Commissioners Court 6/24/03, Item 18

Travis County Commssioners Court
June 24, 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.

Items 18

View captioned video.
Morning Session
Afternoon Session

18 is to consider and take appropriate action on the approval of a preliminary plan in precinct 3, [indiscernible], lowe's home center in Sunset Valley, preliminary plan, two lots, 1.40-acres, brodie lane. Now, it seems to me that we ought to do this item in the following matter. First let's hear from staff and -- and county attorney's office. Then hear from the Commissioners court as to the questions that we have. Then if there's a city of Austin representative here, hear from that representative or those representatives and the same for the city of Sunset Valley after that and then let's hear from whatever citizens we have with us today who would like to give comments. Joe?
>> thank you. This is a tract of land that is inaw4 precinct 3, it is located in the unincorporated area. It g issues -- it is complex in several issues, typically a subdivision would come in. While this is a preliminary plan first of all, the preliminary plan is the first step in our subdivision platting process. There are several subsequent steps to follow. Most importantly being the final plat approval. So this is just the first step and it's required by the Travis County standards that the court has adopted and we are using the 1997 standards adopted by the Commissioners court. That is what staff reviews for. What I handed out to you is available to the public, is a one sheet summary of what we look for based on those standards. We have tried to put that down into a one page bulleted form summary. In a moment we will go through what those standards are and whether or not these preliminary -- this preliminary plan for the mayor garcia tract meets those standards -- for the garza tract meets those standards. T.n.r. Will review the technical sufficiency of the preliminary plan. Tom nuckols with the county attorney's office will address the issue on jurisdiction. Those are the two fundamental issues with this preliminary plan. With that, we are going to step through what t.n.r. Is looking for with regard to the preliminary plan.
>> okay. Does everybody have a copy? Does everybody who wants a copy have a copy of this one-pager? They are on the table there if we could just -- if we could hand them to the person that --
>> we will pass them out.
>> okay. Hi, ana [indiscernible] Travis County t.n.r. Like joe said, we start with the preliminary plan stage. As we go through the subdivision review froze final plats and construction plans, all of the things that we review at the preliminary plan stage we review with more information further down the process. But here are some of the things that generally are reviewed for for preliminary plans. There's some administrative items such as sheet size, north arrow, location map, contact information for the owner, the engineer, linear footage of new streets proposed, number of lots, acreage, what proposed uses you are going to use if you have non-single family residential lots. On the streets -- on the street related items, we look at the location of the boundary streets, the widths and locations of all platted streets adjacent to the property, the names, dimensions of proposed new streets on the preliminary plan, and we also look at the private and public nature of the streets. The physical features and drainage items, we look at -- we get topographic information and we look at the drainage plan. We look to see what features are already on the property. And then the other big item that we look at at preliminary plan stage are the utilities. They have two ways to go with regards to utilities. If they are going to be getting utilities from a municipality, we ask for a letter from the municipality stating that they are sufficient -- that there is sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision or if they are going to do onsite septic, they have to submit some preliminary information to whichever is the applicable agency to review that and in this case it was Travis County ossf. And they look at the information, they look at profile holes and they determine whether or not it's feasible to have the septic on the area of the proposed preliminary plan. And we looked at all of those things and in this case, you know, originally, we -- they were just saying that the preliminary was going to be serviced by city of Austin water and wastewater. As a backup, they have prepared and submitted some -- some information to our Travis County ossf people. They reviewed it and they determined that there was -- it was feasible to have an onsite septic on this site.
>> what is [indiscernible]?
>> I’m sorry, what?
>> the acronym, what does it stand for? Simple english.
>> on site sewage facility, I’m sorry.
>> I think at this point I need to probably say that the regulations that the county enforces or adopted in 1997, they precede new legislation that was given to the county during the last session of the legislature. Actually, they -- a session, two sessions ago, two years ago. So we have not updated our subdivision regulations. For other types of issues that may have some bearing on this preliminary plan. Specifically water quality. And I think what you will hear today, many of the concerns being addressed by the citizens who will speak here are directly receipted to impervious cover. And that is underneath all of this issue is the impervious cover. Our regulations do for the specifically address that. And we are -- we are reviewing the preliminary plan based on regulations that the court has adopted. Not authority we might have otherwise, or we current -- what we currently have in place. The other issue is jurisdiction. And tom will address that issue. Typically, when we are operating in the unincorporated area of Travis County, it lies within an extra territorial jurisdiction municipality, except perhaps some portions of remote Travis County that are not in any e.t.j. Of any city. But for the most part, most of our unincorporated is within an -- area is within an e.t.j. There are facts that have bearing on whether or not this is in any e.t.j. There are legal issues, they are fairly complex issues. I’m not sure whether tom is at this point ready to opine on all of these legal issues. But whether or not this needs to have approval of a municipality and whether or not it is within an e.t.j. Is another issue totally separate from whether or not it meets Travis County regulations for a preliminary plan of this nature. And with that, tom, I don't know whether tom needs to go into executive session or opine officially.
>> before you pass the -- I see under utility related items, [indiscernible] water and wastewater. In terms of wastewater, I understand that the -- (microphone cutting out) developers are negotiating with either Sunset Valley or the city of Austin, both.
>> yes. It is our understanding that the applicant would prefer to have organized water and wastewater from the city of Austin. Even though the state approved provider currently is the city of Sunset Valley. They have petitioned the state to release their service area to the city of Austin. That has not been officially approved by the state at this point in time. With that said, the applicant has proceeded to request approval from the county for an onsite sewage system to serve the --
>> the question went to the water.
>> the water alternatively the applicant can drill a well on the site to serve the use. Our goal is merely to look at whether that is possible -- our role is merely to look at whether that is possibly. We believe from e nature of the preliminary plan that a well could be drilled with sufficient distance from an onsite septic recharge area, excuse me.
>> drain field.
>> drain field and also sufficiently distant from any possible recharge feature. And as well, any adjoining well. So technically, a well could be drilled to provide water. A permit will have to be secured from the aquifer district prior to the final approval of the plat by travisñr county.
>> two questions. In terms of provision of water, what would the county expect to see to make the determination on the preliminary plan? And, two, what is in the preliminary plan now as to water?
>> we would be looking -- again our regulations specifically address infrastructure as if it were to be provided by an organized system. So our regulations specifically say that it is the provider of this organized system have sufficient capacity and conveyance to get you water and wastewater, as if it were a municipality, a municipal utility district or some form of organized provider. In the absence of that, our regulations are not explicit. What we would look for then is is it possible to put a wastewater system on the site and is it possible to drill a well to provide water to this? So we are looking at the nature of the space, a special allocation, is it possible for the applicant to meet the requirements to be self sufficient, can the applicant drill his own well, can the applicant provide their own wastewater system.
>> what's in the preliminary plan? As to water?
>> there's a note on the preliminary plan stating who the proposed utility providers are. And in this case, with regards to utility service, they say that it would either be from the city of Austin for water and wastewater or a Travis County [indiscernible] site sewage facility and a water well.
>> so is that sufficient?
>> yes.
>> for us?
>> well, we -- we do not have a letter from the city. On the other hand we do have confirmation from our own onsite sewage staff that a system is possible.
>> water?
>> we do for the have a letter from the aquifer district issuing a permit. But that typically is not given until much later in the process.
>> okay. So you are saying that as to the preliminary plan, we evaluate based on possibilities but before giving final approval we would expect a specific for vision showing water capacity?
>> that's right.
>> before final plat approval.
>> on wastewater, although the developer is trying to work with municipalities, what we have received is basically a -- a septic system? From proposal?
>> they submitted a preliminary application for septic, so -- to give our onsite sewage guys enough information as to where they could see if it was feasible to have a -- to have a septic system on that site. And in addition to t information that they provided, they also went and looked at profile holes and to help be able to make that determination.
>> okay. Any other questions of staff?
