Travis County Commissioners Court
March 18, 2008
Item 24
Number 24, a, receive briefing on the city of Austin's site suitability analysis of itville track and status thereof, and , consider and take appropriate action regarding amendment to chapter 62, Travis County code, the siting of a solid waste facility.
>> judge, thank you.
I've had a special request from representative dukes, and I guess also elected official, the mayor of webberville.
if it's appropriate, they said that representative dukes with like to make some comment first because of time constraints.
any way possible?
>> fine with me.
>> may I give an update.
ive received an e-mail earlier this morning before voting session that the city council, council woman dunkerlee is withdrawing the motion.
>> I wondering why they didn't identify.
>> the e-mail came in right before we came on.
I don't know who else received it.
>> I don't know if they received it.
kind of strange.
anyway, being what it may, representative dukes, I think.
>> congratulations and welcome.
>> thank you so very much.
judge Biscoe and members of the Commissioners court, as you know, I always attempt to be respectful of the court.
rarely have you seen me come before the Commissioners court, think this may be a first, you might be confusing it with campo meetings and seeing each other once in a while it certainly has been a lon --honor to work with you on community --on communitiwide ventures.
certainly the concerns about the landfill has one that has been long-term concerning industrial overlays presented mostly by the city of Austin in the development east of ih 35, some of which the county does not have the power to overcome.
we recognize that and we understand that.
but at the same time, we do need the participation of the county in assisting those of us who live east of ih 35.
and further, into the nonic rated areas of the county--nonincorporated areas of the county to hope for the american dream that was desired when many moved to eastern Travis County.
while we appreciate the good news that council member dunkilee has withdrawn the agenda item city of Austin, one thing I do know and we all know about roberts rules of order and our governmental bodies, unless a proposal is tabled, it can come back the next week or some week or month thereafter.
so the concerns of the people in our community are still before us until we have completely resolved the issues on the fairness treated to one area of this community.
we have the mayor of webberville with us this morning, womb I have worked with for many years in trying to have a good neighborly policy or encouraging the city of Austin to have a good neighbor policy with webberville and other areas within Travis County.
it is an exhausting task when we look at the fact that almost everything that was unwanted has historically been placed in this community.
we're in the asking for special treatment in east Travis County.
we're asking for equal treatment in east Travis County.
we're asking that there be as much bigger and as much ingen ew ty in proposing positive economic development through the tools available to the city and the county for eastern Travis County as is done in western Travis County and every place else.
just so that we have the same opportunity at our american dream, the same opportunity at clean air, clean water, and great jobs.
and we would ask for you to keep that in mind in whatever decisions that you make concerning eastern Travis County.
and if we can work hand in hand in the next legislative cycle to provide the county with the tools and reinforcement through statute to govern the process to better eastern travis, please be assured that I will stand with you and stand strong to make that possible, because it is necessary for us to be able to protect our community as every other community has been looked out for in Travis County and throughout the state.
and I thank you for your patience today for allowing me to speak before you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> delighted to see your presence here and the working relationship established over the past.
we have a large task.
we both represent the area and we have a monmouth task before us.
it's not over but we are headed in the right direction of thank you for those inspiring enerr getic comments.
thank you.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners.
>> good morning.
>> I'd like to thank you for considering this item today.
it's come before you before.
at that time I believe it was referred to as a hypothetical landfill but now you see that it's a real threat, a real thing.
I also understand that the city of Austin is going to do presentation today.
a term they have recently coined or been using is fatal flaw and that there is no fatal flaw.
in reality this whole idea is a fatal flaw.
so I really hope that you support Commissioner Davis's motion to amend 62, chapter 62 of the county code.
I believe this court has the power, the authority, the ability and the responsibility to do what's necessary to protect not just webberville but all of Travis County.
don't allow Austin to make Travis County regardless of what part of the county it is, the host of central Texas's refuse.
there's got to be other places more suitable locations for a potential landfill.
this is a regional issue and therefore, I think it should be handle as such and there should be dialogue between other counties thank you.
>> thank you.
>> (applause)
>> thank you, mayor gonzalez.
thank you very much.
>> judge, if it would be appropriate, I know that staff is here available.
we basically have the city of Austin scheduled first to come and maybe give a brief overview of the actual report that was presented to the city council a little bit ago by hicks company, the actual environmental and planning consultant firm.
according to the agenda maybe we can go into that a little bit because there are a lot of significant probably questions that need to be addressed in that particular report.
so if that is a point of order as far as direction we need to head in, judge, I would like to pursue that.
>> that's fine mr. Rodes, consultant, visualize the city of Austin council , make yourself at home and give us your briefing.
>> judge, Commissioners good morning, burton, assistant sit manager over community services.
I'm going to start off the briefing in prying you an update on the city's efforts to study the suitability of the webberville tract in eastern Travis County.
I'm going to talk a little bit about the location and some of the development that's occuring in that area that we think serve as a strong basis for the consideration.
then I'm also going to talk a little bit about the preliminary findings that were completed on the site and then I'm going to turn it over to mark hemmingway with geomatrix, an adultant who has been doing the work and he will talk specifics on the assessment.
the city of Austin owns a 2853 actor tract of land in eastern Travis County originally purchased in the '80s for an onstin energy power plant.
currently the land is leased to various individuals for grazing and crops.
we had some maps for you but I'll be happy to provide a copy of the powerpoints as we weren't able to put this upment we have a map that shows the development activity going on in the 130 corridor.
the map rents a number of identified decision subdivisions where there's residents that plan to be build including sterling bridge, bar creek subdivision and Austin creek.
when we look at the total number we're estimating about 2 had00 new homes --2600 new homes coming on line.
the corridor is presently looking infrastructure and support, some of this existing development, so we think the tract of land is integral in serving the needs of the area.
this tract is located in the development zone for the city of Austin and therefore an important commodity and resources to address future needs to address the growth.
on may 17, 2007, the city council unanimously approved a resolution clearly expressing the city's ib tent to maintain ownership of the land.
the resolution stated the property may be useful in providing needed public services and benefits in and around the desired development zone.
as growth continues in the area the need for services is also going to be extremely critical and we see this tract as presenting a number of opportunities to house municipal functions in a variety of areas.
the areas we have focused on for potential service have been a wastewater treatment plant, Austin energy power plant, and also solid waste management services.
>> wastewater treatment plant?
not water treatment plant?
>> wastewater.
>> okay.
>> we also see a lot of cost opportunities of when you have multiple ideas on one tract of land, it presents some cost savings for us in terms of roads and ew tilth, maintenance facilities, offices, warehouse, communication networks, and also of course cogeneration and use of alternative energies.
certainly with any major infrastructure project, we do plan to take proper steps to make sure the full assessment, full site assessments and consideration of the surrounding environment are taken into account.
