Travis County Commssioners Court
June 10, 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 17, afternoon discussion
Now let's go back to item number 17. The one involving the solid waste facilities siting ordinance. And we'll have further comment. Page number 2 that has remediation at the top, the change that is proposed siting ordinance in one manner. And that is to add the underlined words, and those words are really to strengthen the county's ability to require remediation when there is contamination, pollution, some other environmental concern. And I'm sure tom's on the way down here. When we talked about the specific language that referenced the city code, etcetera, that we talk about last week, and in myiew the advantage, one advantage of that was that we also would require that if we granted a variance that you would agree that the county had the right to impose remediation within a time certain. So what this language does is can the general variance language that is in the current proposed siting ordinance is to add that remediation language.
>> judge, just a very technical, but not a big deal thing. It just says it's 62.006-c. I think in actuality it 62.006-d in terms of the change that you're proposing.
>> did you check that, tom? This was intended to be in the variance part, right?
>> yes, sir. It's just c refers to the executive manner of holding a public hearing and it is actually b. We would need to change that, is that correct?
>> it doesn't change the substance, just making reference to the appropriate section.
>> okay. I use my journalism degree every now and then for copy reading.
>> again, when I'm looking at it now is -- (indiscernible). Because it appears that -- what I'm looking at here. (indiscernible). It's almost getting back to that language that we had before we were dealing with an operating agreement. Because it is talking about the operating -- and my whole point is under the law the variance -- under the law -- we're looking at some land operators who have had a long history of violating the law. I mean, there's no doubt about it, their compliance history is just outrageous. And, of course, with that kind of compliance history, and with the particular violations that we have right now, what was proposed was to come up with some kind of agreement for the landfill operators to do remediation and a whole bunch of other stuff. And based on their compliance history as far as performance, they never have met that yet. Even today we're struggling with this right now. And what -- and even with this language year it suggests that where we're going back to a situation I know where the neighborhood basically did not agree with the grievance, and especially when the compliance history of the landfill operators had not been up to speed. So what are we doing here? Are we revisiting this again? Looking at some kind of agreement in mediation. And mediation, it appears when they violent the law, it appears to me that tceq still has the authority to make them do just that, is take care of the problem when they violate the law. And when they're cited on violation, they should perform. And it appears, like I said, this just got to us today. I don't know if even the neighborhood, if they've even had a chance to even digest what we're talking about here today. I would like for this particular portion of this agenda to be -- as a courtesy at my request, to be postponed until the neighborhoods have had an opportunity to review this and look at the impact of what we're doing. So I would make that as a courtesy, that request to Commissioner of precinct 1.
>> judge, could I ask a technical question? I didn't ask this morning, but I think at this point it's extraordinarily relevant. We're heard a lot of asking for can we get some more input from the neighborhood. If at the end of this process that we have today on everything that's before us, we will have substantial changes made in this ordinance that will require us to repost this item and go back out into the community and get input. So in terms of Commissioner Davis' request, gee, i'd like to get more feedback from the neighborhood on what all this means, won't we in fact be doing exactly that if these changes are made, we will be going back out into the community, and rather than on on a quick and dirty what do you think today at this moment in time when you really haven't had a chance to look at it, they will thoughtfully have a chance to think about the latest version of this, give us that input before this court makes a final decision on the end product? Did I get that right?
>> tom, can you tell us what this means? I would be real surprised if resident don't pat us on the back 35 days from now when including this language. What in your view is this language intended to do?
>> it's intended to address the concerns that Commissioner dave has raised, which is often times I think the regulatory entities have found themselves in the position of seeing a possible violation or a violation, and only then approaching the operator on how to fix it. I think the intent here is to say, as a condition of receiving any variance, all that is spelled out up front. Specific actions, time frames, etcetera. And basically the operator acknowledges that this is the quid pro quo, part of the quid pro quo of receiving a variance from these siti restrictions. And everything has worked out up front and is in place and can be implemented in the event of a violation rather than a problem occurring and only then starting to talk about the plan for remediating it.
>> now, the only new language proposed is the part underlined.
>> right.
>> and that part is supposed to provide county authority to insist on a remediation plan. The other language that is not underlined is in the current proposed ordinance.
>> correct.
>> now, my problem may be my ordinance here that was proposed on April 15th, 2003. This is the one advertised, the one that -- I can have 15 copies or so made if I need to. And too, the only new language is the part that's underlined. This other language, verbatim, should be -- adopted on the 15th of April, it was advertised in the newspaper. What we have read almost for two months and what's been on the table basically.
>> I didn't get a chance to finish my comments.
>> i've got copies, judge. If you would like to pass them out.
>> who needs a copy. Thank you.
>> and judge, the intent of this language is that rather than waiting until after some unfortunate incident has occurred as what are you going to do about it? We would want to know ahead of time what would you do in the event that something goes wrong? And that has to be a plan that we find acceptable in terms of a disaster recovery plan up front as opposed to after the fact.
>> we're looking at the top of the last page.
>> judge, before we go on, this is trek english again. I would like some clarification. There's two things here. The first one is number 2 where it says taking into account the language described in 62.006.24. --
>> that's a typo. It should be of.
>> there's no section 62.007.
>> there's not.
>> should be 007. 006.
>> that's on the compliance history information.
>> 62, we just approved on -- 62.006 is a new section that we have added. That's the number is 62.006 is about the special siting criteria for floodplains. That would then bump down everything after that to be 0 open so we will have to do a total cleanupof the appropriate siting. Because when we talk about them here on the remediation referring to 62007 b-4, wait it is now, 62.0 open has to do with sever rability, and that's not the correct section.
>> that's very confusing.
>> good point.
>> nd then another one, if you go by the siting ordinance on page 1, 2, 3, 4, page 6, which would be 62.006 and you have a, b, c, d. And d-1 is the county sign that it is in fact approval of the process and of the solid waste as a new facility.
