Travis County Commssioners Court
April 29, 2003
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.
Item 18
Now let's call up the 1445 item, number 18, to discuss outstanding policy issues and including subdivision regulation regarding members of chapter 82, Travis County code to resolve inconsistencies with city of Austin code as required by hb 1445 and take appropriate action. Woal come up the legislative items as soon as we complete this one. I would be -- well, I won't say about the other items until 11:30.
>> all right. As you may recall, we sent a proposal to the city council in response to their proposal on reconciling our differences on subdivision regulations within the e.t.j. The city council considered --
>> the city people would just come forward it would save us a little time later on. Good to have you all. I'm sorry?
>> okay. The city council considered -- considered the county's proposal at its meeting last Thursday. What I have handed out to you is there -- the response of the city council to the county Commissioners. And -- and councilmember slusher is here to speak on behalf of the city council in that regard. I think the -- to characterize this generally, is we have come a long way, but we have a ways to go. I think on most items, other than the transportation plan, I think we are probably within striking distance. The city council has some -- some -- some policy issues that -- that we still need to negotiate on with regard to the consistency between the campo plan and the city transportation plan. Many of those -- I guess it's in the scope of the city plan. It's not merely a difference in the cross-section of the roadways, as perhaps I led you to believe at our last meeting. It's not just the difference between a road where the road is in the plan and not in the plan, whether it's a four-lane roadway or a six-lane roadway. It -- in some cases it is still that. And that -- that specifically on -- on state highway 45, southwest, between i-35 and 1626, that is an issue of whether or not it is in the plan or not in the plan. But more -- more seriously, we have come acrossed issues with regard to what -- what water quality abatement would take place when the roads are constructed within the water protection zones and furthermore what type of bicycle facilities would be incorporated into the development of the roadways when the roadways are developed. We have really not done enough analysis to tell the court today, speaking on behalf of the county staff, to tell you the significance of those differences and if -- and what -- and how to mediate those in bringing the two together in a 1445 discussion. So I'm not prepared to tell you today how seriously these differences are and what the next step may be in any ongoing negotiations with the city of Austin. And I think that whole body of reconciling the plans has brought -- is probably the biggest bulk of the work yet to be done.
>> so transportation plans is the biggest issue?
>> yes.
>> and that is whether we go with campo, city of Austin transportation plan or what?
>> and whether or not we can reconcile the two.
>> all right. And I think you told me that -- that the court last time we thought we could identify six to 8 specific roads and resolve differences that way.
>> that's what I thought, but it really much more than that.
>> okay. And you all have come basically to explain the situation and give your perspective.
>> exactly. Staff told me that it might be better to have a -- an elected official to elected official dialogue. I hope that proves to be good advice on their part.
>> good morning.
>> welcome.
>> good morning, Commissioners.
>> how are you doing today?
>> doing pretty well. I will give you a little bit of our perspective. First of all, howard lane, we just had a zoning case last week where we were making sure that the right-of-way is -- is preserved there and the question was they just need to know, you know, where it's going to go, this was the -- the it was walnut creek p.u.d., I think it was. But anyway, so anyway that's a very valid question, Commissioner Sonleitner, I think. The -- on the 1445 issues. I degree with mr. Gieselman. We are almost there on everything expect the transportation. That does require more work, more discussion. Hopefully I can shed some light on the city's position on that this morning. We feel like it's a -- clearly it's important to have -- good and safe transportation all over the region. Over the edward's aquifer we realized that there is some -- those -- that area is more sensitive environmentally because of the geology of the area where the -- where the pollutants just seep right through the limestone rock or soil and turn up in our creeks and springs and including barton springs. And for instance I think probably most of us on the council weren't for the -- for the section of 45 that's been approved by the voters stretching from -- from what is it? From loop 1 to 1626? But that was approved by the voters of Travis County in our leak. So we have supported the -- in our election, so we have supported the construction of that road in line with the will of the voters. But likewise the voters in Austin, which are about 70 to 80%, about 70 to 80% of the Travis County voters as well, but Austin voters back in 1992 passed the save our springs ordinance, which called for no further degradation of water quality over the edward's aquifer, barton springs zone and also voters have approved time and time again funds for -- to