I'll talk a little bit about the preliminary assessment findings.
back in June of 2007 the staff presented our city council the result from a preliminary site assessment that provided some of the following conclusion.
the site suitability would be enhanced by changes to the 100 year floodplain.
additional study was needed on the archeological issues and other needs.
we did determine that the sizes of the parcel was a great advantage and large areas of the site are suitable for a variety of public uses.
the results from the current assessment shows that the city's property can house any of the municipal uses that are being considered.
and to get into the specific consultant's ings --finding based on the evaluation there were no initial flaws identified.
with regard to the site's use including the possible operation as solid waste landfill.
there are considerations that need to be made in terms of maximizing the area of the site for development which would look at the hundred year floodplain and potentially relocating some utilities and wetland areas.
it would also be necessary to provide improvements to the existing infrastructure such as roads and bridges to be able to accommodate any type of traffic that would be involved.
of course we would have to address the shallow groundwater in the site vicinity and that's another area as well.
what we have done to date, we have met with cap cogand some of your Travis County staff to present the findings of our preliminary assessment, provide a copy of the report.
we also have made available a copy of the site suitability analysis that is available for review and certainly we can provide you a copy if you wish.
>> let me just, did you finish?
>> knows, but i.
>> no, but I can entertain questions.
>> I don't want to interfere.
there may be some other key point that you may bring up that you think you need to say.
>> okay.
if you would allow me to finish that piece and I'll turn it over to mark and he can get into the specific findings from the consultant's perspective.
>> okay.
>> we did determine that there was considerable additional work that needed to be done.
the geologic assessment needed to confirm certain preliminary findings.
there are a number of outstanding questions.
we also have to meet regulatory permitting requirements and provide adequate information for site development in terms the of those decisions.
in order to complete this critical siting analysis the city did contract with three nationally recognize consultant, geomatrix, shaw hicks, and klaus associates.
and again mark hemmingway from geomatrix can here and can talk about their assessment.
the coordinated assessment is looking at the development of what we would term a solid waste environmental area and specifically wastewater treatment facility.
according to the consultant's preliminary report, the various operations contemplated, they looked at the most closely regulated which is the municipal solid waste operations.
of course the reason they did that is because that is subject to a rage of federal, state and local regulatory criteria as well as technical siting criteria.
some of the factors they considered in their assessment were these.
easements, buffer zones airport safety, floodplains, groundwater or endangered species, archeological sites, west lands, fault areas seismic impact and unstable areas.
the findings from the cord fated site suitability evaluation essentially built upon preliminary report done early this year.
at this point if I can turn it over to mark hemmingway with geomatrix to talk about the assessment and his find thank you.
>> thank you.
I'm mark hemming way, we're working with the city in evaluating the sigh.
>> give mr. Hemmingway a little more volume.
>> I'll get a little closer in.
and referred to, our assessment was focused on technical and regulatory aspects of the site.
in particular, the potential for construction and operation of a landfill.
although a number of other uses were being considered and the time the landfill use was not confirmed, it was going to be f it happened, the most closely regulated activity, the state closely regulates and constrains where you can put a landfill and there are a number of conditions that if they are met would in fact prove to be fatal flaws and prohibit the placement of a landfill under state regulations federal regulations, and local criteria.
a list of those include things like proximity to airports, unstable geologic areas, proximity to floodplains, things of that nature.
so we looked at all of those on a screening level and this should be considered to be a preliminary evaluation, to identify whether or not there were any obvious fatal flaws that were apparent based on that level of evaluation.
that evaluation sclo included a further investigation including drilling and well installation into the shallow geology of the site so that we better understood what the geology was and what the presence of shallow groundwater was.
essentially what we found was that there was o groundwater in the vicinity of the site and in some areas the groundwater is used for domestic and commercial supply.
there are areas on the site where shallow groundwater appears to be largely absent.
there are other areas where it appears to be nearly absent.
that is, there's not much water there.
we're currently perform ago supplemental evaluation, more drilling being performed to identify where there might be areas where there's sufficient groundwater at the site that could actually be used.
right now the findings of that evaluation, which are still in process, demonstrate that in the northern upland portion of the site there are not many areas where there's sufficient groundwater for use.
a few localized ones primarily on the western side.
in addition, we identified a number of springs and wetland and drainages, again, primarily in the uplands portion site, that is the northern portion of the site outside the colorado river valley proper.
there are some drainages in the southern area as well.
those would need to be addressed as part of any development of the site, in particular any landfill construction and operation.
the western portion of the site and certain parts of the southern portion the site fall within the current mapping by fema of the hundred year floodplain and flad watch.
a number of things would have to happen in order to allow certain types of development in those areas.
the first is to identify whether or not that mapping is is in fact accurately done.
fema first pass mapping sometimes can be add adjusted by looking at surface water flow patterns on a closer basis, doing more detailed surveys and remodeling those.
that effort is actually in progress now to see if that floodplain is accurate as mapped or could be add adjusted with fema as completion consent, of course.
we looked at historical and cultural sites including archeological sites mean to be present at the property and immediate vicinity.
some of those were identified and some identified tentatively and need more work to confirm their nature and character.
the work is currently being carried ford by shaw hicks and I understand you all have a presentation from hicks environmental previously.
they are currently porp ago more comprehensive archeological and historical evaluation.
findings are not out yet.
>> my point, we have quite a few people down here and I'd like to take action this morning on this particular item.
at least make a motion to take action.
I don't know if I will get a second.
the bottom line is that in all of this, I know that you may still have some things to say, there are copies made available of your particular presentation the hicks report and a whole lot of things that have been really circulating through a lot of these folks that are here at this particular meeting this monk.
and course members also have what you are talking about this morning.
each particular Commissioner and also the judge have a copy of what you are saying.
so it's really for the benefit of the public to hear exactly what is out there.
however, there are some things that I think that need to be flushed out.
we also have, a lot of questions, really not enough time to get the questions in my opinion out just wasn't enough time for this item, to be honest with you.
of course, not being able to exhaust it to where you can really go in the direction that the folks are wanting you to go in is kind of a disadvantage.
but even so, there are some things that I think need to be highlighted and pointed out.
and I may need to ask some questions of you to that point.
an example, my first question, is anyone leasing this particular property out there at the site now, this 2800 acre site, is then leasing it as far as grazing of cattle, drop lands and all this other kind of stuff?
>> yes, sir, it is used for those purposes.