>> this is different here. It says a facility, and trek has found a new facility. Did you mean a new?
>> I don't think we meant new, which is why I took it out.
>> well, I don't have any problems with a facility, I just wanted it attached.
>> my request for a language that would put in place authority for the county to be granted a variance to be able to come in and bring in mediation. And the underlined language in a way does that, maybe not in language I would have proposed, but it does that, I think.
>> judge, I request a postponement until we can go through this very fairly. And we're finding that there may be confusion even on the thing that trek found, because I saw that before. So I saw that I couldn't find it anywhere either. And again, I just got this today. And I think if we give it a week or so, let them have a thorough chance to look through this and look at the ordinance, which they haven't seen before, and go through this and then come back with it next week, out of courtesy, I think I should be granted that courtesy.
>> the reason I think you shouldn't be granted that courtesy is because we've been talking about it for months. We have resident in northeast Travis County who are affected by non-type 1 lilz who have been demanding that we do something. And I think we ought to act here. If you have a motion, make it and we'll see.
>> I think that the neighborhoods have to go through this stuff --
>> Commissioner, if you have a motion, make it.
>> we don't have to agree, that's fine.
>> if you have a motion, make it.
>> i'd like to see if they can have a chance to go through this and that's what they have indicated to me. So I would make a motion that we at least postpone it a week, just as a courtesy.
>> is there a second to the motion?
>> i'll second.
>> thank you.
>> any more discussion? All in favor to postpone consideration one week? Commissioner Daugherty, Commissioner Davis vote in favor. Voting against, Commissioner Gomez, Sonleitner, yours truly. I move approval of page 2 of the remediation.
>> and the reality is this is 62.007-d.
>> all the numbers ought to be cleaned up.
>> yeah.
>> and even the language needs to be cleaned up. We really don't know what we're referring to. And I don't blame you, neighborhood people. You have some am biew giewty on this and you should state that.
>> all in favor of the motion? Show Commissioners Gomez, Sonleitner, yours truly vote ng favor. Voting against, Commissioner Daugherty and Davis.
>> number three is a bit more controversial. It goes to how do you determine the distance to a reseptemberer. And right now the language is what is crossed out or struck through on 3. And what my recommendation is basically is to draw a 100-foot circle around the reaccept kel and measure to that point. And that is to protect this. If I have a receptor on a small tract of land, I have less protection than the receptor that is on a much, much larger tract of land. So I'm taking 100 feet from the structure and measuring to that. That's the language, right, tom? Now, I'm not sure it's 100 feet. That ain't my understand, I don't think, but some distance was, rather than to the edge of the property line. I'm visualizing in rural areas where you have incredibly large tracts of land and other situations you have incredibly small ones. If you draw the 100 feet around the receptor, that gives a little more uniformity, I think. That's the intention here. We have talked about this idea since we proposed this --
>> when?
>> earlier.
>> when?
>> it's come up in almost every discussion.
>> no, it hasn't.
>> my recollection is a whole lot different than yours. We got here to the property line from our social security ordinance. -- s.o.s. Ordinance, actual oriented businesses. Sob ordinance.
>> they are sob's [ laughter ]
>> s.o.s. Is -- [overlapping speakers].
>> I think the situation is a little different. When I thought -- what I thought about this, though, this makes it, but I think -- can we give ourselves five or 10 minutes to vote, and if it's voted down, I'm happy.
>> judge, my recollection is it's a thousand feet on the sob. 100 feet is like practically nothing. Help me understand.
>> yeah. Originally when I did the analysis for setbacks, it was all based upon actually the distance from the receptor itself, in order, the measuring point on the residents or the church or whatever it might be, and you measure 1500 feet. Then it got changed to the property boundary, which actually caused me concerns because I did not want to in front of a court some day down the road and have to defend something that perhaps could be legitimately viewed as unreasonable,
Especially in a rural setting where you might have 3 hundred acres and one thousand or something like that. I think that when you look at the actually oriented business rationale, it's logical because most of those tend to be on smaller subdivided tracts, where it makes sense to measure from the property boundary line. What we're talking about here, Commissioner, is not just 100 feet. What we're talking about is a distance. You take the house or whatever it might be, that is the receptor, and you put a buffer of 100 feet around the edge -- from that receptor, and that is the start of your measuring point of 1500 feet or in the case of a single residence or the case of a neighborhood.
>> so it's 1 plus.
>> right.
>> that's where I was getting confused. I thought I was not understanding something here.
>> that's why I say you go -- you go totally around the receptor 100 feet in all places, that way no matter what direction you're measuring from, you would measure to where the 100 feet circle is. Rather than to the edge. So if I have a receptor in the middle of a huge tract of land, you wouldn't measure to my boundary line, you would measure to the 100-foot circle, is the language that we were trying -- the idea we were trying to cover.
>> right. And you're not penalized if you have a small tract and you're not -- you sort of don't get a windfall if you have a big tract.
>> and then with the same distances that are currently in the siting ordinance under 62.003 and 4 related to those individual kinds of things, we still keep the 350 and we can still keep the 1500 feet and we still keep the 5280 on the neighborhoods, are we keeping all those distances exactly as is?
>> right. Rather than -- I think we're thinking in terms of rather than it being from the property line and that defines that distance, it's the 100-foot radius and then you do those exact same distances. So in terms of the neighborhoods, rather than taking property line and then it's a mile, it's the 100-foot mark and then a mile. We don't lose the mile.
>> correct.
>> got it.
>> yes, sir?
