treatment plant if the whole city freezes over again?

How quickly are they going to be able to get that?

How much will the neighbors have to pay in addition to maintain that?

So I understand about the city wanting to be there at the table.

Personally, I I really don't care about annexation.

I know that it has been the city model for many, many years.

That's not what I concern myself with at the city.

We I have plenty of residents, under 65,000 of them, that I'm a responsible for already.

We have a lot of things in the city to fix.

Annexation is not my priority, nor do I think it's most of the council's priority at this point, right?

So that being a bargaining chip is not really something for me to consider about that.

So again, I try to think about the long-term process.

I understand there's gonna be elected officials within the neighborhood representing that.

I have dealt with it, I know you call it a political subdivision, a small city.

I call that an HOA.

And I've never lived in an HOA, I've dealt with many HOAs over the years.

I'm not sure if anybody else here lives at an HOA.

It is very, very difficult for them to maintain the vegetation around the monument.

Right.

It is hard to replace trees and irrigation in an HOA.

And now you're talking about a wastewater treatment facility.

Who here had knows how to manage that?

So if you are responsible all of a sudden in your neighborhood to do that, how would you even go about that?

Uh and I'm not sure that everybody who is going to be living there necessarily would know that, right?

There's plenty of examples of folks that sign that their deeds and are unaware of the restrictions or covenants that are imposed on them.

So I understand that a lot of times the job here is to is to look at a face value and provide a recommendation, but you also have to consider the effects and the snowball effects of this development.

And one last question for you.

Uh does Lenar currently own this property.

No.

Lenar does not own this property.

Okay.

So do and is the let's just say it does not pass city council, you go to the state.

Is it a guarantee that you will get a MUD from the state?

It's not a guarantee.

Okay.

So you don't own the land and there's not a guarantee.

So I want the commissioners here to understand this is not going to just happen, even if the council decides not to do it.

Is that correct?

That's right.

The MUD creation is a public hearing process, very similar to this.

There is no guarantee with any public hearing.

Okay.

So again, I want to remind the Commissioners, even though the city is not at the table, that's not saying that there is going to be development with fewer restrictions now because we are not there.

It may not even happen.

Right.

Is it under contract with you?

I am assuming.

It is under contract.

I can tell you this.

Although Lenar does not own it, they have invested heavy sums of money.

It is not in the cards for Lenar to walk away from this deal, Councilman.

I completely understand.

And that's on y'all, right, as a business, your investments and how you knew this was going to play out.

So again, not a guarantee that the owner is going to sell to you.

Not a guarantee that a mud will be created even if council denies the MUD application.

I hope that the seller abides by the contract and does sell to us, considering the heavy sums that Lenar has expended already.

Yeah.

But again, I want to remind you, yes, the MUD is not a foregone conclusion, but the wastewater treatment plant is coming.

We have our discharge permit.

We have other development approvals.

The development is coming, Councilman.

So why do you so the wastewater treatment plant is going to be built no matter what happens?

That is the plan for this site to build the wastewater treatment plant.

That is why we went through the TCEQ public hearing process for the discharge permit.

So you are you gonna I'm trying to understand here.

So no matter what happens, even if the state denies a mud, you are still going to build that plant.

That is the plan.

And you are still gonna build homes?

Correct.

It would be a single family residential development, and the way to serve this with sewer would be through the wastewater treatment plant.

And you can accomplish that without a MUD?

We could.

Ideally, we would have the MUD to assist with the public infrastructure costs and to add the additional layer of oversight from uh professionals who are experienced in wastewater treatment plants.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate your time.

So again, uh it's about what can happen and what will happen, what's a guarantee to happen, and how much we are going to help that development happen with our hand at the city.

I personally believe that we should not be helping that situation.

If they're going to do it, they don't need help from us to do that.

Uh but that's my perspective.

Thank you very much.

Commissioner Profit.

And just to follow up, just listening to that exchange and conversation.

You know, TCQ is approved.

The developer can build it, or another developer can come and buy that land.

If you don't create the mud, the traffic lights don't come, the widening scenic loop doesn't come.

Um, there's less oversight, uh city is not involved.

So it seem it seems like regardless of your opinion, you know, your your view of annexation, the city does have experience.

The city owns SAWs, and seems like that would be a perhaps a better partner in this uh in this district.

But um again, explain the scenarios you know that we have in front of us and the potential outcomes.

So again, we have development approvals today.

We have our utility service agreement, we have a master development plan, and we have our discharge permit.