>> that brings up another point.
there is in the middle of this project site, according to the document and according to the report, something called the mixed woodland.
within that mixed woodland, and this is in the center of your project area, within that there is a cluster of oak woodland along with something called material ash juniper which are tremendous driving habitat for an ebb dangered species called the golden-cheeked warbler.
the reason I ask about the crob land activities is because it's prime for the golden cheek warbler.
and of course that uses the bark from the mature ash juniper to deal with nesting of but unfortunately because of certain activity, the disturbance of that particular species is interfered with.
soft course, golden-cheeked warbler is in the west side of the bcpp.
you see what I'm saying?
and I think it's due to disturbance, according to the report.
even though you have laid out a good report, it's just surface, you're just scratching the surface of the whole deal from the signs of five site that you have looked at.
the wetlands, when is the federal government going to develop wetlands.
you mentioned.
the federal and state regulations prohibit solid waste municipal facility be located within wetlands.
now, according to what your study reveals, there are 30 of them.
and may question is, there may be more because we have kind of scratched the surface.
really hasn't been looked at thoroughly.
so that in itself is in my opinion a barrier to locate a landfill, which is a good thing.
now, let me ask you this.
how many facility are you concentrating putting on, according to the report they say 2000 acres, how many facility are you wanting to put out there?
the resolution mentioned many.
how many facilities are you looking at?
all of those that you mentioned?
please.
mention the facilities that we're talking about here.
>> the three, Commissioner, the three that we have focused on have been the wastewater treatment, the Austin energy power plant and possible landfill.
those three uses.
>> thank you for that.
is dr. Car michael here with the tceq?
if he is I'd like him to come forward.
will you mind having a seat, please, sir, and identify yourself.
>> good morning, judge Biscoe, Commissioners.
may name is dr. Richard car michael, I'm the manager of municipal solid waste permits for the Texas commission on environmental quality.
>> thank you, sir.
looking at those particular concerns that they brought up before is the resolution that the city council has put on the table to bring these type of facilities to this particular tract of property.
how much land is required to operate that facility, listen to this very carefully, the area in which they are concentrating in has barriers like I say the federal government had to come in, the state government hadn't really come in as far as wetland are concerned, but not only that, the federal clean water act has not been looked at, it's a lot of unknowns.
but even at that, I'd like to ask you, how much area would be required to accommodate according to tceq regulations, how much area is required to accommodate all three projects.
I'm not sure I can speak to all three.
may area is solid waste.
I would say that for the solid waste landfill, a general regional landfill would be three to 400 acres.
>> three to 400 acres.
>> yes, sir.
>> and I guess the wastewater treatment plant.
>> was water treatment plant would I hate to venture to guess.
perhaps the consultant would have a better idea.
>> okay, how much is required of that?
>> if I could, I'll answer that question.
my name is dave watt I'm with the Austin water utility.
what we were looking at in the area, I'm answer your question specifically in a minute, is to look at regional time facility.
what we were proprosing out there is a facility that would be built in ten, 15 years time frail...
>> then move forward with...
we're at a, where if we get council direction, I think earlier Commissioner eckhardt mentioned the fact that there was a resolution which will appear on the agenda for Thursday because that was originally...
>> the date the...
>> if the council doesn't approve that resolution then we are not moving forward.
we have have to have direction from the counsel still to move forward..
.
>> but those answers.
.
.
>> homes located within a certain proximity of where the landfill should be, of course we looked at that and said a mile something like that for neighborhoods.
you got us saying 1500 feet.
so all of of these kind of little glitches and clusters are trying to appear that you are trying to increase your area at that site so you can bring these particular facilities there by increasing the area.
of course, that was before we have done anything.
>> to be fair, y'all are looking at buffers required by tceq.
is that correct?
>> we took those--
>> yes or no.
>> yes.
>> okay.
and what we were looking at did please, Commissioneri wanted to.
>> I wanted to be clear.
what we instructed our staff to do was to look at buffers contained in our chapter 62 which aren't currently applicable to landfills and see what that would look like.
and that the different than the tceq.
>> no, no, what I'm trying to say, it is the buffers that we are referring to is not the tceq, it is though.
that's why I said we had our staff to look at it.
not usings tceq.
when I mention staff we are talking about the ordinance.
that the why I say the overlay of the ordinance would have been a doughnut out there in the middle of this particular tract of property, a doughnut right in the center of it that 560 acres.
that's what I'm bringing out.
again, we have different opinions on the courtthat doughnut was in looking at chapter 6 buffers.
not tceq.
>> I didn't say it was.
until I say that, then I say what I mean.
so hearing that, I would like to, like I say again, I'm really thanking you for your presence of being here.
thank you very, very much.
and dr. Car michael, and I hope mr. Shengel is getting along betterment tell him that Commissioner Davis wished him well.
>> I will, sir.
>> hang around because there may be some other questions.
so judge, these folks have been waiting a long time to say something in the community.
I don't know what direction you want to go in.
I think we've been around the block a bunch of times on the b portion of this item.
I'm not going to change my position on it.
I don't know what you all are going to do today.
I'd like to take some action this morning.
>> do court members have any questions for any of these five individuals?
when I hear you say shallow water, should I think an area that should be protected or should I think of an available source of water for that tract?
>> there are portions that have sufficient shallow water that could be used for small scale supply.
and there are in fact wells in the vicinity of the site that are used for relatively small scale supply.
and whether or not that shallow zone could produce enough water to produce the uses that we're discussing here is not something we have evaluated at this point.
does that answer your question?
>> that's fine.
any questions for these five?
thank you very much.
>> thank you all.
>> Commissioner days, what is next sm--next?
>> judge, I would like the citizens to come up and speak.
they have been waiting patiently, out in the rain and everything else to be down here.
they have something to say.
maybe it will have an impact on what will happen later in in discussion.
I don't know who want to go first.
if you all can line up.
all these chairs and tables are up front.
y'all just take a seat.
as the judge would say, state your name and make your comments.
we'll be glad to receive them.
>> patrick gonzalez, mayor of the village webberville.
I wantd to touch on some of the things the city presented.
once again they say there's no fatal flaws.
sounds like plenty to me.
the shallow groundwater they are referring to is my community's supply of drinking water.
regardless of what amount they claim that might be there or not there, bottom line, it's our drinking water.
it will be seriously negatively impact they move forward with any of these plans.
regional landfill, region nat wastewater treatment plant, power plant.
that's what the property was originally purchased for.
it wasn't a good idea nearly a quarter of a century ago, it's not any better now.
they say clean coal power plant.
that's an oxymoron, clean coal.
they touched on floodplain.
well, their answer to that problem is use get with fema and have it an add adjusted, relocated, decreased in size to accommodate their plans.
historical significance.
they didn't really touch on that.
most of the people here in attendance are aware of the fact that the remains of weber fort remains on that property.
this is an area that remains now Travis County, predates Austin and statehood.
from what I understand Austin has no desire to have it registered as historical Texas land mark.
after a visit from an archeologist from the Texas historical commission.
although they have no desire that does not negate the histories of that property.