>>
>> I'm paul robbins, judge Biscoe. I'm an environmental writer and activist in Austin. I am unacquainted with county rules, and -- while i've never been at a loss for words, I'm not quite sure if -- how I interject these words into the resolution. They belong with all of these, not really sure if it deals specifically with measuring distance from receptors. But I will try and be brief, and when you revisit this, you will define it. I hope you will take these comments into consideration. I'm asking you to consider an expanded definition of remediation. Specifically a comprehensive solid waste plan to prevent the need for new landfills. I have been involved and spearheaded a survey of solid waste in Travis County. In 1987 Travis County residents threw away about 1.46 tons per capita. By 1999 that had risen to 1.55 tons. In 2001 it was 1.68 tons, a 14 percent increase. And what is worry some is that there's no governmental entity that is even begun to create a regional solid waste plan to deal with this on the other side. Yes, there are people that are working on providing landfills, but not preventing the need for them. The city of Austin has a recycling program that's better than average, but the city only handles about eight percent of the solid waste in this county. A hiewnl majority comes -- huge majority comes from workplaces, apartments and suburbs. Regulations these other sources of waste is minimal or nonexistent. A comprehensive plan would, one, mandate recycling programs and benchmarks for the other sectors. Two, it would ban certain materials from landfills such as lawn and brush waste that can be composted, melghts that have a high recycled value, and electronic components that can be toxic, like computers. And it would help businesses that can reuse these recycled materials that are reclaimed from landfills as a raw industrial material to create local jobs. Impediments of waste minimizization in Texas include the fact that we have relatively low landfill fees, and part of this is due to the fact that environmental costs are not included in the garbage fill, pollutant water, nuisance odors, decreased property values, odor-induced illnesses, all not part of the bill. And as a society we need to consider having landfills as permanent, not expanding sites, which are periodically reused as materials are recycled or biodegraded, instead of a perpetual expansion. Past and current landfills in america already make up a land mass the size of delaware. How far are we going to stretch it? I'm not sure what else I can add to this except that we need a binding, enforceable plan to pursue the goals that I have briefly discussed. And allow landfill expansion -- and to allow more landfill expansion without one would not be responsible. You could use remediation as a lever for increased funding for a waste reduction program and you might consider adding this as a bullet 4 on the resolution that you have just taken up. Remediation. Thank you for letting me interject this.
>> thank you. And maybe it would help to get a copy to tom nuckolls.
>> it's got a you few notes scrawled on it.
>> okay. Mr. Mcafee?
>> thank you, judge, Commissioners, I'm mark mcafee. And i've said this in a pre-- relatively recent meeting, but when we initially started out with our work to develop this, we worked up until June I believe the 15th of last year, developing an ordinance -- developing the initial part of the ordinance. Again, this is, I know, type 1, type 4, we're in that. We're not talk willing about that. I'm going to be real careful about the precedent we set in this. And that is that we had eventually at a later stages of the development of that ordinance we had historic facilities at the same bumper as a -- the same receptor distance as neighborhoods, 5,002 80 feet. For our business, furthermore in terms of the facility itself, the viability of our facility to care for itself is very highly dependent upon what happens outside the facility. We do primarily weddings and receptions. Almost none of the ceremonies, that is, occur inside the home itself. They occur 125 feet from the mansion. And so in a school or a day care, I wonder are we considering the playground to be part of the school or the day care? Are we considering the ball fields to be part of the school or the day care? Where are we measuring from? Is it a building, is it -- so that's just very loose language in here to begin with in terms of that. But I do want to make a point that the historic structure is only a very -- albeit a large portion of what -- it is what need to be saved, but it also is being saved by the gardens that are outside it. That's what people boong our facility for, to do garden ceremonies, primarily.
>> do you know about how much -- if we were to use your property line, do you know about how many additional feet we would pick up?
>> if you measured to the corner of our property that's closest to them?
>> right. Like if you measured 100 feet --
>> from the porch to the corner of our property line is probably -- it probably 300 feet. I'll bet it's close to a football field. Not quite. Just under 300 feet probably to the corner of our property line. The major thing is the distance that it is here. I mean, 1500-foot set back from my property line would not save us. On that same note, let me just say that on Sunday we did -- on Saturday we did a wedding for someone in the Travis County family, and on Sunday we did possibly our most famous client. I can't tell you the name because I'm sworn to secrecy, but these are foreign dollars coming into Austin Texas. They spent $25,000 probably on their floral account. There were 34 guests. Somebody had a windfall in on Austin, Texas in the floral business. They bought 36 bottles of very expensive champagne. The liquor store -- I said in the past in these meetings that even though we own the barr -- I can't say it by name, but even though we own it, it is an asset to the entire community. And just like the alamo is to san antonio, not quite as big a deal as the alamo here. Don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying that, but they developed that entire, entire, huge tourism business in san antonio because of the alamo. And we're certainly an integral part of the economic business community here in Austin. And here's an example of how. [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> but here they are back making plans for that again. So it wouldn't surprise me at all that they had at the edge of their type 1 land fill a transfer station and will come as close to us as you all will permit.
>> is there -- I don't see mr. Joseph here. Is it possible for somebody that is already a type I facility to i'll call it subzone themselves to ask for a different type of a permanent on their property or is it because it's all type I it would be treated as a type I application?
>> my guess is when they are applying for their permits they can apply for anything, they can say this 15 acres we want to do a recycling facility on, this 20 acres we want to do a transfer station on, this part we are applying for a type I landfill on. I don't know why they couldn't do that.
>> I think they would be caught up in the 5200 feet from a neighborhood provision as opposed to the historic. I think another provision is going to double protect you.
>> then I have a question on that. Is that then an existing already platted neighborhood that is not built yet?
>> I think this says exist at the time of --
>> comes down to capacity in existence --
>> what we did on sexually oriented businesses, you couldn't put in a daycare center after the fact to stop an sob.
>> we have a huge neighborhood going in north of us, they have already been platted, for years it's already a done deal there, but they are just now building, they are building from the north end heading in our direction. And it's already a planned community.