>> no. I think what I wanted was a real good explanation of what the preliminary plat means and in this particular case, this is nothing new for Travis County government, we have gone through this before, and I think in the years that I have been around county government itself, which has been about 30 years, we have progressed to the point of having preliminary plans so that we can see what is being done with the entire area. But as we go along, we try to -- it comes back to the court and we approve steps that are taken to meet our requirements in each section. For instance of a lamary plan. And -- of a preliminary plan. But I think that the court or Travis County Commissioners courts have gone continuously to the legislature to ask for additional authority to try to deal with urban problems. And urban challenges. We haven't been very, very successful and so -- but I think that we are trying to progress so that we can deal with these challenges as they come up. I guess that I have just one question. Is there -- the h.b. 1445, the one-stop shop, does that enter into this discussion at all as to how we can deal with the different challenges that can come -- that keep coming up?
>> house bill 1445 has been superseded as of Saturday by 1204, it has direct bearing on this particular subdivision.
>> that's the one sheet that you've had here as well or somebody provided this -- provided -- who provided this? Okay. All right. Just kind of wanted to make sure that we are all on the same page as we move along with the issue. Don't want to lose anybody along the way and so that we will all approach this the best way we can.
>> what's the latest update that we have on negotiations between the developer and the two municipalities involved?
>> I would ask for the applicant and the cities themselves to summarize that because I really have not been involved in negotiations and there may be different versions about how well that's going.
>> my softball was the information that had been called to our attention. Was it yesterday, last Friday? They were negotiating, I know --
>> and continue to negotiate. No agreement has been reached.
>> I have a couple of questions, judge.
>> okay. Yes, sir?
>> joe, can you possibly tell me this particular proposed project for the film -- as far as the preliminary plan is concerned before us, can you tell me the nature of the water quality in the barton springs aquifer, however it is, also I understand that it's a part of the drinking water protection zone, of course there are -- there are certain requirements from what I understand if -- if that area is still within the e.t.j. That is suggested to current standards that must be required. From within the preliminary plan itself, and the proposed site, is there any possible avenues to ensure that drinking water protection zone is protected to the utmost or is this something that we just don't address, period, as far as what we have before us, before the preliminary plan?
>> are you talking specifically about county regulations?
>> well, basically talking about the protection of water and if it were embedded anywhere as far as our preliminary plan, I don't know if it is or not. But we do know that this particular proposed site is in a very sensitive area as far as the drinking water protection zone. Do we lend any type of credence to that particular advent as far as the preliminary plan? And the filing of it.ddress waty at all?
>> the water quality is ally addressed by state regulations and municipal regulations. And so it go to jurisdiction. The state regulations do apply and mainly the edwards aquifer rules and those will be implemented irregardless of our questions of jurisdiction. Whether or not the municipal [indiscernible] supply is really an issue of jurisdiction and it's a fairly complex, at this point, and the recent passage of the house bill 1204 goes to that particular issue of jurisdiction. Most of the water quality regulations would be probably found in the city or municipal regulations. Be that the city of Austin or Sunset Valley.
>> Commissioner, there is in the county requirements that joe has mentioned [indiscernible] 97, certain storm water management controls, the county requirements is that any site that has over 20% impervious cover has to submit a drainage plan, which the applicant has done in this case. So there are storm water management controls, they go more to controlling the peak flows and the volume and speed of the runoff than they do the content and true water quality, per se, I suppose it's fair to say there are some water quality benefits from -- from the storm water management controls that the county applies. However, they are mainly focused on controlling the volume and the speed of the runoff. So it's not -- it's not that storm water management is not addressed in the county requirements or that this applicant is not putting in place storm water management controls. Again, it's the type of controls.
>> uh-huh.
>> okay. I ha some other questions, but I guess I will wait and defer to the proper person to get up front and but as far as staff is concerned, I just wanted to make sure that [indiscernible] I think you answered that tom, as far as storm water management is concerned. However, there's still some reservations that I’m looking at as far as one versus the other. Looking at the city's and -- which is different as far as the drinking water protection zone versus our standards. We are talking about two, spate, distinct type of situations here. And so, of course, even at the advent of -- of house bill 1204 which was just signed into law this past weekend is some things that I think still need to be looked at as far as what we are doing here. So I’m not going to belabor that point. But it's important, judge, I think, all of us need to ask, and I definitely would like to ask the city of Sunset Valley, the applicant and others questions because I have several. And I will just wait until that time arrive.
>> it will be coming soon, thank you.
>> any other questions from the court to t.n.r.? [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> you can certainly revise the preliminary plan before final platting, yes.
>> so the negotiation process can, and I would hope it could still continue in terms of if folks don't like what they see here, they can continue their negotiations and try and assert their points related to things like impervious cover, all those kind of things, if it is in their control to see if they can negotiate something better to come back to us for a final plat.
>> absolutely. And with regards to utilities on the plat, that's why it says city of Austin water and wastewater or another. So that's part of the city negotiations.
>> I’m going to ask judge Biscoe's question a slightly different way. The last communication I got from the city of Austin was about three weeks ago that basically says please delay this, which coincided with the developer's note to please delay this. Have we gotten any official communication from the city of Austin about what they would -- what they would like for us to do today or not do today? Do they have an official stance on the acting on the preliminary plan today or any other day?
>> hi lisa.
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> the position on the preliminary plan at this point would be we would like to have more action taken until we can continue to negotiate. And the reason why that's important to us is because each step that's advanced in the process changes the negotiation positions of the party. In the past two weeks since we met with Commissioner Daugherty we've had at least four proposals exchanged that the city has provided the proposals to the other parties and they had not received or responded. That was after meeting with Commissioner Daugherty. So just the ability to have both sides talking where there weren't a lot of discussions before is something that's occurred. And I know one of the issues with the parties asking that the city not be against the proposal. So I’m not -- my condition is I would support continued negotiations. I really do feel that approving the preliminary plan and continuing to move down this road leads us closer to a path of litigation or where the sides are not going to talk to each other as opposed to moving towards negotiation. And I just go based on the history that I just described to you. Additionally I think there will be some unintended consequences with the ple limb plan approved and filed and what impervious cover that allows anyone to build under because if you have the preliminary plan approved, I think it grandfathers like 80 to 90 percent impervious cover, which far exceeds what Sunset Valley or the city of Austin has on the books. And as far as water quality, it's not necessarily treating the storm water and the volume, it is treating of the sources coming off of a site with high impervious cover in a critical zone. And we would like development in that area, there is a benefit, but we need to have it in a way that doesn't have an unintended impact on the environment. I will also say that the city of Austin is the wholesale provider of water service to Sunset Valley, and we're the provider in that area, as well as police and fire protection. So while this may get approved and everything done, we're still coming back to a position, yes, they can do on-site sewer and water and I think you all know the irnz that come up -- issues that come up with that kind of facility being developed over a critical zone, so we're not necessarily going to speak about that, but I think I would really like to see this resolved. And I think we've moved further in the last two weeks than the last couple of months. And I know my focus would be just to try to negotiate on the lowest tract, and we've gone back as of yesterday and Friday and said to our person social security the point of contact, negotiator, we would like to focus on the lowest because that is the item before the agenda. Not the eli garza and the other tracts that have their own issues it that muddy the water. We're a lot closer than what we have right here before this court.
>> what is reasonable in your mind in terms of time to try to get this resolved?
>> I think a time frame, unfortunately, where we are right now, the city council won't bring it up until July 17th. So that takes me out almost 30 days from what I have today in bringing back a proposal. And beyond that our budget owe so anywhere between 45 and 60 days, probably 60 days. There has to be something written on both side to really move and advance the ball. I think we're a lot closer, but, again, trying to negotiate water and wastewater service and address these other issues, it doesn't put us in a position where people -- they don't come and say we have an approved plat from the county and this is what we have to do. We need service, but we shouldn't be tied down by that. It's really just letting the ability to come up with something that really will be an incentive to the community and for the interests that we all share in protecting, our resource.