Commissioner Davis touched on endangered species.
once again, yeah, our species endangered or not we feel are just as important as those in western Travis County.
several weeks ago I sat here and listened to over two and a half hours of testimony about people concerned about the nesting places of the golden-cheeked warbler in the balcones canyon land.
where is the concern about the human species in eastern Travis County?
there's little to no motion about the human species and the negative effects these plans would have.
transportation.
there's only two ways to access the piece of property, fm 969, maintained and operated by tex dot, and speaking with high ranching officials, area engineer, they have no plans to expand 969.
even if they did, they have no funds.
this road is already inundated with thousands of four-wheel vehicle traffic, hundreds and hundreds of 18 wheel gravel trucks, and compound that problem with hundreds of trash trucks?
the other way to access this piece of property is two lane lake manner road which is a county road.
and I'm not sure how you all feel about it being utilized for these heaviy trash trucks.
I guess the thing is who is going to pay to improve this.
the city of Austin?
the county?
I mean why should y'all pay to accommodate their mess?
so I see all these are fatal flaws.
how they can sit here and say there are no fatal flaws with a straight face, I'm amazed.
I'm amazed.
the whole report is a fatal flaw.
no disrespect to mark hemmingway, but I think the majority of this was done from behind a desk and was based on just some results of a memo from hicks.
so then there was mention of the desired development zone.
there's an oxy moren, putting an undesirable land use in the desired development zone.
yeah, we would desire to develop that area too.
Austin is not the only municipality within Travis County.
unfortunately they are the most powerful one.
but they are not the only one.
they have had total disregard for the concerns that myself, my citizens, those in the surrounding area, as well as county and state officials, total disregard of our opinion and input.
they haven't allowed for much input from me.
I'm never cc'ed on any communication concerning this tracked of land even though it's referred to as the webberville tract.
so once again, I hope that Commissioner Davis gets the support to amend chapter 62 of the county code.
seven other counties within the state have done the very same thing.
it's as simple as it can't be here but it can be here.
here would be the three or four that are currently in operation.
thank you.
>> (applause)
>> thank you.
my name is bea williams and I'm with the hel group and the park springs neighborhood association.
I would like to address the study that was conducted by the city.
they mentioned ones again, the expression is no fatal flaw but they also say that there are challenges to be able to pull off or actually construct a landfill.
so what are these challenges?
first, floodplain.
in Travis County statutes prohibit landfills from being placed within 500 feet of a hundred year floodplain boundary.
but the statement in the report says the variance can be pursued from the county.
groundwaterment there are shallow groundwater in the northwestern part of the site.
however, they cannot determine the groundwater in the southern zone because they use improper mud rotary drilling using water they could not find out if there was water there.
further more, the landfill area that is most desirable is recognized as, or most suitable, is unidentified and unknown channels that chris cross the clay barrier providing pathways for leachate or garbage juice, to move.
they have no idea where the water goes.
wetlands.
there are wetlands in the proposed site but these can be reevaluated, or if this fails, a development of new similar wetlands in other areas could mitigate the destruction of the springs.
but how do you recreate a spring?
infrastructure.
the report mentions the narrow roads and inadequate bridges but the report ig norse the facts that landfills generate me thane and catch on fire.
fire hydrants and emergency response to fire are required.
finally, under section 4.5 entitle endangered species and cultural or archeological resources geomatrix states that a fatal flaw is possible.
the report acknowledges little has been done to identify engagerd species and potential cultural sites.
the accompanying hicks report, a one-day survey of the property was conducted and a list of species for Travis County was submitted.
yet the study failed to consider that the prompt was adjacentant to bastrop county with similar flooran and fauna patterns.
they failed to consider endangered and threatened species from this county.
however n the report it is the cultural aspect of the site that threatens the landfill operation.
the city purchased the land containing, ebber fort, one of the first pioneer homes of the the old georgetown road.
the fatal flaw may be our ancestors reach through the fabric of history to prevent the devastation to the capital of Texas where they are building this landfill.
or is it?
today the Commissioners court can make history.
the county has the power to prohibit or limit landfill siting.
under the state code only 125 feet buffer zone separates a person's home from a landfill.
limit the distance or prohibit the landfill and protect the health and welfare of our Travis County citizens.
thank you.
>> (applause)
>> thank you for those comments.
as these seats become empty, those that still want to speak, will you please occupy those empty seats.
those that with like to say something.
please occupy the empty seats as they become available.
>> mr. Dunn lap.
>> my name is dave dunn lap.
I live on brown cemetery road which is the west boundary of the proposed landfill.
in geometrics stating their survey, I've watched what they have done out there and their drilling to test for groundwater or whatever am they come out there during the dry season.
have I not seen them out there during the wet season when those hills run water.
that water level is right on top.
I have two wells on my property which sits not very far from that landfill area that they are proposing.
the deepest one is 25 foot deep.
has never gone dry.
so they can't tell me that the groundwater, surface water, is 35 feet down.
it's not.
so I consider that one of their fatal flaws.
another thing is they say they can protect the runover and stuff from the landfill by putting liners on it.
plastic or clay.
now, I understand that we can't go west with that landfill because of the lime stone, the fishers and the lime stone.
if they can put linners in east Travis County, they with damn sure put liners in west Travis County or further west.
>> (applause)
>> I understand that mr. Daugherty, in fact I was here when he made the statement, if I could find 400 acres in my precinct, we'd put a landfill there.
well, sir, have you been looking for it?
ms. Eckhardt, they said we don't want to export our trash to any other county.
why not?
they have been importing it for years.
>> because, mr. Dunn lop--
>> I don't see any reason we can't ec port I if we are going to go zero waste by 2040, let's start now so nobody has to export or import.
and use the landfills we have.
you can designate where a landfill can be, and you can designate where they cannot put them.
>> mr. Dunn lap.
>> let's use the ones we already have.
>> you put a question directly to me so I think we should answer it.
zero waste does not mean zero waste di posed of in my county.
it means zero bases generated in my county.
we do not get there by exporting the waste the another county.
we currently do.
if you look at the state, if you look at the various landfills that operate in the central Texas , I had it here some we do export our trash all over central Texas region.
waste management Williamson and bexar county facilities.
as a region we are spreading our trash all over the place and doing it through private vendors who have absolutely no incentive to reach zero waste.
the only way we put pressure on ourselves to generate less waste is through having a publicly owned landfill.
it would certainly be much easier if we just said no more waste in Travis County period, end of story.
it would increase the cost to dispose of our waste but it would not increases any incentive beyond that for decreasing the amount that we generate.
>> and how are you going to control zero waste when we are still importing it from other counties that you cannot control?
>> again, if a government owned the dirt, the government could then dictate the terms of engagement and where we did get, where we, from whom we would accept waste.
for instance, the waste management facility in Williamson account and to my understanding it's still standing on the proposition they will not accept any waste from any other county but Williamson at that facility.