purchase land to protect water quality and for recreation, including on the same day as 45 was passed, Austin voters approved 65 million in land for environmental preserves over the edward's aquifer. So that's -- that's part of -- that's a big part of our take on this, too. So we would like to, one, we disagree with some of the roads, for instance on 45 southwest, we feel that's potentially damaging to the aquifer because with hooking it up with i-35, putting pressure for the other section of 45 to the west, but also that -- that if it's done before -- before 130 is built, then you can potentially turn mopac through central Austin into a bypass to i-35. Cut back over ... At one point at campo, in a preliminary vote, it was in there as that part wouldn't be built unt 130 is completed. I think that's something that the council would entertain discussing. I can only speak for myself, but I can tell you I think the sense of the body might be some potential compromise in that. We think that it's very important that we have non-degradation protections on this. I think the issue has been raised, does that mean that -- that the road itself, building the road itself does it have to be so much that land purchase where that road only constitutes 15% and no, that's not our interpretation. We are talking about controls, structural controls and other types of -- of protections, drainage protection that's can be put on the roadways to get into this non-degradation, or at least as close to non-degradation as possible. So no, we do think, I can speak to myself anyway. I think that would be unrealistic to make sure that you have that much right-of-way where the pavement is only 15% of it. Most of that, with the city, that's how this part of the development itself, where they have to count those roads as part of their impervious cover, but if you are just talking about bringing a highway through, no, we -- we don't think that it would have to be 15%, but we do think there ought to be the very strong water quality protections on those. So I'm sure that you all have questions --
>> daryl, I wanted to ask you this real quick, councilmember. It's -- as far as I'm concerned, [indiscernible] court, our intent to ensure that sh 45 southeast, which is -- which will connect into --
>> between 35 and 130?
>> right. Southeast is the first thing that we looked at. Also tying into sh 130. Of course seeing that sh 130 is going to be a toll way generating road, of course we are trying to relieve traffic and take it off i-35 and people that -- points north. The intent, I'm looking at this as far as I'm concerned is that -- I heard you say until sh 130 is built. But of course it's not going to be [indiscernible] constructed until we have some type of situation as far as traffic coming off of i-35. What will be sh 45 southeast as far as tying into that.
>> when the council -- I think every member of the council voted for that at campo. We understand that it wouldn't make much sense to build 130 and connect back to i-35. So I think we are all in agreement on that one. It's the part from i-35 over to 1626 where we have the concerns. And disagreement.
>> so the difference in the campo plan and what -- what you are saying as far as the Austin metropolitan area transportation plan, suggests what? Is there a --
>> we don't have the -- Austin metropolitan area transportation plan deleted 45 between i-35 and 1626. So that's -- that's where the difference is on that particular road.
>> so it exists in the campo plan, but it's deleted out of the --
>> that's correct.
>> Austin air [multiple voices]
>> right. We have freight barker also between 1626 and brodie. We don't have -- I noticed in -- should mention in remarks that you all had the offer to delete that from you all's part to go to campo and try to delete that from there. Council definitely appreciated that. Took note of that. Currently anyway that's another difference in the two plans. Let me ask you, if your view, how do we comply with 1445 and reconcile our differences on -- on road projects basically?
>> well, what we would prefer is to go with the amatp, Austin metropolitan area transportation plan and reconcile it like that. You all have -- we are going to have to come to something in between those two. What I would suggest is if we could continue working these individual roads, and look at some stronger protections on -- on the ones over the aquifer, I think there might be some ground for -- fertile ground for compromise there.
>> okay. So on all of the roads that joe has just given us in this document that he handed out, these were all city of Austin roads in your --
>> they're in the e.t.j.
>> but they are in your transportation plan as Austin roads? So basically the water quality standards is what you are looking at.
>> yes, sir.
>> there's -- we went through the city transportation plan. What you have there are roads in the e.t.j. Only that are within the zones, the water zones affected by the footnotes in the city transportation plan. Where it is recommended that they comply with the edward's rule, the non-degradation standards and the -- and the city of Austin water quality standards. So basically, it's a reflection of the -- of the -- why the city of Austin plan goes beyond the campo plan with respect to water quality regulations. I'm thinking that 1445 gives me the right to expect one standard from -- from the city and county. On some of these roads the water quality standard is more strict than others.