>> joe, is there a deadline under elgin or any other situation related to a preliminary plan? That is probably a tom knuckles question.
>> there's no hard and fast legal deadline for approving a preliminary plan; however, approval -- approval of preliminary plan is a subdivision function. And the law on subdivisions, plats and the like, is that once the applicant has met all of the requirements for approval of the preliminary plan or subdivision plat, it becomes a administerial act on your part to approve it. It's not like a zoning hearing where you have subjective discretion over whether to approve it or not. The subdivision process deals with infrastructure issues that are heavily engineering driven, and if they meet all those requirements, they can actually man day must you to make you appro it. And one other thing worth mentioning is a preliminary plan is not even required in this case because they're basically developing the entire parent tract. They could easily resubmit the same application as a final plat application, in which case there is a statutory approval deadline of 60 days that would kick in. So given that tnr is advising that the project meets all of the requirements, it's more a matter of when you would be approving this project as opposed to if.
>> that's my final question, which was can they bypass preliminary plan and you've answered that.
>> and obviously, as they said, there are a few more details that have to be nailed down or 100% for certain final plat approval, but again, the preliminary plan sort of judges whether the plan's in the ballpark for approval, and this one is.
>> thank you.
>> what is house bill 1204 requirements must we deal with when we consider this request?
>> well, as I assume you all have heard, the governor did sign house twil 1204 -- bill 1204. It passes both houses of the legislature with a sufficient margin that they did include an immediate effective date. So as of today, house bill 1204 is the law. One issue I do want to talk about that I think house bill 1204 makes note is the issue of who's e.t.j. Is this in. As you probably know, the saga sort of began with the city of Sunset Valley releasing this land from their e.t.j., And I have talked to a lot of people over the past few weeks and generally the first question they ask me is whose e.t.j. Is this in legally? And my response has been if house bill 1204 becomes a law, I think that becomes a moot point because I think the purpose of house bill 1204 was basically to say it doesn't matter whose e.t.j. It's in. And that's one reason I made a copy of the two provisions in house bill 1204 that are relevant today. If you'll look on the that sheet of paper, I is the provision that I don't think anybody, you know, has any doubts or made any secrets about this provision's intent by the legislature to deal with this fact legislation. And it basically says when there's a pending application for a preliminary plat or a final plat on a tract of land and the city releases that land from their e.t.j., Then the consequence is a plat is subject only to county approval and only to county regulation. That the issue was by Sunset Valley releasing it, did it automatically default the city of Austin e.t.j. And be subject to plat approval by the city of Austin and so on. This provision basically says no, it's county only approval. And with a number of people, attorneys for Sunset Valley, attorneys for city of Austin, I don't care anybody disputes the fact or questions the fact that this preliminary plan and any plat or plats that are submitted later would be subject to county approval only.
>> how much longer do we have to apply city of Austin s.o.s. Standards?
>> well, that's another issue i've talk with a lot of people about and I have done my utmost to keep an open mind about that, but the fundamental question there that no one's really been able to answer have a great deal of satisfaction is where is the grant of authority to a county to apply impervious cover limits that have been adopted by a city. Any regulations that you apply as a county Commissioners court to a preliminary plan or a final plat have to be based on a grant of authority from the legislature. Now, I have heard people say that they feel house bill 1204 somehow granted the authority to a county to do this, but again, that's one reason I gave it to you. If you look at I and read that plain language, that's a limit on the city's authority. That is not a grant of authority to a county. And nowhere on the face of the statute and nowhere in the legislativ history -- last night I got on Texas legislature online and listened to the committee hearings and listened to the floor debate on this bill, and I did not hear any of the legislators mention the fact that this bill would grant authority to a county to apply impervious cover limits that had previously been adopted by the city, but not the county. I mean, I think everyone would have to admit that that's fairly unique and innovative. And if that was the intent of the bill, I would think that that would have come up somewhere during the committee hearing or the debate on the bill, but there's nothing there. So I haven't seen any authority or grant of authority in house bill 1204 for a county to apply city impervious cover limits. There are a couple of other potential sources of authority. One is senate bill 873, which passes not this last session, but the session before last, and we've talked about that a little over the past two years. It does increase county subdivision authority. I would venture to say it allows a county to address water quality as a subject matter. It may not go so far as to allow counties to adopt all forms of water quality regulation, but I think the important point to make here is senate bill 873as not self-executing. So even if you want to assume for the sake of argument that it does grant a county authority to apply impervious cover limits, you still have to go through the steps of adopting those impervious cover limits. There's a requirement in senate bill 873 that says before a county adopts any regulations under that section, that you have to post public notice of what you're going to adopt so that people have the opportunity to comment on. So I would think in this case if for som reason you wanted to apply impervious cover limits, the applicant's first question would be, well, where did you meet that notice requirement under senate bill 873? So notwithstanding that they've made the water quality authority, it's not self-executing and there are steps you have to go through before you can apply any of that authority. And then the final source of authority I can think that might possibly grant authority to a county is house bill 1445. I have heard people say that they somehow think we've got the authority to apply impervious cover limits under our interlocal with the city of Austin. But again, I would say the same thing applies. None that have is self-executing. We did enter into an agreement that said Travis County and the city of Austin would adopt a joint code because we have not yet adopted that code. We will not adopt that joint code until towards the end of the year. We have the deadline of January first '04. So any authority we have under house bill 1445 is not self-executing. Have not taken the step of actually adopting any sort of impervious cover limits.
>> so we don't gain any additional authority through an interlocal.
>> you may gain additional authority, but you have to actually take an affirmative action to exercise that. And you have not done that here. If somebody asks me when did the county decide to adopt any sort of impervious cover requirement, I’m going to have to say they didn't decided that? This court has not taken action to say we're going to apply impervious cover limits. So again, I think unless somebody finds a legal silver bullet that I have missed, I’m not seeing the authority you've got to apply impervious cover limits, and no matter how honest and sincere the desire that certain limits apply to this development, you're the government and you're subject to certain due process requirements, and I would say as of today the due process requirements for you to apply impervious cover limits have not been completed.
>> it was important for me to hear that because I wanted us to proceed on the basis of what we can or cannot do. And I certainly didn't want to give anyone a false impression that we can do what we can't do. And again let me kind of reiterate that the 30 years that i've been around county government as a staff person and as a constable and now as a Commissioner, I know that Commissioners courts have gone after that authority at the legislature, and it just hasn't been possible. And so it's very frustrating to be an urban county and dealing with urban cities and urban challenges. Yet we keep trying. And we just have to kind of put -- but I did want to proceed on the basis of what we can realistically do. And I don't want to give false hope that we can do that, which are not --
>> can I add one more point? All of the hurdles that I just went through over not having adopted impervious cover limits, let me add one more because even if the county had adopted impervious cover limits, remember chapter 245 of the local government code, also known as house bill 1704 that basically says the requirements are frozen as of the date the application is filed. So even assuming the county had the authority, as of the date these applications were filed we have not adopted anything. And I wanted -- that's the other section on the sheet I gave you, c, house bill 1204, that was an existing provision that house bill 1204 expanded on. Each if you want to assume there is a grant of authority there and the county can apply impervious cover limits, I think under c, the only impervious cover limits that can apply would be the si of Sunset Valley's 40% requirement that was in effect when the application was filed. And, of course, this application meets that 40% requirement.