>> I don't blame them.
>> but we don't have that ability at this point.
there's no governmental entity that owns any of the large municipal solid waste or the large disposal sites at this point.
>> but you have Texas disposal system.
they have 700 acres--
>> and if we apply chapter 62 to them their agers would go down to 300 acres.
>> they have room to expand and are probably willing.
>> should we apply chapter 62 provisions to them?
if we do then their acrage goes down to 00.
>> if you apply the way it should be we won't have anymore waste facilities in Travis County.
one last question.
I've heard two stories.
one of them is that this will be a regional landfill.
the other one is that it will be an Austin landfill.
what's it going to be?
>> I don't have the answer to that.
>> does anybody?
>> city of Austin.
>> just a city landfill not a regional landfill?
>> the city owns land, they control where the waste comes from.
>> okay.
I'm finished.
we have argued as much as we k i--we can.
I would like for y'all to consider what the citizens would like rather than what the sit wants.
>> thank you.
>> my name is david beck.
I want to start off by dressing a point of of Commissioner eckhardt that you just raised and that is no city can achieve zero waste if they are ec porting it to other counties because it won't be incentive not.
I don't know if that the true or nompt.
san francisco actually are considered a model for zero waste in terms of initiatives.
and they export all their trash across the bay to alameda county.
having said that I'm not necessarily saying we should export our trash.
but there certainly is precedent that you can achieve zero waste and export your trash.
>> do you know the ownership status of those landfills in alameda county?
>> I think waste management owns the resource recovery part.
I'm not sure who owns the landfill portion.
it's definitely not city of san francisco.
>> you don't flow whether it's governmental entity that owns the dirt or what the regulatory theme is.
>> I don't.
one thing that strikes me about the webberville property no matter what we talk about building there, especially with the sewage plant and the dump, seems that the city is fixated on this property because it's politically convenient.
some of the logistics just aren't there.
they say they can save money but putting all these things on one piece of prompt but they are not considering the impact overall in long-term development.
it's going to economically depress that area.
it's already, we already have some level of economic depression.
this is certainly going to deepen the wound.
that analysis is not being taken into account.
it's a complicated analysis.
I wouldn't expect it be taken into account at this point.
but it needs to be taken into account.
I haven't heard anybody address that.
not from the city.
and plus, another, addressing the cost, supposed cost savings of putting everything on one piece of property, doesn't make sense.
you're going to have to build freeways to accommodate all the truck going out there.
doesn't sound like cost savings to me why don't we put these things next to freeways that already exist.
one option is that we can put a lot of this zero waste stuff on the landfills that are closing right now.
would I think we could somehow work that out to would we could transform those into resource recovery parks.
why increase the truck traffic going all the way across the county because webrville land is all the way on the edge of Travis County.
it's relatively speaking far from the population center.
so logistically it doesn't add up.
I can only come to the conclusion that it's politically convenient for the Austin because there's not enough ofous out there to stand up for it.
as far as the environmental concerns, to me all animals habitat is sacred.
if you go out you see century old oaks and pecans.
there's been, people have been talking about ash juniper.
I think it's eastern cedar on the land.
these trees are different than ash juniper.
they grow really tall with big bases, beautiful trees, and they host a lot of birds.
I think all animal habitat is sacred whether a squirrel or the golden-cheeked warbler.
what reregoing to have to do is bull dose the old trees.
it's not possible to avoid doing that.
no way.
not to clear enough space in the interior that they need.
they have to reshape floodplain and take out trees.
it doesn't sound like a prime piece of property to build a landfill.
I don't know what a prime piece of property would look like but I wount imagine it would be covered with forest and old trees and a floodplain.
my last point about the sewage plant.
so all the major, as far as I know, all the major sewage plants operated by the city are already east of I 35.
where do we need another?
how many do we need out there?
doesn't make sense to keep talking about sewage plants out there.
mayor gonzalez already talked about how the desired development zone is an oxy moren.
how can you keep putting the things in that people don't want to live next to.
the things need to be shared by the community and spread out whether talking about landfill or sewage plant or whatever else.
thank you for your time.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> (applause)
>> yes, sir.
>> good morning, thank you very much for this opportunity to be here with you, judge Biscoe and members of this county court my name is michael heironymous.
I'm a resident of web erville and 20 year resident of Travis County of of I come today address briefly some specific aspects of the report filed by geomatrix which was contracted to provide a site suitability analysis of the 2850 acres of land as a potential waste facility.
their research methodology was actually quite simple.
they examined, and I quote, the available reports provided by the city of Austin, five sited in their bibliography, generally regulatory in nature.
they also looked at the topographic and other maps relative to the site, the accompanying aerial photographs and the hicks and company memorandum.
field investigation, which they actually conducted, was held in October of 2006.
it consisted of 11 borings drilled on the site.
I quote, there were considerable limits to the drilling process, including soft ground, heaviy brush and woods and hilly topography.
access was therefore controlling condition in boring placement.
eleven of those bores were placed in the northern uplands.
one, and only one, was made in the critical alluvium in the south.
no other resuspect was apparently conducted by geomatrix outside of of their consulting a couple of internet sites and a couple of personal contacts made to answer some specific questions they had, there is no other scholarly literature or fieldwork that was reviewed or conducted.
and yet they were able to determine that this evaluation did not identify any condition that would represent the fatal flaw for the use of the site as a solid waste facility.
I would suggest to you that their research methodology was too superficial and limited to ever possibly detect or discover a fatal flaw in the webberville tract.
I give you a couple examples from their report.
with regard to water resources, they presented data from 58 water wells collected from state agencies.
thirteen on the site and 17 others were within the 1500 foot boundary.
yet they note that the database should not be considered to be either complete or current because wells may have been undocumented and therefore not present in the database or have been abandoned and no longer in use.
they were unable to provide any additional groundwater observations because of the use of the mud, rotary drilling system in the one site on the southern section that they made.
they offer no interpretation to the data that they provide except for these of the and I quote.
if groundwater is confirmed to be used as drinking water supply, then it would be a problem.
notice the use of the if.
they also suggest that groundwater is believed to be present within the alluvium.
obviously, it certainly is but they are unable to confirm that because and no pun intended, their investigation was too shallow.
groundwater movement would be expected to be predominantly lateral within the alluvium.
they can't say for sure because they have not looked into it.
I quote, the alluvial in the southern part of the site are like lick to be recharge areas for colorado river groundwater bearing unit.