>> my point on that, when this thing -- the first started with this solid waste ordinance, several meetings, when the -- actually the shareholders are involved in this process, staff, but the neighborhood and these kind of things were discussed as far as setbacks. Now the definition of the setbacks existing solid waste -- well, the proposed solid waste siting ordinance is something that the neighborhood and everybody had agreed upon and I know [indiscernible] were discussed at that point. Why it's changing now, I don't know. But I don't know if you are -- if you all were aware of that. It never was brought up during the time when those work sessions were held. In fact as far as I'm concerned we could have acted on this ordinance a long time ago and gotten it over with, moved on to other things. But of course this thing has been orchestrated being brought back. And then it appears not in the best interests of the community. And so -- so I'm concerned about some things that are being changed here. Especially things where the reaccept kels were -- the neighborhood had a chance to talk about the work session when we first started this stuff, the work group. I'm having some concern about these things.
>> I think your situation shows us what we were trying to address and that is if your property line is 500 feet from the structure, somebody else may have an historical facility to the property line is 3,000 feet. See what I'm saying? So the other one gets a whole lot more protection than you.
>> yeah.
>> our thinking was, whatever distance we had, similar facilities would be treated similarly. And we changed the number, we changed the distance, we did change how you measured it, so in the end I guess you change the distance, too. But yours orchestrates exactly what I'm saying. If you have 300 feet, still a facility with 100 feet has a little less protection. There's nothing magical about 100, seems to me there ought to be a number. The property line, although it made a whole lot of sense for the s.o.s., S.o.s. Ordinance, we were basically dealing with structures and most of them went right up to the property line. It's not like you had a dance with the property line. It was the property line, see.
>> well, I think that -- that 100-foot 7, it is a -- to quote Karen, it is a very small distance, but maybe that number can be changed.
>> if it's 100 feet -- [multiple voices]
>> sludge coming in -- it's 100 feet plus 1500 feet, which is 1600 feet, which is more -- more than a quarter of a mile. In terms of distance.
>> yeah.
>> and --
>> which isn't very far if your sludge is going down because sludge has smell and if you are talking about the sludge a quarter mile from an outdoor wedding facility, it's not going to be -- it's not going to help my business. That's for sure. Now, something else that I brought up quite a while back was I did a study on how many historic places there were in Austin. Almost all of them are in downtown sector, so there weren't very many that this really applied to anyway. A couple of indian burial ground sites and us and maybe I think there was one other spot, I haven't looked back at that in a while, but there wasn't nearly as much as what I thought there would be. That was historic. So -- so, yeah, 1600 feet from a sludge farm would not be good for us. Likely not from a quarter of a mile from a -- from anything that makes a whole lot of noise or creates a lot of odor is not going to be good. Recycling center, I have not been around so I don't know the amount of noise, but I can imagine that there's a lot of noise that comes along with something like that.
>> in terms of what you just mentioned in terms of you have a neighborhood real close, again this is assuming -- the neighborhood is defined as a subdivision having nine or more individual residences. It doesn't say that those residences have to be on the southern end close to you. It just talks about a legally platted subdivision as long as it an all inclusive thing. They can be completely on the north end. The division of that -- definition of that subdivision is going to be a southern boundary, and it's 5280 from there, right mr. Lawyer? When we talk about a legally plotted subdivision, there's no talk about where those homes are located, it just talks about what are the legal boundaries of the subdivision, I think that would be -- would be -- doubling up in terms of assuming that there would be a sludge change of use, which I doubt, but let's just go there because it's a legitimate question. All right. Right?
>> well, the -- you have to factor in that last phrase. And overall average density of one residential unit or more per acre. So if all of the residences are on the north side of the subdivision and on the south side there are no residences built yet, I'm not sure the south -- I'm not sure that you measure from a subdivision boundary. You basically measure from where all of the houses are clustered.
>> okay. A good legal question between now and then, mark you want to find out how fast they are building, you have 30 case.
>> there subdivision has been in the works for forever, as long as mocan, it has been through modifications, if they modify it down the road to separate the southern part of it off into its own subdivision and change the platting on that, because now it's not going to work, what they had planned years ago because of changes in the environment, close by, like a landfill, then how does that change? If you want to protect historic facility, I would say just rather than having me get protected by the neighborhood clause, have us get protected by the historic clause, seems to me to be the more safe of way. I will look back up that information for you all as to how many nationally registered historic places are in Travis County. And mark them on a map as best I can. There's a couple of them that are -- that indian sites they don't tell you where they are.
>> mark, it would also be helpful between now and then, because obvious obviously there is not final action on anything, we are going to go to a few public comment phase, if you can put that 100-foot radius around the house and then go the 1500 feet and show us what that would look like in terms of a new 1500-foot radius around your building and then let us see what other distances would be as well so we can just rather than conceptually saying is it enough, no it's not enough, let's just put it on the map and take a look at it during the next comment period. I'm open meended.
>> maybe bring a picture of what it looks like when you are that close.
>> I was there on Saturday.
>> yeah.
>> [indiscernible] now homes [indiscernible] I'm wanting to make sure that we give them all adequate protections that we can, so I'm really [indiscernible] because it appears that we may be deviating a little bit. Go ahead.
>> ms. English?
>> yes, judge. Trek english. I understand what is being proposed here about the 100-foot setback. Around the -- the edge of the receptor. My problem is the language -- with the language is where it says from the edge of the individual unit in which solid waste is to be processed. And I understand what john is saying, if you have a large property and you have got 300 acres and you are only using that as you -- and you go by the length of the unit, but if you are talking about landfill you are talking about a leaning frog here. They don't stay in one spot, the unit is here, here, here, it's everywhere. At one time you may be two miles from it, but at some point or another you are going to end up being on the very close end of it. On the recycling facility, the thing that comes to mind for me is when I used to go drive by it, from the highway, you didn't know where that unit started and where it stopped. The alco facility was huge, the building itself was in the middle, but the recycling material was everywhere. Did you ever go look at it? I mean, it stretched all the way to the -- to the property boundary. So when you say unit, where the waste is to be processed --
>> would it be better to say of the permitted area?