>> let me ask you this: if there is an agreement between Sunset Valley and the city of Austin, the agreement being that if Sunset Valley ever released an area, this particular area, in fact, out of its e.t.j., Would the agreement between Sunset Valley and the city of Austin, being that if it is released out of Sunset Valley e.t.j., That it would revert back to the city of Austin, where in the language would that be addressed in 1204? I don't guess it is. If service such an agreement that exists between Sunset Valley and the city of Austin that if the Sunset Valley municipality released an area of its e.t.j.,, That that area would revert back to the city of Austin, is that something that's accurate or something --
>> Commissioners, david lloyd with the city attorney's office. The question of whether it's in the city of Austin's e.t.j., The city's position is it is in our e.t.j. For more than one reason actually. There is an agreement from 1978 between the city of Sunset Valley and the city of Austin, and in reviewing it, there was a provision that says that each side agrees not to make a claim to an apportioned area. The city of Austin and Sunset Valley apportioned an area and said this will be their e.t.j. And this will be ours. But in the next paragraph it says neither city will -- and I’m paraphrasing now because I haven't read it. If an area -- neither city will make a claim to the other's e.t.j. Without the written consent of that other city. And in fact what you have with that resolution from Sunset Valley, that statement that they're releasing it to the city of Austin, in effect written consent of the shraft act of the city's governing body for reconsent if indeed any is needed, that it would fall back to the city of Austin's e.t.j. We think it is in our e.t.j. And there isn't any question in our mind about that. The applicant of course made arguments to the carry. And I would say we really haven't discussed that much in these negotiations, and we're hoping to reach a settlement with them in light of a number of legal issues that are floating around. And that's the reason why we would request postponement again.
>> (indiscernible) is it applicable to this particular tract when it became effective in 1992, 15% impervious cover, 35 percent to remain in a natural state. As far as the tract of property is concerned, I have a question I guess to the advent of looking at -- I think tom brought up house bill 1704. And a lot of things have really not been challenged in court. I think there are going to be some things that are going to be challenged in court, even house bill 1204 in the future. The problem is with that particular house bill itself, we're looking at the follow-up of an application. Is the filing of an application acceptable when a person files it or does it have to go through the steps to completion of the filing of an application? And I understand that -- the applicant did file an application with Sunset Valley in 2003. And I need to figure out now -- and I’m asking the city this question. How have they dealt with hb 1704? Have you took a position on that? Because it is a conflict of things because of the fact there we have two separate type of situations, the filing of an application and also the filing of an application for completion. How did you deal with that?
>> I’m martha terry, assistant city attorney. As far as the application process that the applicant went through with Sunset Valley, which would arguably begin the 1704 process as far as the jurisdiction which first addressed the issue, that particular application, the determination by Sunset Valley was that it was not complete. It went through what we call what the city of Austin has, which is comparable to what the Sunset Valley has, which is a completeness check. And that is the application is not accepted for filing purpes until the determination is made that the application is complete. So house bill 1704 as far as the city of Austin is concerned, and from what I have learned from Sunset Valley's attorneys is that it is triggered once the application is filed. And for purposes of Sunset Valley and the city of Austin, that completeness check process in front of the application as the application is received and reviewed to determine whether or not it is actually ready for filing or the determination is made then that it is complete, it is full, all of the preliminary requirements for the application have been satisfied by the applicant, then it is accepted for 1704 purposes and then the application -- it is accepted for filing and then 1704 is triggered upon that application date. And as far as Sunset Valley is concerned, they never got to that point. And when the territory was released by Sunset Valley, they then presented their application to the city of Austin for consideration in the completeness check process. And during that completeness check process our determination was that it wasn't complete for our purposes either because they did not satisfy the city of Austin.
>> so is the Sunset Valley representatives here?
>> yes.
>> could you come up, please, sir? I’m trying to -- (indiscernible).
>> I’m one of the city attorneys for the city of Sunset Valley.
>> we heard the statement from the folks at the city of Austin. Is that basically what happened?
>> that's correct. And the morning of the evening that Sunset Valley city council took action and released the e.t.j., The applicant came in and presented what appeared to be a hastily put together application that was not particularly close to administratively complete. Many of the items were not correct. It was determined to be administratively incomplete. The application fee and the application were returned to the applicant, who asked for all -- I believe there are seven copies that are submitted. All seven were taken back, so the city doesn't have the application any more after the applicant was informed that this thing did not meet the code and did not constitute an application. And that certainly is Sunset Valley's position as well. And that's important not only for 1704 but for house bill 1204, the new rules that mr. Knuckles referred to, only going into effect that if there is an application pending at the time of the release of the e.t.j. And the city's position was clearly no, there was not and effectively withdrawn and allow -- requested and made discovery in a lawsuit filed by the applicant against the city of Austin. Sunset Valley doesn't even have a copy of the application.
>> so I guess what I’m hearing is that the two municipalities, Sunset Valley and also the city of Austin, said that the application was basically non-compliant or didn't meet the standards as far as the city and what you're suggesting. And I guess if the applicant is here, I wonder what they have to say.
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> let me see if I can give you a little more information. You've dealt with staff and the city attorney's office. You've dealt with the city. I have a couple of questions of the -- (indiscernible). The city of Austin is when the negotiations with the developer started.
>> there was a lawsuit filed and I think it was back in April, and we had some conversations preliminary with their representatives, and then I think we had a proposal sent to them. I don't have the exact dates. And I would say we finally were done negotiating two months seriously where we exchanged proposals.
>> so the negotiations also included negotiations about the preliminary plan?
>> I wouldn't describe it that way. It's a determination of how we're going to treat that tract of land? Those are the issues. And they we saying they have a right to --
>> when did you start negotiating with the developer about the lowe's project?
>> I would say about two months ago.
>> about early April, if I recall when I got involved in it.
>> well, 60 days seems like a long time to me. What is shorter and more reasonable?
>> I think the issue has been at the beginning of the process when we have a proposal out here, I guess during the session there was about six weeks where we didn't get a response from the other side. And since we met with Commissioner Daugherty and we've exchanged at least four proposals. So I did -- it really is determined on how many -- I don't know how much it is time as much as willingness to come to an agreement. And what I would say in terms of the council, city council, is they want to be -- they won't be back in session until July 17th.
>> our lawyers seem to be telling us that we do not have the authority to sit on this item indefinitely. What I’m trying to do is there is a time that is shorter and reasonable that it seems to me that we oug to consider that before we take action today. I would ask the same question of the applicant later.
>> let me talk with the staff and get answers to your questions and we'll come up with a time frame. I will tell you we won't get back to brief e council until July 17th. That would be the earliest.
>> what about the city manager's role?
>> the city manager can negotiate or make recommendations to council. The council has the final approval. Any supplements that we have, we have to -- any settlements that we have, we have to get direction from them.
>> if you can ask that question for us before we take action, I will need to ask the city attorney's office several questions in executive session. What's the city of Austin's position on the applicability of 1204?
>> well, I guess I think the issue has been raised whether there was indeed a pending application, and I think that's really the question under 1204.
>> so the city's position is?
>> i'd have to say we're still sorting out what the effect of the statute is. And i'll ask ms. Terry to weigh in on this also.
>> as described earlier, we were talking in terms of what actually was happening in Sunset Valley and what was actually happening with the city of Austin in terms of the completeness check process. We're looking at the issues about whether or not a pending application actually existed and the timing of what happened at Sunset Valley. Those are issues that we have not fully sorted out. I will say this, it is sthat the legislature was addressing this issue. We will rather not go to litigation. What we would rather do is have frequent negotiations with lowe's and reach a settlement and compromise and bring that back to you. As ms. Gordon said, the compromise and settlement that we would need to develop with lowe's is something that the city council will have to pass on because it does -- it is directly affected by ordinances, assuming, for example, that 1204 does not apply, is directly affected by ordinances that the city has on the books and the city code. Consequently we've got to get city council blessing on any proposal that we would ultimately come to negotiation with or solution or in settlement that we would come to with lowe's. Our next council meeting is July 17th. But in terms of 1204, what we would rather do is we'd rather talk and not fight.
>> okay. But I understand you don't think the county has jurisdiction?