I suspect it is but they aren't able to tell us because they didn't look.
with regard to surface water they note that site drainages are likely to be intermittent or ephemeral rather than perennial in nature.
apparently their maps and aerial photographs did not allow them to determine the nature of the surface water on the site.
those of us living in webberville know very well .
we have seen it.
whether or not their conclusions are right, it shows that they could not reach a definite and definitive conclusion because they did not study sufficiently the issues at hand.
with respect to west lands, they made a review of the national wetlands inventory maps and identified several wetlands.
however, they did not provide any observation or inventory of the ponds and springs which are numerous on the site.
they simply state that wetlands should be further investigated.
the hicks company, or hicks and company, was contracted to provide information concerning the potential environmental constraints.
more specifically, the flora, fauna, archeological and historical sites.
they concluded no threatened or endangered species or potential habitat identified in the study area during the October 18, 2006, field investigation.
in one day they attemptd to describe what is happening with the vegetation and animal life on 2850 acres, a daunting if not impossible task.
quite frankly, if I may say so, an endangered species would have had to have sent up a flair --flare to attract the attention of the investigate or that particular day in October to come to their notice.
they do describe the vegetation and habitat of the area but they make no specific mention of any of the wildlife.
while they are able to say that they did not see any endangered species, they do in the even provide us with a list of those things that they did see.
they also note that the lack of recorded occurrences within the area does not preclude the presence of habitat or federally listed threatened or endangered species.
in other words, they don't know what's there and are willing to admit it.
with regards to the archeology, the data set was limited to the two surveys that have been conducted on the site.
one is the 1987 power line which transects the middle of the tract shown here in purple.
also surveyed in 2002 was a lcra power line here on the eastern edge of the tract.
they connected a power station here.
this is the sum total, the colored areas, ladies and gentlemen, that has been surveyed arc arc logically.
is it any wond they did not find any significant sites on the webberville tract in frankly, again, nobody has looked.
they do conclude that the evaluated tract has a high potential and probability for both prehistoric and historic sites.
an enintensive pedestrian survey of the property was recommended including shovel testing and back trenching.
to this point in time, nothing has been done outside of these colored trans ects.
geomatrix also notes, aside from the memorandum, that there are structures in the tract anecdotally reported to be the remains of fort webber.
this identification has not been confirmed, they state.
it is nearly in the center of theville tract--webberville tract.
in speaking with the Texas historical commission whorks is aware of the site, they note that ifs a most intriguing and unique archeological site.
if it is confirmed to be fort webber, and at this point they have no reason to doubt it because archeological remains which have been seen in the area go well into the 19th century, this site has the potential to be the most significant archeological deposit in the state, according to mark den ton of the historic the commission.
many more sites in this tract of land are certainly likely.
I certainly don't intend to sound like geomatrix in this point but one can only conclude that.
a limited research design, their limited and incomplete data are unable to yield any substantial conclusion about the nature of the site.
the report is full of maybes, likelies, probables, and potentiallies.
it is not logical or rational to conclude that there is no fatal flaw.
such a conclusion is not supported by the data or the level of investigation.
if I may make an analogy, when most individuals have a medical issue, they seek the consultation of a physician.
one expects him to did a personal examination and other appropriate tests in making a diagnosis and prognosis.
in this case the doctor has based his conclusions on previous records and charts without an examination of the problems. By his own oh megs, the data is limited or outdated.
the study is inconclusive.
the report is not an adequate evaluation of the webberville tract as a waste facility.
the methodology was inappropriate for the task of making that determination.
I see the evaluation process as flawed.
it would be imprudent to suggest that this tract of land is suitable for waste facility.
due diligence has not been met.
I urge you members of the commission to help us protect this very important tract of land on the east side of Travis County.
thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> (applause)
>> my name is john williams. It's the president of the park springs neighborhood association which encompasses the area.
the doctor and e with my, who just spoke, have said--e williams who just spoke have said much of what I intended to say so I simply ask you to listen carefully to what they said.
I was talking earlier with mayor gonzalez, and you saw both the a the press conference earlier and here a significant number of people.
but this being a Tuesday, weekday morning, we folks in eastern Travis County have to work to make a living, this room would be packed if more people were simply available to come and didn't have to work.
I'm make just a couple of additional points.
the first is, I hope you have actually read the motion that was proposed at Austin city council.
it sounded earlier , when the representatives were talking that the city council was simply proposing to do more study, find out whether this land would indeed be suitable.
that's not what the resolution said.
it has two parts.
one, directing the city manager to complete the study, then a separate sentence.
the city council here by states its intent to move forward with the identified projects, a landfill, a power plant and a wastewater treatment plant being the identified projects.
the city, if this motion passes, is saying it intend to move forward.
it's not just doing more study.
if the city passes a resolution like this, the city is effectively zoning that land for a landfill, a a power plant and a wastewater treatment plant.
the city is zoning in territory that you have some land use authority over.
not as much as you wish you had but at least you have some.
and it's doing it without ever having had a public hearing or allowing any significant input from the residents of the area.
I distributed to you just three pages from presentations either this suitability analysis or previous presentations to Austin city council because I want you to recognize what we're talking about when we talk about the environmental sensitivity of this land.
I don't mean to prejudge what john white and your staff is going to tell you later.
but this is the city of Austin's own map for the city of Austin of the current fema floodplain.
this shows the 500 foot buffer that your chapter 64, I believe it is, establishes to protect that.
this map shows the colorado alluvial aquifer.
please, this land does have wetlands.
this land does have floodplain issues.
this land is environmentally important and sensitive.
it deserves protection, not to be despoiled.
thank you.
>> (applause).
>> I'm germane swen son vice-president of park springs neighborhood association.
and I can appreciate everything that has been said today.
basically gea oh matrix I know has just done a preliminary study but what john pointed out is it seems that even more in depth study is being put behind the decision that the already been made by the city of Austin to move ahead with a landfill.
in fact, I'd like to point out that they just procured an adviser on their zero waste arc company out of california.
I believe at the price of about $5,000 as a retainer to me, I've heard that the not showing much seriousness.
50 how is not --50,000 is not a lot to procure a consultant, which leads me to believe that it's not a sign of due diligence in a way to spend money doing site studies for a landfill before the city of Austin has been advised properly by their zero waste consultant.
this behavior gives the appearance that the city wants the landfill no matter what.
maybe they hired the consultant just for window dressing.
or dressing up a landfill as part of a zero waste initiative.
I don't think it's any mistake the timing of their monthly town hall meetings on their zero waste initiative with their presentation of their uses for this land as a landfill.
and as we know about resolutions, it's just a wish or dream or goal but there is nothing in there with tooth that says by 2040 we have to have zero waste.
I in my own life have gone zero waste or ten percent, let's say, and I'm working towards zero.
I have canceled my garbage service.
and I understand there are many hurdles, for instance, city of Austin doesn't have any power to mandate that businesses recycle.
that's just absurd.
if we can do no smoking ordinance and a paper, a plastic bag ordinance I just don't understands.
to me it seems like our hands are tide--tied.
it's just an excuse.
this land is where three regions meet.
there's flood, there's bottom land, river bottom land, cross timbers, uplands wood lands.
as I i know, I'm not a biologist but when there's so many different geographical areas meeting and con surgery converging, there is a huge amount of biodiversity.