As part of the master development plan, Commissioner, we do have to comply with the traffic impact analysis and the improvements.

So regardless of the MUD, we would have to comply with that aspect.

Uh but what the MUD would help us do is bring those public improvements uh to fruition at a faster pace.

Because without the MUD, we don't have the ability to get reimbursed for the public improvements, and we have to rely on traditional home sales.

Um I think we're all cognizant of the market right now.

Um with the market the way that it is, there is no guarantee that we sell a sufficient amount of homes to help with those public improvements that are necessary for Babcock Road, Scenic Loop, Cross Mountain Trail.

So it it kind of sounds like the issue with potential water issues has already been addressed.

Correct.

So now it's just the additional safeguards that this development agreement in the USA would provide.

That's under consideration.

Yes.

All right, thank you.

Logan.

You had a comment?

I I think it was addressed.

I was merely uh going to mention that regardless of the mud, this is still within the San Antonio ETJ, so the subdivision regulations would still apply regardless.

Thank you.

Question?

Logan, would you uh articulate when the city has a city on the table?

What that means.

What did the city gonna benefit and how the city is going to have a say in a lot of development that's going to happen?

If you summarize that, I just need to know what that seat would do.

I'm as they're the experts in this arena, I'm gonna let the planning department tackle that question.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Commissioners Rudy and you, Assistant Director of the Planning Department.

Um I believe that your question is uh was with the city involvement, the city participation in this effort, um, given the the way that the statute is written, uh how the city involvement uh impacts the project or impacts the process?

Sure.

Um I I think that uh we look at it from the perspective of of additional enforcement mechanism, because while um we may have some of the standard uh development agreement line items like um the application fee, which isn't something that you know that we it's something that we negotiate.

Um a per unit assessment uh that is paid by the developer to the city.

Um annexation, the uh voluntary annexation at the end of the term of the district.

Those are some of the things that we uh have as also as an enforcement mechanism, because whenever the developer goes to get to organize their financing and to bond, they also have to work into their performance this idea that hey, if we're not in compliance, they can annex us, and now they have to work in those additional costs into the development.

So um I think it's it's that additional layer of enforcement that um that the city being at the table helps to provide.

My focus question specific was you can enforce developments in widening the roads.

Can you enforce control on the number of units that they built?

Can you force the uh in previous cover that they proposed to do?

If there is no seat on the table from the city, the developer could go in a different plan that was proposed to us today, and there is no say from the city whatsoever.

Okay.

So you're asking then about those specific items and whether or not the city can actually enforce those.

Okay, so some of those improvements, particularly the offside improvements, are things that the developer is saying that they're gonna do as part of their development.

The city cannot require them to do those things if we if if it's not agreed upon, if it's not part of the development agreement and they're they're saying that they're gonna do it and it's part of the contract, then we just can't force them to do things that are off site.

Did somebody make a question?

I I think just because it's pertinent to a lot of the testimony that's been considered today, what the city can in a regulatory capacity require is conformance with subdivision regulations, tree ordinance, those things that are applicable in the ETJ.

You know, we can limit the number of units to be consistent with the agreement, but we cannot become a regulatory authority over water quality.

That is not a right reserved to the city of San Antonio.

I just need to know.

No, I understand.

What is the ultimate benefits for having a seat on that table?

Sure.

In case this is not going to happen.

Thank you.

Any further questions from Commissioners?

No.

Okay.

Well, at this point in time we have a motion for denial on the table, and we had a second.

So we will take action on that.

Would stab please do a roll call vote?

Councilman Munica.

I wouldn't, sorry.

Um Council um Commissioner Sanchez.

No.

I I want to clarify for the Commission.

Because the motion is for denial, a yes vote is a vote to recommend denial of the uh consent.

So if you are opposed, vote yes.

If you do not support a denial, vote no.

Commissioner Sanchez.

Look at that, or you say that again.

Yeah, so the the motion, it's kind of backwards.

The motion was to deny, so a yes vote is supporting the denial.

Yes.

Commissioner Garcia.

Yes.

Commissioner DeSucci?

Yes.

Commissioner Oulette.

No.

Commissioner Mylam?

Yes.

Commissioner Siegel?

No.

Commissioner Profit?

No.

Chair Peck?

No.

Motion for denial passes.

Okay.

Well, everybody, uh thank you again for your time today.

It's been a long day, but I hope everyone has a good weekend.

And uh it is there's no staff uh announcements or income directly.

No staff announcements.

All right.

It is one thirty-seven and we are adjourned.