>> what I am saying is we are looking at those issues and we would rather not have to come to shore on those and litigate. We would rather settle them. We've looked at them, we have not provided that analysis yet to our city council. We would do so in session, the attorney-client privilege is not really something that I’m free to tell you what our position is.
>> sure. Frankly, I wish I had never seen this item. [ laughter ] but it is here, and what we have to sort through, I guess, are not a whole lot of issues, but ultimately we have to decide what is it that Travis County has a responsibility to do. And what I’m trying to get this morning is some indication of the earliest positions of the different parties. We've postponed this item 1 time last week. I don't want to vote to postpone it 45 to 60 days. I may vote to postpone it for a shorter period if it seems the matter may be resolved. This is one of the issues that no matter how you negotiate, maybe you will reach an agreement, maybe not. And since we won't be negotiating, we don't have a good feel for it. So I’m trying to ask the parties who have been negotiating and will hopefully continue to negotiate, if you've been negotiating two months, then it seems to me that another 45 to 60 days is a long time. And I don't know to what extent we defer to the city council's schedule in the summer. The county business goes on. When I’m on vacation, the county business goes on without me. And if I can be reachable by phone, typically I am, except during sleeping hours, then I would expect the council would be in the same position. That's a personal deal, though. And today, help us as much as I can. And today after we go to executive session, hopefully before noon, we will take some action one way or the other that will indicate the Commissioners court position. There seems to be a variety of options, but it seems to me that we ought to do the most reasonable thing to the parties who have been dealing with this issue working on it and that we had are in a position to really help us. Any other questions of city or county staff?
>> I just have one. I never thought I would see the day wishing we had a landfill item before us rather than this one! [ laughter ]
>> i've heard ms. Terry say we're still trying to sort through this whole thing. That seems to be a key thing. I’m not an attorney, I just play one on tv. You have a fact issue here that we've been asked to referee when we all know what the answer is. You have the ability to walk across the street and either file a motion for summary judgment saying saig that 1204 is applicable or to get a temporary restraining order saying no, county Commissioners, we enjoin you because it is in the city of Austin's e.t.j. I appreciate the fact that you don't want to get into litigation, but the reality is you're already in litigation. So why aren't we just cutting to the chase here? Why hasn't somebody waltzed across the street and either filed summary judgment or a motion to a temporary restraining order and get the courts, who are ultimately going to decide this, to weigh in on this now and then we clearly will have our instructions? We either will send it back to the city of Austin and have a good day or it is stuck here and we have add steer al duty and whether I like it or not there are things I have to do until somebody changes the rules around here about what to takes to get it done. Help me out.
>> let me respond to that. When we talked to council on June 12th, which was their last meeting, we were talking about negotiations and we did have some exchanges and some thoughts that we might reach a resolution. And one of the options is do we want to go to litigation. One of the reasons why we have not pursued that ahead of time is because, one, we think we have developed a balanced relationship and a good relationship, working relationship with the county. And litigation kind of destroys those relationships. Two, we did think there's an opportunity to come to a resolution if the parties are at the table and really working. And like I said previously, I mean, up until three weeks ago, we hadn't exchanged one proposal from the other side, only the city's proposal was sitting out there for six weeks. So unless we have an exchange of real solutions and we're trying to work there, then you're right, the only solution will be towards litigation, but that's the path that gets more adversarial, gets more contentious and does not necessarily come up with the best for the community. And I think one of the real issues here, and I’m sure other groups want to be good corporate citizens are that there's a larger issue in terms of what is the best for our community in terms of trying to come up with an outcome that balances the interests that we all have and the citizens that we all serve, that you serve and our council serves. So I think that is why we have not forced the issue to the courts; however, there might be a time where the city decides to take that action because we feel that we need to protect those interests.
>> there is one additional point I want to make, and that is when I say we're trying to sort out the 1204 issues, I’m not talking about the extra territorial jurisdiction issue. This site is in the city of Austin's extraterritorial jurisdiction, and that is --
>> that is a fact question.
>> okay. I understand it. Well, it's mixed fact and law. So that is in the city of Austin's position. But as far as the 1204 issues are concerned, those are the issues I was addressing in terms of what we're sorting through and how that plays out and whether -- whether 1204 applies in a particular situation.
>> anything further from the city?
>> just I think the next council meeting we have is July 17th, so the earliest would be 30 days because I would not want to say I can negotiate a settlement on behalf of the city council because I just don't have that authority. So that would be I think 30 days that would put you to the 24th or your next meeting after the city council meeting.
>> okay. When will y'all commence negotiations with -- in other words, I knowyou said the city council won't be coming back until July 17th; however, until July 17th you continue to meet with lowe's --
>> we have obtained an outside attorney to help us with the negotiations, to work directly with lowe's and with the property owner on this, similar to what we've done on other complex negotiations.
>> and those negotiations have been intense for the last several days in terms of discussions on a daily or almost daily, every other day basis with representatives for lowe's.
>> I don't want to step on anybody's authority that has the authority within the e.t.j. The city position is that that is the case. I’m looking forward to sharing that. I’m not really to intrude on that. (indiscernible). There is still some wiggle room, I think, to allow the city to not only negotiate, but also work within the purview of its e.t.j. And so that is still in my mind a big thing here that separates this from anything else, even though we're looking on this as far as -- (indiscernible). And suggesting this is a Travis County only jurisdiction. I think there are me challenges that I think we have to overcome in the next due few days, and that's one of them. However, the city is suggesting that it's within the e.t.j. And we should give it that recognition and go on accordingly. But again, that's my last question for the city. Thank y'all.
>> commission you are Daugherty?
>> i'll just wait.
>> the only thing I did want to say is in our last negotiation, the city asked the other side just to focus on the loe's issue. There are some larger issues which I’m sure you've heard about, but I wanted to say that for the record, but we wanted to focus and see if we can get something done.
>> okay. Is the city of Sunset Valley here?
>> i've got one more question. If you have a meeting on sentth, do you have a meeting on the 24th?
>> we have a meeting on July 17 the and on July 31st.
>> okay. So if the council needs to have the courtesy of seeing a potential settlement, if they would like more time, then it won't come back to then until th 31st. In which case the next meeting for us is the fifth, and then all of a sudden the schedule is anything but reasonable.
>> I understand that, but I do think if we don't do that the only course we do have is litigation, and that will be extending out just as long. Just what you said before. I know it's been timely and I know that is one of the issues that we have to overcome; however, if I could get this done b July 31st, August fifth, I would still consider that to be a great resolution.
>> thank you.
>> while the city of Sunset Valley is coming forth, when was the application for preliminary planning approval filed with Travis County?
>> March 5.
>> we have March 7.
>> March what?
>> March the 7th.
>> the application was submitted on that day.
>> was it complete? Was it a complete application?
>> unless we're in a single office situation with other municipality, we do not have to do completeness reviews of preliminary plans in the county.
>> all right. Let mesk another question then. [ laughter ] when was the the proposal for a septic system brought to our attention?
>> on Thursday.
>> has that come into play? That will be one of the questions I ask in executive session. Yes, how are you doing?
>> morning.