I would almost argue there's more than anywhere in the county.
my main purpose here today is to request that the Commissioners today give us at least the same or better protections under chapter 62 as is enjoyed by citizens living near smaller types of facilities like recycling facility.
it's only reasonable that a major landfill have these same protections or buffers.
so that's all I with --would like to say.
thank you.
>> (applause)
>> thank you.
>> judge, Commissioners I'm nelson from the Austin naac p.
I want to share a slightly different perspective today because I see this from a different perspective.
much bigger perspective.
I want to first read the definition of a very important situation in this country.
it's called environmental racism.
it says in it refers to unintentional discrimination in the enforcement of environmental rules and regulations.
that's important.
a report by researcher james t hamilton who studied american codes targeted for these expansions of the he concluded the differences and probability that residents, by engaging in action to oppose the expansion offers the best explanation of why neighborhoods are targeteded by polluting firms. He is saying is the whole process is primarily political.
let me proceed.
in 2004 the city of Austin to its credit produced what it called a quality of life score card and --examined different areas, things like family income, educational attainment, home ownership, poverty unemployment, housing patterns, social and cultural infrastructure.
a very good assessment.
he claims to be committed to it.
I'm beginning to question that.
one area left out was environmental racism.
cough--kind of ironic.
I'm suggestingation the county itself it might be a good area for you guys to focus on.
in reality I don't understand where the city of Austin can make he's proposals.
it's almost like I hear so many Commissioners getting on board and making the same argument.
I don't understands because in reality, I think it's your job for the most part to protect the county.
clearly the proper questions here are not being raised.
let me proceed.
the city of Austin right now is on federal title 6 complaint.
that means the government is in town doing an investigation because they failed in the past to protect all the citizens based on race, income and neighborhoods.
it's a serious investigation and totally unnecessary.
I would say if you look at the environment in eastern Travis County, examine the data on pollutants, toxance, things that destroy people's lives, you don't have a moral leg to stand on.
anybody that was seer years and did a study about the city and begin to study how the environmental needs in Travis County effect black, brown and all people in different next, you would be in court tomorrow and probably settling the next day.
I'm going to give you a challenge.
it's important that this county in my opinion, not just Commissioner Davis, begin to take the issue seriously I believe it's a violation of the 14th amendment.
we can have these long sessions but we are missing the reality that as government body I believe you fail to provide necessary checks and balances to let the city know it's paramount for these ancient policies that disrespect and treat eastern Travis County as second class citizens.
as I close out, judge, at one point--
>> I still am.
>> perhaps you will accept my challenge.
think this is an easy issue, very clear, this issue is tote all a violation of people's civil rights.
I'm appalled that it went this long personally without being a major public policy discussion.
let me suggest that the court should embrace the whole thing about environmental racism, begin to treat eastern Travis County as it should be which is fairly, and also let the city of Austin know that you are no longer a punching bag.
ones again, if the court stood up, all Commissioners stood up and addressed this issue, this would not be occuring on a regular basis I would invite you to join me.
I've been spending too much time on the city of Austin and I think you need my help down here.
I would encourage you going to stand up and let the city know it's time to join the 21st century and find new ways to deal with these kind of issues rather than put them in poor people's communities who are primarily black brown, and poor people who primarily don't have the ability to fight you back.
join me in fighting those have whoa have power.
make sure this is truly a fair city for everybody regardless of where you link.
I think it's a moral find and couragous and the result will cause us to be proud of what we call city of Austinites.
thank you very much.
>> (applause)
>> thank you for your participation.
>> thank you for the opportunity to speak.
may name is david women's.
I'm in manner and also a home owner.
we're a couple miles from the proposed site.
it's kind of ironic.
my whole job and our job, our your is to instill a conservation ethic as far as where the food comes from and regarding the great state as wildlife because we are a sanctuary for unwanted, abused and neglected wild animals.
when I moved out to maynor ten years ago it was hardly anything going out there.
it was a very pristine thing to have such a facility.
we have seen enormous growth in the last ten years.
seeing what is happening with the proposed landfill is maze to go me because just about five or six miles to the west of us would be the mainland fill on 290 and a couple miles down the road a second landfill in the same tax base community of maynor.
and I can attest that as far as other folks speaking about the wildlife, that's one thing that we are so proud of at our facility.
pause we know we are in the major migratory path of amazing birds that come back and forth, that's why bird watchers come out to the hornsby bin areas to observe so many wonderful can I wildlife.
I have seen it myself.
I can supply wonderful things.
our property is teeming with wildlife.
it breaks my heart to see something like this come in with our kids who try to get out of the classroom that come out to a beautiful piece of property to experience the outdoors to appreciate Texas wildlife, and then just a couple miles down the road is going to be a big dump with all the smells and the aesthetic displeasing visuals that come along with that.
it's just amazing I just really beg and pleads that you folks would help us on this issue.
I always thought Travis County was the environmentally conscious, the green county, one of the stars of the environment here in the u state and yet everything is being dumped on the east side here.
I think that residents of the manor and webberville in eastern Travis County are completely fed up with this.
so I would really really appreciate your help.
thank you for letting me speak.
>> (applause)
>> thank you.
>> we'll here you and then determine how to proceed.
>> judge Biscoe, members of the Commissioners court, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak.
I'm the vemage attorney for the village of webberville.
I'm not here to speak specifically about this site.
although if this had been a hearing on this particular site the Commissioners court has gotten some great information today.
folks are far more export than I have sat before you and I think it's a real testament to the value of your organization as a Commissioners court that you patiently sat there and took this information.
it's too bad that more folks from the city of Austin didn't stick around to hear the information.
perhaps we can all cross our fingers and hope they are back in their offices watching on the internet or something.
you received some very valuable information.
the site has lots of problems. I had the pleasure of working for city of lubbock when they permitted the landfill a decade ago and sat through all the issues they went through to try and find the best place to dump a hundred year as worth of trash.
the first thing that city did was sign interlocal agreements with every city and county in the region to guarantee a maximum waste glow for a hundred years so as to make sure the site was financially viable.
thants what landowners do.
they guarantee flow.
certainly they are not going to saddle taxpayers for paying for the landfill.
what am I here to talk about?
the last time you had me sit before you was five years ago when we incorporated the village of webrville.
you were kind enough then to support the application and support the vote and you heard the mayor then, just a citizen getting activity and involved in his community, that if you gave him the elect the petitioners asked for you would carry a municipality that would take care of business.
they have planning, zoning, platting, right-of-way clean up.
they are paying for services conducting elections, and everyone on the governing body of webberville is running unopposed for reelection this coming may.
it is taking care of itself against gravel industry and anybody else who wants to harm the water quality and the wells, the colorado river or the quality of life out there in webberville.
so a little tine yo town of 500 people are availing themselves of every regulatory tool the state of Texas has given a little type c generally law city to make sure the oldest settlement in Travis County county stays pristine.
there is growth happening, change, construction, being done under a set of rules that the folks adopted for themselves.
that has bearing on this Commissioners court.
you have tools to look at land fills in Travis County.
have you two chapters both of which tell you that as a Commissioners court you have the power to adopt rules including up to prohibiting landfills.
of course you need to designate where can they go.