>> over the drinking water protection zone it's more strict.
>> right. So we would have to protect, we would have to address that on like a road by road basis.
>> or at least geographically over the area.
>> all right. And you think we can do that?
>> yes, sir. I think it's possible.
>> well, let's say the county agreed with the city but there's still a difference in the campo transportation plan, what's your thinking on that?
>> I would say if we can come to agreement, I would say that we can go together to campo and ask that those roads be altered or deleted, depending on what the case might be from the campo plan and appeal to them as a local control issue if we have Travis County and the city of Austin agreeing on it. What if the campo membership rejects that?
>> well, I would say we still go by the amatp because that's the current situation. Austin is able to have the amatp and that -- that leads to -- you know, disagreements have to be resolved eventually between those two bodies. So -- so I guess what I'm saying is we cross that bridge when we come to it. But I would hope that -- let's see, that's seven votes of the membership already out of 21. If we all agree on it and go together and I would hope that we could get the -- the four members of our legislative delegation to agree with us and perhaps some of the representatives from other areas. So, you know, I mean obviously neither -- none of us can predict exactly what would happen there. But I would think it would certainly give us a lot better chance if we went united.
>> I have got -- judge, are you finished? I'm sorry.
>> my final question on this today would be --
>> pause.
>> [indiscernible] legislation -- in is legislation pending, who knows whether it will get through or not. If it passes, though, the current version basically gives the campo transportation plan final say-so. Not in that specific language, but that's really the gist of it.
>> in a big way, yes. Actually, in a way that went beyond even the original version of that bill.
>> yeah.
>> and I guess my question is my hope last week was that we could put our heads together and at least to the extent that we could achieve an agreement, we would do that and let them know so hopefully obviate having legislation. I mean, do we give up on that and just as -- as best we can try to work through these local issues and just accept the outcome, whatever it is?
>> well, they didn't give us much leeway or choice there between -- it's almost like either give up your -- your authority over any say over the roads in the e.t.j. And the water quality protections over them or the legislature will pass something that effectively does that. I would hope that we could still continue to try to work this out and hopefully wouldn't need that legislation. I mean, of course, that's up to the legislature. But I would hope that we would have a united voice on that. I don't think we completely do.
>> well, let me ask this: if -- if the -- if the county or the local governments, county and city, can come to some agreement, which is what we're trying to do here, then what would happen with that legislation? I mean, so we reached an agreement. And so what happens then? I mean, won't they honor that agreement that came from the previous legislation passed?
>> I guess in that way, we would go -- even if it passed, if we -- seems like if we came to an agreement on what we wanted in or out of the campo plan or changed in the campo plan, that we could go there together and try to get a majority vote there and in that way you would at least that portion of the legislation you would be in compliance with it. But it would -- we would have still been able to exercise the local control.
>> I would really encourage that that be done. Let me tell you why. I think it's about time that we got some projects over east of i-35. And every time that we argue about rules and, you know, all of that kind of stuff, it's always in the western part of Travis County. And then everybody complains about the traffic that you can't get around east of i-35, east and west and all that kind of stuff. That's because we always put that area on the back burner. And we argue about these other issues that we have already settled through elections, my goodness. And that's a big thing to try to get people out to vote on -- on what people in this city want for the city. And when they speak up, because, well, they didn't -- you know, we don't really want to take them seriously. We want to do something else and passes legislation. I'm getting really tired of that. We have this nafta thing that's supposed to be super for all of us. But yet having it coming through i-35 and making that bottleneck area on town lake the most dangerous part of i-35 in this country. So we are not going to take care of sh 45 southeast, take that traffic off of 135 over to 130 which is being built for getting that nafta traffic off of i-35. That's still -- that blaring issue out there, it glares at us, we continue to -- to overlook it. And I think we need to get busy on south -- on sh 45 southeast and, you know, I think you all need to wait until we get some of these things done. I'm just -- you know, it's time to stop these -- that the southeast got something in there to make 130 work the way it's intended to work for heaven's sakes. To me safety is the biggest issue here. I would hope that Travis County and city of Austin can come to some kind of agreement and let's get the -- let's get sh 130 and sh 45 southeast done and then i'll work with you all on the other projects.