>> I’m the mayor of Sunset Valley. On my right is the mayor pro tem. On her right is council woman vicky powers. We appreciate the opportunity to talk to you today. And I just want to start out that honestly, we didn't think that when we took the action to protect the community's water supply that we were going to put you in a bind that you would have to get -- (indiscernible). We were just trying to do the right thing. And maybe some information about our business district would be helpful. As you know, before 1990, Sunset Valley had no business district. We had the highest property taxes in the county. We used to fill our roads by getting a bag of asphalt and going in somebody's pickup truck and running over it to press it down. We were literally in that position. Then the development community discovered us. First it was a development team from atlanta, georgia who developed the original site. That's the one with the home depot in it. That site was developed at Austin's impervious cover limits at that time. It was developed prior to s.o.s. We used Austin's impervious cover. And in that area was grandfathered in at that impervious cover level. After we got some money from the shopping center, we started being able to repair the streets, etcetera, we put up a better representation when the next development went in. As you know, the s.o.s. Went in about '92, Sunset Valley attempted to roll back there. We decided to take the tract by reducing impervious cover and trying to maximize the water quality treatment based on the best science available. And the second development that occurred in Sunset Valley, that's what we did. It was retention irrigation and one and a half inch runoff much there was land mitigation involved, the site development was around 20% impervious cover in the second development. Then we discovered that we could not treat that water in a way that it wasn't going to damage the water supply. Because there's an underground river that flows through our area, and that is when the lo lowe's situation came in. The city of Sunset Valley would have been much better off financially to allow that development to go in, but the developer came in and offered to be annexed into the city. Any competition between lowe's and home depot, the net gain would have been Sunset Valley's sales revenues. Teld have been better off to let that happen, but we determined for a number of reasons that that wasn't a good idea and we took the action that we took. We've been trying to do the right thing actually since 1990 to the best of our ability, and we're asking -- we're just asking for you all to do the right thing. And we feel like that this can be worked out between the city of Austin and the developer. Obviously everybody's working for leverage. This isn't just a Sunset Valley issue. This is a community issue. There are lots of people in the city of Austin and Travis County concerned about the effects that this will have on the aquifer and now we learn there's going to be a septic tank over this critical water area, critical recharge zone. We are determined to fight this to its conclusion no matter how long it takes, no matter what it costs. We spent $300,000 in the second development that went in in order to -- for a number of reasons was not to allow someone to come off the street and say look, we they got it, so we should have it. We're in this for the long haul. Obviously a negotiated settlement is the best course of action, and we encourage the county to take actions that will encourage that resolution. Thank you.
>> thank you, mayor.
>> it seems like I was just here.
>> you were!
>> I’m the mayor pro tem from the fine city of Sunset Valley and within Travis County. So we're all here. I have a couple of points that I want to make. Most of them ve to do with lowe's. We are here dancing as fast as we can because of lowe's. We're all answering to and figuring out the laws and all of this because of lowe's. My opinion is that is a really bad decision to take this piece of property on the aquifer to put their eggs in a basket, so to speak. This is a very sense sieve site. It affects our community, it affects the aquifer, it affects the traffic, it affects so many negative things and I don't think we're taking them into consideration when lowe's decided that they were going to choose this site. I don't know if it's because it was a bargain, I don't know if it has to do with competition. I don't know what their plan is, but the community has been very, very clear from the very, very beginning, this is a bad idea. Now it's all up to you guys. Our position, I think we concur, with the city of Austin. The reason that we released this land, with tears, I might add, were because we couldn't protect it. The money didn't matter that we might have made. We couldn't protect it. We released it, especially this type of store that is this big. They sell a great deal of toxins, pesticides and other things. It would just take one accident, not to mention what runs off from the parking lot. Our city is just down the road and the way a little bit. Most of our citizens are on a city well. There are a lot of individual wells. So with lowe's putting something in there and the possibility of something happening, something spilling, a big old can of test side falling over and just going into the creek, when would go immediately into our water system, they're basically saying that doesn't matter. That doesn't matter. We have the right to develop this property this way. We just don't agree. This is a community, and a community within a community and we just don't feel that it is right. All the con tortions that lowe's has gone through and all the ignoring the public out cry that lowe's has gone through, it's not right that this is being pushed here on this site. And I really believe that the best thing the Commissioners could do at this point is to postpone this and put it where it needs to be. There are obviously very strong legal issues that people have taken opinions on. There's a reason for you guys to get into this because of lowe's actions have forced construction on the wrong site. I ask for your help on that. [ applause ]
>> good morning, I’m vicky powers and I’m also on the city council for Sunset Valley. I don't know how I can follow that up. I think she basically said it all. I think what it came down to when I was listening to all the other persons from the city of Austin who said they wanted to see what was best for the community, and I think other box store in this location is not best for any of the communities, neither Sunset Valley or for Austin. Where I live in Sunset Valley, I can drive to the other lowe's store in five minutes and it will take me approximately five minutes to drive to this new one if it's built. We're not talking about a store that does not have other venues very nearby. The store on stassney lane is very nearby for someone to go to. So for another one to come and fill the same kind of niche in an area that close seems unreasonable. I wanted to tell you a little bit about that night that we disieed that -- and I’m glad cat said we released with tears. When you're surrounded by Austin, believe me, when you're giving up a piece of it, it is in tears and we did not want to do that, but our constituents were sitting in front of us and standing and speaking and saying please do whatever you can to not let this happen in our community. And so we knew we could not protect that being a city and limited and in the same way that the county is limited by some of the things that you cannot do. We decided that we should forego any financial advantage. And as the mayor said, it would have been better for us to just welcome it on in and taking the possibility of sales tax from both. Or should we in the future have a city tax, we would have a potential for property tax there also. And we forewent that also. Much of our development was grandfathered. We did not have an opportunity to do something about that or we did not have the environmental wisdom that we do today. So we come before you now as representatives of not only our 450 people in our town, but the people that use and recreate with the aquifer. One of the statements we kept using that night, and I notice that the mayor said several times in his speech not long ago is we're trying to do the next right thing. We had impervious cover problems that exist there now, but what's the next right thing to do in this particular situation? I’m not even sure that lowe's knows how to handle this. First we find that they are suing the city of Austin. And then the next thing we know, I don't know, maybe they thought maybe we don't have a really good chance here, so they go to the legislature and they get someone to sponsor a law that is directly for this situation. And then this law comes up that puts u all in this peculiar position and now they're here in front of you. So it's obvious that everyone thinks there are some jurisdictional matters here. And the proper place for that to be decided is in the courts. We're asking that you not knuckle under the pressure of one landowner and one giant corporation and join in this fray and possibly add confusion to the situation. And I hope you forego the conclusion today until this jurisdictional matters are settled. Thank you.
>> let me ask you a question. Thank you for your comments, all of you. Are you familiar with house bill 1445, the interlocal ability of the municipalities to -- particularly with Travis County dealing with -- (indiscernible). Not only by administrative extensions and agreements and a whole bunch of other things. The reason I say that is because I think there is going to be an opportunity, I think, for the county to -- in this municipality that's within Travis County to deal with subjects such as water quality, drinking water. I think it's a very key component, and if my recollection serves me correctly, tom, correct me if I’m incorrect, is that one of the criteria that we looked at as far as the interlocal was that the drinking water protection zone was something that we really wanted to defer to dealing with the other interlocals in Austin and Travis County and defer to Austin when it came to drinking water protection zone. Within the e.t.j. So this is still something that's very, very close to me, and as far as I’m concerned. Now, I’m only one person here, but as far as I’m concerned, i'd like to postpone it until we can resolve this issue and regardless of how long it takes. I think the essence is protecting the drinking water of persons that live in that area. That's very, very critical and I think it's very appropriate from the statements that I heard from y'all this morning, but as far as I’m concerned, I’m going to defer coming to resolution on this thing. Now, thas my position. [ applause ]
>> do you have a question?
>> I do have one. When you talked about the different options that you looked at, was one of those options purchasing this property on behalf of your city for a park or open space? You're land locked. You don't have many opportunities. Do you all have any public parks?
>> yes, we do. We have the highest ratio of conservation area to residential area in the state of Texas. And part of that is because that we've concentrated -- we had acres from the city of Austin that was going to be developed and we made it into a sanctuary for animals and wildlife, etcetera. I know that people think that we're the kuwait of Texas, but we are not as rich as you think. And we have a lot of infrastructure that was never done that we've been really focused on building within the city. And we have -- I was talking to the attorney. What we talked about in exutive session, I can't talk about.
>> yeah.
>> all right. But we looked at all the options and we're open to all the options.