>> [change in captioners]
>> if you choose to forego this opportunity, that's making a statement about what your values are.
my experience has been that this Commissioners court and the folks up at the table care deeply about the people in eastern Travis County, care deeply about the folks in webberville, those who draw their water out of the aquifer and those who benefit from the colorado river.
so if your values are going to be realized, then the way to do that is amending your chapter 62 and exercising the authority the legislature gave you under the health and safety code.
and as the legal advisor to the village of webberville, I truly hope that you will avail yourselves of those opportunities.
thank you.
>> [ applause ]
>> morning, judge Biscoe and Commissioners.
I appreciate you letting me be up here and say my little bit.
I'm just a landowner that's above webberville.
off of burleson and blake on lone tree.
it's the most beautiful land.
and I just want you to come out there and see how it looks.
it's just -- it's got everything.
it's got wildlife, it's got trees, it's got the springs.
it's so beautiful that it's probably the most beautiful part of Travis County.
and I don't think that if you ever saw it, you would ever consider putting a dump or a waste facility in this area.
I get a little emotional because I am backed up to it, but it's so pretty.
there's a lot of artifacts and things, and I brought -- these are some that I found on my property, and the historical society has told me these are over 2,000 years old.
they're everywhere out there.
it's just amazing and you would be destroying and covering up so much that Texas could use in their museums and everything else.
it's wonderful.
and please don't do this.
don't let it happen.
thank you.
>> could you state your name please?
>> my name is sue anna larson.
I own five acres there on long tree.
>> thank you for your comments.
>> my name is sharon bram blet.
we live on burleson manor road and our property backs up to the city property.
our back patio door is about 50 feet from the fence line.
and most of the people that are up here have said most of what I wanted to say.
I just want to add a couple of things.
I was a zoology major at u.t.
and I work for two ecolingses for -- ecolingses for 23 years.
and the report that was given to you on the flora and fauna on this area was totally ridiculous.
because since studies have been done out there, they all they had to draw from was what done in western Travis County and the habitat is very different.
and you wouldn't expect to find those same animals out there.
the birds perhaps, but they even mention things like blind -- the cave salamanders.
well, there are not any caves out in eastern Travis County, so you wouldn't expect to find them, but unless they do a thorough study -- and you can't just go out there for the one day or even one week and examine to find r.
r.
ub -- and expect to find them even if they're common.
but we don't know.
and the other point that incidented to make about their study on the geology that they represented, I went to the geology library at u.t.
and with the help of the librarian, we found a good map and I can get copies if you want it.
there's a geo they are national zone that is up above taylor and it stops at buda.
it is anywhere from 1500 to 2500 feet deep.
actually, it feeds stacy park, which we have -- which is in Austin.
thood why it's warm water all it's open.
manor actually has a well that is in it and they have to cool it before they can use it.
but at 1500 feet, if there are fissures, there could be contaminated.
and this is very unique.
it's not very wide and it doesn't extend very far, but this is another thing that geo metrics didn't find.
they didn't do much out there.
most of what they could find is what is on the internet.
if I could find that in the library and they didn't, then that's another indication of how incomplete their study is.
thank you for listening to me.
>> [ applause ]
>> the question now is, one, I have to go to lunch.
and that's going to take probably an hour and 15 minutes.
we have other work this afternoon.
so the question is whether we bring this item back this afternoon or whether you want to try your motion.
>> what I'd like to do -- there's a lot of folks.
let me see those persons in the audience that are in support of the item b of this as far as opposing what the city -- in other words, amending chant 62 stand up, please.
all right.
many have left and had to go to work, and of course they will not be able to probably return.
so I think, judge, if you would allow the last speaker to speak, I would like to make a motion and I would like for the --
>> no, I will not allow another speaker to speak.
we let residence have an opportunity to come forward.
we normally break for lunch at 12.
normally I spend 15, 20 minutes eating at lunch and I work the rest of the time.
we're looking at getting back here -- Commissioner, I've been patient here and listened to you -- let me finish my comments.
>> go ahead and finish your comments.
>> you and I get into this every Tuesday.
>> no, we don't.
>> yes, we dovment.
>> no, we don't.
>> I'm asking you to be half as courteous to me as I am to you.
right now I think we're looking at getting back today probably at 2:00.
and I'll be here until 6:00 whether we're in court until 6:00 then or not.
>> I'd like to make a motion this morning.
>> make your motion.
>> thank you very much.
>> thank yawvment I'd like to make a motion this morning, but before I make that motion, I was getting ready to say I would like the staff to show the difference in the motion I'm going to make.
what's currently throughout as far as the map is concerned -- that's what I was getting ready to say, judge, you wouldn't let me say it.
staff, you brought a map and I'd like to let the audience and the public see the map.
the current overlay of chapter 62 as it shows from the receptor that it shows the donut in the center of the tract of property.
there's a 560-acre tract.
this is without doing anything, this is with the current overlay of chapter 62 on this particular tract of property.
>> Commissioner, keep in mind that would be --
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> I understand.
but what I'm trying to say is this is the criteria set up on the receptor as far as the finding of the first analysis that we did and just applying the current chapter 62 of the Travis County code, that 660-acre tract.
that's the before version.
now, at this time I'd like to see the map -- if this motion pass, that 560-acre tract of property will actually disappear.
it won't be there.
and that's the second portion of the map.
>> we did not bring that map, we brought --
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> that's the map I asked you to bring.
but at any rate that's what happened in affecting this motion, that 560-acre tract of property that's in this site will actually go away.
and at this time legal has prepared the proper language for us to amend chapter 62, and that is actually under 62.002-e.
so at this point if legal will read the language into the record as far as how we could amend that particular chapter at this time.
and nits the form after motion with the reading of this language that legal has prepared.
>> not with stangd the general limitation on the applicability of this chapter to landfills set out in section 62.002-b-1, this section 62.002-e, shall tie plie to landfills.
the processing and disposal of solid waste is declared to be an inappropriate land use and is prohibited in the following areas and in a meets and bounds description of the tract.
>> I will like to move approval of this particular motion to chapter 62 as read by the Travis County attorney.
>> is there a second?
move that we recess until 2:00.
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, March 19, 2008 2:51 PM