>> Commissioner Sonleitner, one point of information, one question for the councilmember. Tomorrow on the agenda, the monthly agenda of the central Texas regional mobility authority, they will be discussing an unsolicited proposal that they have received to construct that segment of sh 45 southeast between interstate 35 and 130. So I think the very thing that Commissioner Gomez wonderfully is articulating and the concern that we all have that the east segment must connect before the west. They are going to talk about that tomorrow. That may trigger a process in terms of whether there are others that are also looking at wanting to bid or put together a project related to the r.m.a., That is on tomorrow's agenda. Up at the marriott at la frontera. Pretty early on in their agenda. I have this question. I can certainly understand your sensitivity and desire related to water quality standards and bikeways within your e.t.j. Is there any thought to doing what happened relating to the Williamson creek discussions related to -- to the big -- the ben white intersection and that is that if the city desires greater controls because this eventually is going to be part of your jurisdiction, they all pay for it. If that's something that just -- there's not an expectation that -- that -- that someone else will pay for it, if it's something that you desire to happen sooner rather than later, because it is going to be part of your jurisdiction and mine are related to the bikeways. We are desiring to put a trail in -- in the sh 130 corridor. I don't think there's any expectation that we are going to have somebody else pay for it. We are trying to assemble the moneys and utilize the right-of-way, but we are trying to assemble the trail money. There's not an expectation that something beyond the scope of what's already being built would be funded out of that highway money. I'm just wondering where does the city stand in terms of saying we want the water quality and we will pay for it, because this is something that goes above and beyond what would be required in the e.t.j.
>> okay. Well, first of all, the city as I stated earlier is in full support of the portion of 45 between i-35 and 130. And that has to be built or it doesn't make any sense to build 130.
>> 130.
>> but on that, we went and looked at that, I went anyway and looked at this as somebody else -- I wouldn't look at somebody else paying for it if the county paid for stronger wallet quality protections because it's the same people, it's the taxpayers that are footing the bill and the case of the county that's -- that's about 25% more people that don't live in the city that would be helping to pay for it through their taxes. I think that's something that the citizens of Austin, citizens of Travis County has made clear over and over again for 30 years or more, they want water quality protected, the edward's aquifer protected, I would see this as the -- as complying with the will of the voters to protect water quality on the -- frankly, my position would be that -- I wish and have talked to texdot without success about having stronger water quality measures on their projects. And we can see very clearly what was happening to bouldin creek and the neighborhood down there from not having those protections. That's why the city stepped forward and paid for that, I would hope at the local level that the county would look at it more as something that's what -- as what their voters want as well, rather than saying the city ought to pay for it if we want it.
>> let me ask you this question. If hb 1204 passes along with senate bill 544, what will be disposition of what we are doing here working with the city and trying to work out these differences as far as house bill 1445? And the campo plan being recognized other than -- what would actually happen there if -- that's conditional, if -- if those two bills were to be successful over at the state legislature? The language in 1204 which passed the house we anticipate will be put in the senate bill basically has roadway plan or the metropolitan planning organization overrides whatever is in the joint city-county regulation. So it's sort of take away the jurisdiction of city or county to have a roadway plan other than what the npo adopts.
>> in the campo plan.
>> right.
>> all right. Okay. Commissioner Daugherty?
>> thank you.