>> so is that a yes to the question, did you all compare purchasing this property and for whatever reason chose not to? Did you choose not to purchase this property for open space?
>> we had not chosen not to purchase it?
>> is that still out there as a possibility?
>> we don't own this property.
>> it's not our property any more.
>> two quick questions. [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> down to 65, get an oversized water quality pond.
>> [indiscernible] home depot project, huh?
>> the latest one?
>> a couple of years ago; is that right?
>> yeah.
>> it's a one or actually '02, I think it's been done in the last year.
>> it's opened in the last year, I know that.
>> yes.
>> how far is home depot from this site? 20 seconds.
>> half a mile, quarter of a mile.
>> depends on how far you are driving -- how fast you are driving.
>> if I may contact, there's been no contact from my of the city officials with regard to home depot and this lowe's project, again it was in our economic self interests to do that.
>> anything further about Sunset Valley.
>> let me ask. When you all okayed the 65% plus impervious ground cover, did you all -- obviously you had public meetings, you did this during the -- did you have -- did you this this kind of show in opposition to -- to that?
>> we had opposition to it, yes.
>> did you have a -- did you have a medium --
>> for us it medium.
>> okay.
>> it's medium.
>> okay. Thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> now, let's hear from the applicant briefly and then we will get to citizens who can have come down to give comments today.
>> I guess first from the applicant, any kind of presentation or responses to matters that we've discussed to this point? And then we will get questions from the court. If you would give us your name first, we would be happy to get your comments.
>> my name is terry urian, I am here representing lowe's home improvement centers, inc. I’m also -- I have to explain -- well, let me identify everybody else who is here, dan wheelis to my left is returning representing the property owner, eli garza. My client, lowe's home improvements has the property currently under contract. To my right is mr. Mark nellis, who is the new site director for lowe's and over here a man that these no introduction, former mayor bruce todd, former Commissioner. Mr. Todd has -- was hired by lowe's and by eli farza's -- mayor garcia's interest -- garza's interest two separate matters -- mayor garcia's interest, hired mr. Todd to be our single point contact with the city of Austin. I’m going to let dan wheelis give a little chronology of the history of mr. Garza's inner -- interactions with the city of Austin and Sunset Valley. And then let mr. Todd explain the negotiations that have gone on with the city. Before I do that, I want to let you know that I also represent prov dent development, which the contract [indiscernible] on mr. Garza's property that is contiguous with the lowe's site, but is in Austin's corporate limits [papers shuffling - audio interference] mopac boulevard. Negotiations with the city of Austin on that particular matter started in the spring of '02. And I will let mr. Wheelis and then mr. -- mr. Todd pick up on that. The only reason that I bring that up now is I saw a little bit of confusion on the Commissioners, assistant city manager lisa gordon was talking about the other matter. And I don't think any of you are -- understand what the "other matter" is that is related to in.
>> okay. Though the to cut you off, but if the other matter doesn't involve what we have before us today, I don't know that it helps us to hear a whole lot about it.
>> you won't hear a whole lot about it.
>> I’m interesting in hearing the status of negotiations, what additional time, if any, is required to maybe reach some conclusion one way or the other, what you believe the implications of 1204 are to the matter before us and any other advice that you have to give us about the issue before us today.
>> I will address the second and the third matter. I think that I will let dan and bruce address the first one.
>> good morning.
>> good morning.
>> not to cut you off, but if you could work your background in --
>> yeah.
>> -- that would be a whole lot better, I think.
>> my name is dan wheelis. I represent the property owners, which are eli garza and the garza family members that own the 30 some odd acres that is under contract with lowe's. Eli also owns property over on the mopac side of -- with frontage on mopac that is within the city limits of Austin which is called the garza ranch subdivision. You have heard lisa gordon talk about issues related to garza ranch subdivision, I will mention those only briefly in some of this history. I will try to get this through quickly here. In 1928, eli's father, ben garza purchased the property, it's a little over 130 acres. Referred to as the garza ranch. Eli was born and raised on this property and he lives on this property today. In the '80's, the city of Austin and texdot approached eli and asked him to donate 22 acres to the community for the right-of-way for mopac and for [indiscernible] and obviously their sales job, if I will use that term, was that eli, if you will donate this land, you will create a significant intersection in the southwest quadrant of Austin and thereby derive economic benefit from the land, the lands juxtaposition to major roadways, major utility lines, et cetera, et cetera. And eli complied with that request. And donated over 20% of his land to the public without consideration. There was no quid proper quid pro quo. Eli did not donate in exchange for anything. He donated it strictly on the promise that this would create value for him at shh point in the future. At some point in the future. Following that donation in the 80s, in '91 eli began the process of platting his property and the garza ranch subdivision, which ms. Gordon referred to was platted and it platted 34 acres of his land and that property is situated at the intersection -- intersection of william cannon and mopac. The plat detailed with great specificity what eli could do with his property and specified a particular watershed ordinance that would apply to the governance of the development of his property. And it referred to the -- to the comprehensive watershed ordinance of 1998 as being the governing law for his sight. In '92, the city of Austin passed the s.o.s. Ordinance and eli's c.w.o. Ordinance gave him 65 to 70% impervious cover rights on his property, the s.o.s. Ordinance attempted to reduce that to 15%. So obviously a significant impact on the utility of this tract. In 1980 -- 1996, eli contracted with circle k to make use of one of the corners at william cannon and mopac and Austin sought to prevent that by saying that the plat that they approved in '91 might be invalid for one reason or another. And that started the controversial that led up to a trial which was heard in Travis County in December of 2002 in which a judge determined that eli's plat was fully enforceable. And that the comprehensive watershed ordinance and the impervious cover rights on the garza subdivision were the applicable laws for eli's site. The city is in the process of appealing that judgment. Prior to that time there had been appeals to the city planning commission on behalf of elie and his -- eli and his users and the planning commission also confirmed the validity of eli's plat. So we had the city planning commission and a district judge in Travis County affirm the rights that eli had in his property. In '97 eli signed a contract to [indiscernible] also out at garza ranch to a local development company. And once again, Austin -- elected not to follow the ruling of the planning commission and that actually was the key event that triggered the lawsuit that was heard in 2002. In 1999, eli was requested, he did not seek this, but he was requested to appear before a land resource management committee of the Texas house of representatives to discuss the fact that plats and the rights attendant to subdivision plats were not being honored by the city of Austin. And so as a result of eli's testimony, the provision of 245 of the local government code was amended to say that plat notes are enforceable and that plat notes that appear on a person's subdivision plats mean what they say. We then move along to -- to -- to the lowe situation, the lowe situation is not directly related to garza ranch subdivision. The lowe's situation involved 30 acres that was in Sunset Valley's e.t.j. It was unplatted land. It -- it was governed by ordinances of the city of Sunset Valley to provide 40% impervious cover. Lowe's, I will let terry expound on this, but the property owner and lowe's have worked very closely together to achieve the permits necessary for lowe's to close the purchase. Lowe's does not own this property yet. This property is still owned by eli and his family. The -- the 40% impervious cover under Sunset Valley's ordinances was a precisely what lowe's needed to situate its store at this location. No variances were sought. No special deals were bought. The community let us know as the property owners that they desired for ben garza lane to be relocated to the north to juxtapose with oakdale so an arterial could be developed through to mopac and provide a reliever for the congestion at brodie and william cannon. Mr. Gieselman has written a letter specifically supporting and recommending that that road be built. And the property owners have responded to the communities request and low's has responded to the community's request and as part of the contract lowe's is committing to construct a new realigned ben garza lane connecting brodie lane with mopac and relieving some of the congestion at william cannon and brodie. Our -- our legislative packet came about as a result of the confusion that of created by Sunset Valley's dramatic fairly sudden release of e.t.j. Creating a jurisdictional question. I was present at the council meeting and I said that based upon state law 245 and other local government code provisions, that the city's release of e.t.j. May have no effect on whether or not the low's store would be built or not because of the protections afforded in state law to projects in progress. And I -- and I will let -- let doug young speak for himself, but I did recall that doug young also told the council that releasing the property from its e.t.j. May have no effect on the construction of the lowe's store. In order to address the confusion created by the sudden release of the property from its e.t.j., The -- the garza family members who eli has been out there for almost 30 years longer than Sunset Valley exists as a community and eli was not afforded any opportunity to address the council in making this very important decision to release his property from the e.t.j. Of Austin -- of Sunset Valley. But because of that confusion, we knew there was confusion. We went to the legislature did you, told them what had happened and the legislature unanimously, both houses, nam miscellaneously approved 1204 with a provision in it that mr. Nuchols has described to the Commissioners. Dealing can the consequence of release from e.t.j. We -- we dealt with this issue in the legislature totally above board. There were -- there were no -- no secret floor amendments or no, you know, crafty ways of passing this legislation. It was handled openly at the committee level, discussed openly, it was approved unanimously by the house and by the senate. There was not a single vote of opposition in the house or the senate to 1204 and it is -- it was signed by the governor and the law today. We believe that approval of the preliminary plat will hasten, not retard, will hasten the negotiations with the city of Austin. We believe that -- that the preliminary plat is lawful. It fully complies with 1204. And it will -- it will accelerate the process, if you will, for the parties to -- to reach agreement on -- on issues of -- of impervious cover and water quality. Now, I will turn the mic over to mayor bruce todd.