>> yeah, I would think. Because the way -- [multiple voices]
>> that would be better.
>> even if you have 600 acres, you only permit a small area. So that you don't have to abide by all of the rules for the vacant area. But if you permit an area of 100 acres, you are basically authorized to jump and move your building and if something happen, later on within 10 years you may change that unit because it's much easier to build a road that way or urbanization, whatever. So I would think at that point you would have to go back and repermit everything or somebody will have to tell you, you know, they moved or we will end up with complaints saying it was 100 feet in the drawing, but now it's more like 1100 feet because they have a bunch of stuff that close to us.
>> that's good suggestion, trek.
>> the workshop, work session, thank goodness you are in precinct 1, I think everybody in Austin listened to that, the problem that we are having is in precinct 1. Thank you, Commissioner Daugherty, I would like to thank you for standing up and reporting what we were trying to do I think if somebody was in the precinct they would be reacting a little differently from this dais. But trek let me ask you this question. When this group was assigned so do the work session, the things [indiscernible], the receptors did come up. Can I -- I asked mark the same question. How did you all respond and define that? Because what -- what is happening here, even if you permit it, there is what some of those folks are looking at, for future expansion purposes which you personally do not agree on as far as the usage in the area, how did you react to setbacks as far as what we have defined in the ordinance. We need to really think about the consequences if it's really what you want. The things that you have got agreement on during the work group as far as the [indiscernible] is concerned.
>> well, from what I recall, a lot of things were agreed to by taking an average of the distances that some of the people gave versus some of the other people and if there were 8 people that had 8 different amounts and an average was taken, if someone had a mile on one end, 100-foot on the other, that would bring an average.
>> yeah, but I mean really what ended up happening was there was a certain amount of polling of the group. There was no consensus. So really nothing changed. I mean --
>> well, yes, but I do remember that we had some further --
>> there was a very democratic discussion, don't get me wrong.
>> all right.
>> there just wasn't a final consensus that gave us any change in what was resolved.
>> but what came back before the court, which we actually included and voted on to include these setbacks here, that we are looking at today, is basically the acceptance of what that work group had discussed, is that correct.
>> tom thing that -- actually, I am remembering one change, this was going from 500 feet on the minor facilities to 350.
>> now I remember that. There was no opposition, that was basically for the minor facilities which was transfer stations and recycling.
>> right. We got --
>> those are the only two. There wasn't no opposition to the neighborhoods at that time for those two two occurrences, that was the only one that I didn't hear any opposition from the neighborhood of course the operators who were involved in that of course didn't have any disagreement. My concern is that this was not discussed, I think it really needs to be again, where you really need to understand the consequences if something is permitted later on, how will that impact you based on the distances that we have now. So again I -- I -- I can't support 3 until again the neighborhood have an opportunity to look at what we are doing here and if it really deviating away from what they discussed as far as the setbacks and that we have here on the books now. It affects different people in different ways. Even tom have some ambiguity on some of this stuff. I think we are rushing into doing some things here, somebody is going to get left. It's going to be in precinct 1 since this is there, this is what we're talking about. Somebody is going to be left with the consequences. I definitely don't want you to be impacted any more than what you have been impacted already.
>> I move approval of number 3.
>> second.
>> with the following change, that we delete the words individual unit and substitute "area covered by the permit."
>> judge.
>> yes, sir.
>> could we stick with unit because it has a defined meaning and I would suggest this language: shall be measured from the endanger of the individual unit in which solid waste processing and disposal is to be permitted. Which means you look at the unit before the permit is ever issued, you look at where the unit is going to be and you measure, if it falls within the setback it can't be permitted.
>> what if the unit moves?
>> well, if the unit -- put it this way, the unit cannot be moved within setback distance. Because for the unit to be moved tceq has to approve that.
>> what if we say is to be or has been permitted. Aim sure making sure that --
>> I'm just making sure that it's something, trek has raised a very legitimate question. There is no legal definition here of what individual unit means. I'm trying for preciseness. Anybody can read this and go "oh, I understand this." Trek raised a very good question about --
>> your line of reasoning tom was that tceq has to approve that and expansions are covered by this ordinance.
>> well, I -- I think the scenario trek is talking about is not what units are being moved. It's where there are permitted units and the area of active disposal is being moved from permitted unit to permitted unit.
>> you are not talking about landfill. If you are talking about a recycling facility, you are allowed to move your -- where you are processing it without -- it may require permit modification, but not --
>> then that whole area is the unit.
>> the parking lot where they are going to be handling the waste, I mean, we would interpret it that way when we were making those measurements.
>> because we have a definition of unit in the ordinance. Unit means a dissecret area of land or excavation or building where solid waste is actually processed or disposed of. It may be smaller than the facility within which it is located.
>> but wait a minute.
>> I mean unit is wherever waste is actually being placed. Where it's sludge, recycling, landfill, compost.
>> what happens is you have a building, you have a recycling unit right there in the building. Outside in the area that's permitted you have a pile of tires.
>> that pile of tires is considered a unit under this definition. That pile of tires cannot be within setback distances.
>> how do you know there's going to be a pile of tires when you are permitting? They are to the going to tell you --
>> because the application will say we are going to put a pile of tires right here, tceq will look at where they are going to put the tires. If it's within the setback distances legally tceq cannot approve that.
>> look at home depot. They have one big building, they have little --
>> this ordinance does not apply to home depot.
>> I'm just saying it has stuff all the way to the edge of the road. That's the way recycling facilities run. You don't know ahead of time they are going to put the tire there's.