>> Commissioner Gomez, I by no means am proposing that 45 southwest get in the way of southeast. What I'm afraid of, is that southeast is going to get entangled in something because I think that we have an issue at the legislature right now where we are talking about doing something with -- with commuter rail and right now from what I understand tta and lsi are having some real issues insofar as what is going to happen with 130. To insinuate that nothing gets done on the east side, I mean, with going through one of the larger projects that I have seen in a long time with sh 130, that I think we are all supportive of. I was absolutely, I mean, going out there waving the banner for that and I'm -- I was glad to see most of the community come down on that. What I don't want to do for southwest and I think that I will -- I think that I won the race because of my stance on mobility and transportation, number 1. It is unfortunate that with all due respect, councilman slusher, I probably couldn't get elected in the central city and you probably couldn't get elected in precinct 3. And so we -- we have -- we do have a matter of -- of where we probably are not going to meet. Part of the problem that I have with the city is history. I would love for you all to change my mind in that I think you all come to me fairly and say you know what not with taking the bite out of the baby ruth, where one side is this big, the city goes, takes a bite out, now we are even, now we'll deal. I don't want to deal that way with the city. I want to make sure that we have the flexibility if something happens with 45 southeast where it gets in some squabble as to why we can't get it done, I hope that somebody takes somebody up on the fact that they can build 45 southeast and if I felt like that we were moving forward with that and not going to delay things, I'm even for okay, if in essence it is the r.m.a., If the r.m.a. Gets all of the things that it wants, can go out there and do 45 southeast, I'm supportive of that. What I'm afraid of, what I don't want is to not ever get to look at 45 southwest between i-35 and 1626. If all of a sudden we find something that we are not getting to do the schedule that we feel like that we are getting -- that we all think that we would like to have and that we anticipate getting. I don't want to get put into a spot which is the reason that I told joe gieselman, I'm not supportive of 45 intes being predicated solely on 45 southeast first. I'm willing to sit back and say okay let's work, see if we can get 45 southeast going because I agree, I think it the most important thing that we can do is to divert traffic southeast along 130. I do understand what the mopac feel, that it might entice people to come, to use that as a -- as a go around for the city if you connect i-35 and mopac. But that's part of the problem that we have in this community with transportation now is because we try to find ways not to connect to things that need to be connected in order for people to get around. I'm not supportive of that. So -- so it -- it really frightens me, councilman, to think, okay, here's what we are going to do, we are going to really assume that we are all going to hold hands with this thing, which is the reason that I have gone to testify for the senate bill and the house bill, because I'm -- I really don't trust, work with us, sit down with us, we will deal with you on this thing. This is not because I just came in town last Tuesday. I have been here 35 years, I have watched and I know how this work. Maybe you all can inch me along and say, you know, I think that they are willing to -- I'm not opposed to cleaning the water that's a runoff. I'm not supportive of doing anything -- I don't think anybody in this community is supportive of doing anything to the spring, anything to the water source, any of that. I do think that there is in practicality that we have to approach and say, you know what? If a -- from a cost standpoint, we can't comply with the standards that have been put before us, then I'm fearful that we will have the same thing that we have now, which is continued waiting in lines, not moving people around this community. So -- so I don't think that -- I mean this is personally, that I can buy off right now on trust us and come with us and work with us on this thing because I don't think that that's going to happen. I don't think you are going to get me comfortable, maybe you can, but that is the reason why I am so fervent with regards to why I want to have the flexibility if something happens over there, we can do 45 swe, we have the people, we have the resources to do it, then I want to be able to do that. If you want me to ask for a owe foe if you want to say Gerald how long, two years, I'm not saying that we have to start something next week Commissioner. But I just don't want to be put in a spot where we have got to wait and if something happens with that thing, the agreement was that you said we are going to wait until that happens.
>> that's why I think we all need to be together on that 130 which has been in the works for a long time. The whole thing was to take traffic off of i-35, which is very dangerous. Okay. So that we need to make sure that that gets in. At the same time, we need to have that sh 45 southeast so that that traffic nav take can get off of -- nafta can get off of i-35, connect to 130. Then the original purpose for 130 can be put in place. We all need to be together on that. Then I think I'm ready to go with you all on other projects. But this project has been in the work and I still don't see it happening. Neither 130 nor sh 45 southeast. We have already asked the voters for some money to buy the right-of-way on s.h. 130 and so I mean those are commitments, real commitments that we have made and the people have made as well, our voters. But the voters also made commitments on water quality, and -- and in this city and, you know, whether we agree or disagree with the voters is not germane. We have to honor what the voters want in this community.
>> let's take five more minutes. What if anything are we asked to do today, joe?
>> I think the reconciliation of the transportation plan may take a while. I would suggest to the court that we proceed to adopt everything else that we can come to agreement on with the city. I mean, let's not let the disagreements that we have on the plan stop us from doing all of the other stuff that we have come to agreement on.
>> we gave tentative approval to everything else I thought last week without a formal motion to approve, right? How does that sound?
>> that's exactly what I would like to do, too.
>> so we pull out basically the transportation issues. And keep working on them.
>> yes, sir. Yes, sir.