>> these facilities do have to provide maps for the areas where they are going to be handling waste or doing anything much even the sludge and the composting applications have to have some certainty within which -- because they have state required setbacks that they have to document. I mean, so they need to know those things. I mean, it's not -- certainly I don't think there's anything that would take authority away from getting a resolution to those questions as we either approve or don't approve an application.
>> so be better leaving individual unit in the language?
>> yeah. My phraseology would be shall be measured from the edge of the individual unit in which solid waste process and disposal is to be permitted.
>> whichever is closer?
>> well, there's only one edge. There's only one edge of the unit.
>> okay.
>> if you thrif and the pile of tires is there, the building is here, which units are we going by, this units or --
>> well, there's waste in the building?
>> yeah.
>> that building cannot be within the setback distance. The pile of tires is waste. It cannot be within the setback distance. Those are both units within a larger facility. That's the whole point.
>> okay.
>> neither of the units can be within the setback distance.
>> is it possible for somebody to have more than one unit --
>> yes.
>> thank you, okay.
>> okay. But let's do 10 years later, the tires move over there --
>> if it's farther away from the setback distance they can do that. If that puts it closer they can't do that.
>> what happens then?
>> tceq is not supposed to authorize that.
>> but let's say there was a distance that -- they are within the distance that tceq authorized, that tceq doesn't require 1500 feet.
>> well, tceq will have to require 1500 feet because Travis County requires 1500 feet.
>> but at that point that becomes a part of their permit, you are saying they have to keep that 1500 feet and can't ask for a variance under the permit modification.
>> they couldn't ask tceq. They could come to Travis County and ask for a variance.
>> that goes with any kind of expansion at any -- that's just part of the landfill --
>> I'm not talking about expansion. I'm actually talking when, you know, just -- just the times require to you have just a better area. Like when you remodel your house or something, they change inside --
>> there's a certain amount of vigilance that's going to have to happen. I mean --
>> mr. Gosling?
>> I think he answered the question. This is a highly regulated area. You can't decide to move stuff around because it's more convenient. You have to explain in advance what your plans are, that's called a site development plan. You also have to -- have to have a site operating plan and you have to comply with it, for any permitted or registered facility, not just a landfill.
>> is there an inspection that occurs after the permit has been issued to make sure that you have done what you said you were going to do and nothing moved ?
>> [indiscernible]
>> yes. Probably not with the frequency that everyone would like, but there is absolutely an inspection and self reporting requirements.
>> is just appears to me, it just appears to me, as I stated earlier, that's why I'm not supporting these things that are happening here today, [indiscernible] the person that's have been requesting the changes for the protection over there, water quality, public safety, all of the public concerns that they have brought up. It looks like it's definitely being undermined. I'm fearful, now, that -- that the neighborhood are not going to get any measurement [indiscernible] out -- in fact I think it still needs some clarity on that. Of course, whereas you are basically a -- a landfill operator, I guess you all are dealing with recycling and also composting and everything else because you all of a sudden the landfill operators have become very interested in other type of operations other than landfill. That's what's kind of -- you know, getting at me. You know, you all coming in here, landfill operators, you are discussing things other than related to landfills. And the neighborhoods of course are very nervous about this. And because they can see maybe some future things that are coming down the road that would not be acceptable to them. It just hasn't been enough, I think, disclosure in my mine, an ample amount of time for them to review and feel comfortable making decisions on. In my opinion, in my view, it feels like things have been crammed and rushed down folks throats without them having the opportunity to have the right, the correct input. I remember asking you all a little time earlier about relocating. As far as relocating and looking for a new area. I asked you, you all could meet with the neighborhoods. I don't even know if that's even transpired.
>> I would like to add just one thing judge, trek english again.
>> okay. Go ahead.
>> it is a highly regulated business. I agree with paul on that. But, judge, it's just exactly like the tanford expansion, the moving of the creek 400 feet, the redelineation of the floodplain, the changing of cover for to an alternative cover. You want me to go? Whatever they have done in the last two years that has brought us to you and -- with numerous complaints is the fact that it was a regulation, but it was done as a permit modification through the agency, through your staff, and we didn't know anything about it. We never know anything about this. It's done, it's filed, and approved by staff either at the county level or tceq level.
>> we are going to try to work with that on my next recommendation. Let me ask you this, though. If we add the words that tom recommended, so we leave in individual unit and tie it to in which solid waste is to be processed or dispossessed of, disposed of, it to be permitted, instead of area covered by the permit. So individual unit, same wording except we add is to be permitted.
>> which is basically --
>> the word individual that I don't like.
>> individual means one. Each one has to comply. Each individual unit has to comply.
>> is it possible then for the prevision that trek is -- precision that trek is seeking, from the edge of the individual unit, we say instead from the edge of each individual unit, that will make it clear there may be more than one.
>> how does that sound? Is that better?
>> it's better. But I still -- I still would like, you know, the permanent footprint. The permanent footprint and the user cannot deviate from that -- from that footprint, that's the bay it should be.
>> I think -- that's the way it should be.
>> I think this defines the footprint. That's what it's intended to do. If you say each, it's clearer. Each one has to comply.
>> that's the language my motion covers.
>> okay.
>> there is a second.
>> second.
>> any more discussion?
>> judge, I'm going to go ahead and support this motion because it is the intent for us to take our best work today and get it back out into the community. I want to -- I'm not sure this is where I'm going land for the final ordinance, but we are trying to move forward and get something out there, get comments back. I am sensitive to the issue that's have been raised by mr. Macafee related to whether the 100 plus 1500 is going to be sufficient for his facility if there's a change in use on property that is near him. So I'm open to reconsider, but I want to see some radius, let's take a look at it, maps, I'm trying to move forward. This is where I'm landing today, but I'm open minded in terms of where I will land on the final version of this ordinance, but that's the whole point is for us to move forward.