>> and just -- I guess decide how we're going to go about working out what remains.
>> okay.
>> now, the reason I say five more minutes is that we have the legislation items posted for 11:00, we need to take that before noon. So let's get a few more comments, we have heard a whole lot. And so if you don't repeat what we have heard already, would it help us. Can we get your name, we would be happy to get your comments.
>> my name is terri mcmanus with the city of Austin transportation planning department. My comments relate largely to some agenda material that you have in your packet which identifies approximately 50 roadways that have additional criteria in city of Austin's transportation plan and they relate to non-degradation and protection of water quality, and also in an attempt to protect endangered species these are references to recommendations for protecting water quality of the edward's aquifer and they were formulated by the u.s. Fish and wildlife service. I think -- they have been attached. They were -- they were adopted by the city council of Austin in June of 2001 and attached to all of the segments in the transportation plan that are in the drinking water protection zone. As I mentioned there are about 50 odd segments that this remark is pertinent to. The city of Austin is recommending that these are some of the issues that continue to -- to be resolved in some way. Additionally, there are many segments of roads in the area that the city council has adopted the Austin bicycle plan for, the regional bike plan does not identify bicycle facilities on these segments of roadways and the city of Austin does have some very specific proposals and ideas for bikeways. Within the e.t.j. Area. So we would propose perhaps that the Austin bicycle plan at least be a starting point for looking at a more enhanced, fuller, bike system in the e.t.j. Thank you.
>> if we pull out the transportation issues, we pull out the bike plan, too, right?
>> well, we certainly have to look at all of that, yes.
>> okay.
>> judge, is this exhibit a that we are talking about the -- the roads, the segments of roads, also? Is it exhibit a that you are referring to? From.
>> yes. It's exhibit a in your packet.
>> okay. Thanks.
>> any stakeholders or anybody else? Looks like we are heading toward giving approval to all of the non-transportation parts of 1445 that we have been discussing, transportation would cover the bicycle plan.
>> and that includes exhibit a in its entirety in terms of not --
>> [multiple voices]
>> exhibit a plus any other transportation issues.
>> second.
>> lisa gordon, assistant city manager. I just wanted to bring to your attention, last week when the council approved the resolution, there was a couple of changes to your first amendment. I wasn't sure if you were approving the item that you had on your agenda last Tuesday or the item with consideration of the comments that we had included in our resolution that we provided to the city.
>> I'm sorry, could you repeat that. I couldn't hear you for the disturbance.
>> lisa gordon assistant city manager. I wanted to make sure at the council meeting with the exception of the roadway plan, there were other issues where we clarified the language in terms of things that we saw because we got the draft, I the day before you -- I think the day before you saw it. We wanted to make sure what you were approving includes the change on the other items. I don't think there's an issue with the county staff, but I wanted to clarify what you were approving.
>> I think that we have an agreement in concept. There's still some questions about the language. I'm placing the emphasis on what the judge said. It's tentative. There's definitely agreement in concept. Some of it we need to tweak. Also in -- even in the city's what I'm describing as counter offer, there's an option a or b, we don't know whether we will go with a or b.
>> instead of taking any action, we want to take another week to look at that?
>> that would be fine, too. I'm comfortable with attentive approval on everything but the transportation step, if you would like just to wait --
>> how do we know if it's a or b [multiple voices]
>> judge, if I could offer, we don't meet this week. So the next time we would be able to look at it would be next Thursday. So it seems like that happened work -- either way would work for you all.
>> okay. A week.
>> judge -- councilmember slusher brought up a point earlier whereby the campo representative from the county and the city I guess the next meeting, will this come up before campo --
>> no.
>> [indiscernible]
>> there is an established process for dealing with the campo plan and adoption. This would be something out of cycle and we are -- especially based on our discussions, we are nowhere near going to --
>> is that --
>> -- campo. But just to let you know, we do not have a may meeting because of the legislature. So the next time campo will meet anyway is June. [multiple voices]
>> so there's still hope.
>> he brought that up I didn't know how it would be addressed.
>> we don't have a may meeting.
>> okay.
>> anything else on this item today? We will have it back on next week.
>> thank you, councilmember.
>> thank you all.
Last Modified: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 7:52 PM