>> okay.
>> all in favor of the motion? Show Commissioner Gomez, Sonleitner, yours truly voting in favor, voting against Commissioner Daugherty and Commissioner Davis.
>> I would like to make a comment or two.
>> the last item that I have today --
>> I would like to make a comment or two, judge. There should be discussion before we made --
>> Commissioner Davis?
>> thank you, please. I would like to say this -- again, Commissioner Daugherty, thank you very much for your support. We are really -- we really have been stretched out here and I don't really know exactly where we are going to end as far as the solid waste ordinance. It's something that we initiated a long time ago because of the concern that you have echoed to me and how can we get there, because of the threat and the overtaking of persons coming into the community and in precinct especially, I don't know about anybody else's precincts, per se, but I do know about mine. And their particular comments were expressed with sludge filling operation, composting, just a whole bunch of -- a series of things of how can we get protection to deal with this. [indiscernible] dealing with this as far as an ordinance is concerned. I really don't know how we are going to land, what we are going to do as far as adding some of the things that we have continued to address during the past three years. But I'm willing to continue to work with you. To do everything that I can to support you. But again as late as yesterday folks out in the community say listen we have got this -- we have this new park coming up, I'm right down here, the parks [indiscernible] out there, they said, look, we have got to have some control over what's taking place as far as solidaste. They are very fearful, the floodplain ordinance is one particular measure that we have. I just think we need to watch it very, very closely. And again the landfill folks down here, operators, and we are dealing with something other than what they normally deal with, I think, looking for the opportunity to deal and get involved with this ordinance. Again, proposed ordinance. So I am going to be very mindful, very watchful, because I don't know whose [indiscernible], I really don't. But anyway it is affecting this precinct and water quality, it's just important to us as it is anybody else in Travis County, I'm going to fight to do what I can do to possibly do to make sure that precinct gets the quality of life that it deserves as every other segment of Travis County deserves. So thank you again Commissioner Daugherty for showing the courage to stand up.
>> my next recommendation is 62.006. 5 c. What we have there -- this is a -- next to the last page.
>> we only have three pages. Are we talking about going back to the main ordinance.
>> going back to the main orders.
>> say it one more time.
>> it's 62.006.
>> you mean the variance?
>> yep.
>> because we are going to have to renumber it.
>> right.
>> got it.
>> under b -- no, this is c.
>> c, yes.
>> c has the executive manager holding a public hearing. In my view the executive manager should or county staff should receive the application, county staff would make the determination on the variance, after giving notice to effective persons, including all residents, people here, and others who are to receive notice, giving them an opportunity to respond, then the executive manager makes a decision, which can be appealed to the Travis County Commissioners court for a public hearing and that we ought to give us 10 days, or 30 days to appeal. And to be honest, I -- I think this makes sense because I'm mindful of the time that we have spent on these solid waste issues over the last year and a half. On all of the other things that we are do at Travis County, you work with staff. But if you are not happy with the decision that staff makes, you appeal to the Commissioners court. And that's what I'm suggesting there.
>> uh-huh.
>> the staff receives the em -- em and staff will make a determination and if that decision is disagreed with, there is an appeal process that must occur within 30 days to the Commissioners court; is that correct.
>> notice of appeal.
>> notice of appeal. So notice of appeal needs to occur. The actually appeal does not need to occur within 30 days, you just need to do your filing.
>> yes.
>> this language says at the earliest practical date the Commissioners court shall, I think that should stay there.
>> got it.
>> which means that we would set it as soon as possible. When I look back on what governmental entities do, generally at the staff level that presents a whole lot more technical expertise than Commissioners court, the decision is made, but I do think that on solid waste facilities, we ought to do a better job of requiring that effective people -- that affected people be notified. To be honest what we would have to do later on is put in place processes, procedures, that would give us a much better chance of getting that done. But I think it would -- what staff would do is take that information, apply the ordinance, make the decision, we would notify people interested of the decision that staff has made, and within 30 days of that notification affected people and really other Travis County residents would have an opportunity to file an appeal of that decision to the Commissioners court, we would be expected to conduct a public hearing as soon as possible. And I think that comports with how administrative determinations such as this have been made and are made today. Even in the city of Austin we have a few more, but ultimately it gets to the city council. The kind of appeal you may have two or three more boards to go through, ultimately you get to the city council, they do a sort of hearing and make the determination. You leave there and head to the courthouse if you don't like the council's voice. I'm suggesting that is a better proceed to use here. I don't have language and -- I thought about it when I reviewed it closely, yes.
>> I think that's a good thought. The question is what if the em turns down the requested variance, would the person that's trying to seek the variance have the same right of appeal to the Commissioners court as would somebody that doesn't like the variance --
>> that's my thinking.
>> I'm just asking, it's a two-way street. Both the person who is denied the variance and those that don't like the variance equally would have access through an appeals process to the Commissioners court.
>> right.
>> okay. Now, another advantage that I think is when it gets to the court, we would be given a record which we would augment to the extent that we see necessary. So we will get copies of whatever has been filed, with t.n.r. Or the executive manager's office, and if we think that evidence is lacking, we would try to get that. At the public hearing level. I'm thinking staff would try to do that me a -- to do that anyway. But somebody would say if you all had looked at this, you would have seen this and that, but this will give us an opportunity to get that done.
>> the buck stops here.
>> right. This is not in writing because I wasn't sure how to word it. But what I have in mind are several things. Filing with the staff, notification to affected persons, an opportunity to respond or give comments, staff and the the executive manager basically working together, making that determination, when may be appealed from there to the Commissioners court by affected parties on either side. We would be expected to notice a public hearing as soon as we could.
>> judge, on some of the things that we have got that come before this court related to vacation, which I mean vacation of property, not vacation vacation, the person that is requesting that has to put signage on their property to basically inform the public as well as something being put in the paper or a hearing or whatever. Are we thinking perhaps of a signage requirement that would be consistent about with whatever t.n.r. Would normally do in terms of those kinds of things? I mean, that's always been part of our backup is they have the picture that the sign was indeed posted that gave those that were just passing by the opportunity to --
>> that's something we do all of the time [multiple voices]
>> it's also consistent with tceq. They have them post those signs. That's fine.
>> I think we ought to look at tceq's notice requirements as a starting point, build on those, some advance notice requirements that we think are appropriate for us. And I didn't have anything real specific on this, but I don't know that it makes sense to me for the executive manager to have a published hearing. I don't think he does anything else with the county.
>> I would call that cruel and unusual punishment.
>> when I think of the others, that -- it's the same thing. Typically staff would go ahead, make the determination and if you are not happy with it, you appeal it to the policy makers, which would be us.
>> so judge the executive manager would -- would receive the request for the variance.
>> who receives it now?
>> executive manager.
>> okay.
>> he would give notice to affected persons.
>> right.
>> who are the affected persons? How are we defining that? I would say area neighborhood associations. We looked at that language when we were talking about a possible agreement. I would pull that language. We had gotten input from various folk. I would take a look at that. I don't have any specific thing in mind, but I would try to notify all affected and interested persons.
>> how does the language in number 5 strike you? It's there. That's fine with me.
>> and then they would have an opportunity to file written comments?
>> yes, sir. Or pick up the phone and do it that way.
>> and then the executive manager would make a determination, notify those same parties again of his determination.
>> right.
>> and they would have an opportunity to appeal.
>> 30 days after receipt of the notice of the termination. I'm thinking that makes -- that is fairer than 10 days.
>> 10 days is --
>> and because I'm thinking that even if you mail them two or three or four days later.
>> right.
>> most people need an opportunity to mull over it. Maybe review additional evidence. Kind of make your determination, then notify us. What I was intended when I saw the executive manager holding a public hearing, I don't think that's good. But I do think that the executive manager ought to try to collect all relevant evidence, facts, data, et cetera. Get with staff, consider that, get comments, make a decision, and then if somebody disagrees with that decision, they appeal to the Commissioners court where there will be a public hearing. So the one change is the executive manager having the public hearing. All of this other language makes sense to me.
>> for the record I don't think joe gieselman recommended that he hold the public hearing. It was --
>> I know.
>> all right.
>> we can put you in there, joe. If that's a motion, i'll second it.
>> that's my motion. Any discussion?
>> [indiscernible] see the language.
>> okay.
>> [indiscernible] [inaudible - no mic] version of it I have here. I would like to see the language before we even go forward with this -- [indiscernible]
>> okay.
>> it's too important.
>> any more discussion of that particular motion.
>> see what the neighborhood says.
>> all in favor? Show Commissioner Sonleitner, Gomez, Daugherty, yours truly voting in favor, voting against Commissioner Davis.
>> I'm abstaining.
>> abstaining until he sees the language. Anybody else got any recommendations? Those are mine.
>> just read over everything appropriately --
>> I think we ought to do that -- unfortunately looks like we are looking at having this back court's agenda next week. I think we ought to incorporate those into a revised draft of the proposed ordinance that we advertised and have that for the Commissioners court to see next Tuesday.
>> that would be a way for us to double check language and make sure that everything we talked about today has been captured.
>> language, numbers, et cetera. And we know exactly what it is. And my intention would be after that, that we advertise again in the -- in the same paper that we advertised in last time, another comment -- tom, the question is whether a 15 day comment would be legal.
>> obviously, would it be safe inventory do it 30. But I think the main -- the 30 day requirement is driven mainly about the -- by the takings impact assessment requirement. You know, we have done that. I don't know that the takings impact assessment is going to change that much. So while it's always safer to do 30, I wouldn't regard it as such a major change that we can't just do two weeks this time.
>> I'm not anticipating a major problem. I'm thinking that maybe except for the 100 feet circle, maybe on this last thing, if you wanted a hearing, I don't know who would before the executive manager necessarily, if you got to go -- if you got to have a public hearing before the executive manager, then I don't think we ought to have another public hearing before the Commissioners court. It would make sense to me, since ultimately it's our responsibility for the public hearing to be right here. As we do on everything else. From employee grievances to everything it seems.
>> judge, in terms of timing that's probably a good suggestion because the 24th we have got a full court here. The following week is the day before -- the week of the July 4th holiday, that's probably not a very good timing thing since July had he is on a -- July had he is on Friday. The following week Commissioner Gomez and I and perhaps a third person are definitely attending a conference to get our continuing education in. So -- so if we get it in the 24th, we can get moving. Otherwise it gets delayed and I don't think any of us want to do that.
>> s what the quickest we can incorporate these changes into another draft of the siting ordinance?
>> I can get it back out tomorrow,.
>> let's try to have it ready Friday. Commissioner Davis give him the first copy.
>> please.
>> and we have e-mail numbers of those here today, right? And we will send those by e-mail by 5:00 tomorrow?
>> if we can get them on the web that makes it easier for everybody to access.
>> we did last time, didn't we?
>> yes, sir.
>> if you want a hard copy, notify any court member, if we can fax it to you or drop it in the mail to you, you want to come by my office or any court members office, we will have a copy available. I think if you think of these changes to me they are fair and reasonable. I think overall they improve the siting ordinance, but reasonable folk my differ. As to the timing, I have become convinced unless we start pushing some of this stuff we will never get done. And --
>> the applications are still rolling in. At tceq.
>> over the last year, I have requested some delays, other members have requested some delays, at some point we will have to -- that reminds -- that was my intention today. Anything else on this siting ordinance? Thank you all very much for your patience. There being no further business.
>> move we adjourn.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
Last Modified: Tuesday, July 10, 2003 7:52 PM