>> judge and mexico of the Commissioners court -- members of the Commissioners court, we apologize for the length of this but it seemed very appropriate to me to hear the history because it has been a long history in the terms of the ownership of this land and steps, governmental steps in place at the city and state level over the last several years. But I want to talk specifically about the negotiations. And I do not want any comment I make today to impugn the integrity of those who have already talked about the process. There are two cities involved, it's not reasonable to expect that everybody is going to hear that everybody is doing in the organization. We are not here before you today because we haven't tried and are not still trying to get a solution that works satisfactorily, not only for the city of Austin, but the Commissioners court and the general public as well as landowner. My first conversation on this issue was in June of 2002. June of 2002, I made inquiry of the city manager as to whether or not she was, council would be desirerous of trying to negotiate a settlement of this issue. Because it had been long standing. I was convinced then that the interest in settling was genuine and staff would and they have devoted considerable effort to making that possible. Our first negotiations took place in my office in November of 2002. Over about a day and a half. Unfortunately, those negotiations were successful. In December of 2002, before the trial, there was an effort, a brief effort at least by telephone call to negotiate and that was successful because parties could not agree with the common issues that they thought were appropriate. There was an additional settlement discussion, attempt to settle, an offer to settle, in November, excuse me, December of 2003, during the week of the trial setting, about a day and a half before the trial went to -- before the case went to trial. That, too, was unsuccessful. In February of 2003, before the decision was announced by the judge, there was another attempt. But the parties felt, I think in good faith, that there simply was not enough known, not enough commonalty of interest to be able to proceed at that time and the city decided photo negotiate at that time. Between February after the judgment was issued, and today, there have been a number of exchanges of documents between the city and the developer. I think those have all been done in good faith. But they have not yet been successful. But they have been intensive. And for every document that has gone one way, there has been a document coming back the other way. Both sides have contributed equally to the attempt to settle this case. We countered -- five days after receiving the latest counter from the city, we made our own counter. Tuesday of last week. On Thursday of last week, I met with casey dobson the attorney representing the city in this case and he rejected the offer on behalf of the city. He said we would like to try yet another attempt bye-bye if you are indicating the -- bifurcating the property, the [indiscernible] tract and the lowe's tract, we would like to make a proposal and he wanted to know what my clients thought about that. Obviously, we were disappointed because of the delay that would be entailed, but we decided -- I told him anything they wanted to offer would be looked at seriously by my client and will be. We have not received that offer, but I hope it will be coming shortly. So the process is very much ongoing. The one caveat that I offered last Thursday was the one thing that's rely not acceptable to my client is more delay because it has been delayed for a long, long time. And we will continue to work in good faith and we will not come to the Commissioner court for final plat approval until we either reach a settlement with the city of Austin or decide finally that no more settlement talks would be productive. In closing, I would like to make an observation, I think this is really about two issues. One issue is the responsibility in the [indiscernible] of the Commissioners court to approve an application at the preliminary state that has met legal sufficiency and factual sufficiency that is required by law. I don't think there's been any testimony about that issue that would suggest that test has not been met and that your responsibility would be to approve it in an appropriate fashion. But there is another issue and that issue is a broader issue of a community issue having to do with water quality issues and all of the complexities that are involved in that particular area, litigation, the newspaper reports and certainly we understand the Commissioners court feels responsibility to make sure that the best thing that is possible can happen. I will pledge to you as have the other -- as have the attorneys here, that your approval today of the preliminary plat will only cause the process to go forward. It will not increase leverage. It will only be acting in accordance with the law. You will not receive a filing, a request for final approval of the plat until such time as those negotiations have concluded, whether successful or not. So I would make an argument to you, as I was previously, that proceeding in a logical way, with allowing the negotiating the rose to continue as it will is the appropriate public policy thing to do. And that you will not be required to make a final decision on this until such time as those efforts have been exhausted.
>> I would like to summarize some final comments. To reiterate on what mayor todd just said. We -- we filed our application in March. We had met all of the ordinance requirements for Travis County for a preliminary plan approval. It is merely a material act at this point. We very much desire to get this preliminary approved so we could move forward with some real engineering. Engineering which will also facilitate settlement negotiations because we can have some real detail to demonstrate to the city what it is that we actually can do. You have heard here earlier that -- that under Travis County regulations, that we could do unlimited impervious cover on the site. Maybe 80%. We have set consistently that the -- to the city of Austin that we don't desire to build any more than what we original represented we were going to build to the city of Sunset Valley. Which is a 40% impervious cover plan. The negotiations have -- have dealt with how we nailed that down and also addressed the water quality. It has been said that Travis County doesn't have any water quality regulations. That is perhaps true. However, because this is over the edward's aquifer, we do have to apply for water pollution abatement plan permit. With tceq. And that is in the works right now. So there will be water quality. What we are negotiating with the city is to add some level of enhanced water quality over and above what would be required under the old Sunset Valley rules. Over and above what may be required by tceq. It has always been, excuse me, thrown out, that this would be a horrible thing to approve a plan that had an onsite well and septic over -- in this sensitive area. We applied for the on-site septic permit application to comply with a technical process of the Travis County preliminary plan process. Nobody believes there will be onsite septic and well water out there. There is a 48-inch water line and [indiscernible], there is plenty of water. The problem is that since Sunset Valley released this area from its e.t.j. And applied to tceq, for a a transfer of the certificate of convenience and necessity at the city of Austin, the tceq is requiring a commitment of Austin to serve before they will release Sunset Valley from its ccn and Austin, I think, wants to conclude these negotiations before it makes that commitment. That is why the tceq application is still pending. I do not believe anyone believes this property will not be served by Austin water. I don't believe -- lisa gordon believes that. But you could ask her. One other point that mayor todd make that is we really do believe that the approval of this preliminary plan today will help facilitate and expedite the negotiations. My fear is the fear that was expressed by -- by the city attorneys and by ms. Gordon at the -- the response to your question, Commissioner Sonleitner, if the preliminary is not approved, what message is that sending to all parties here that perhaps their rights need to be litigated in a court of law through a declaratory judgment action. I think we would like to avoid that. I think Austin very truly would like to very truly avoid that. We think the way to do that is to move forward with the preliminary today.
>> if I could, my name is mark millis, I represent lowes. I would like to add a few things, we spoke about the broad perspective, but I do want you to be aware of the details regarding the site planning and the process that we have gone through to date. Since October of 2002, lowe's has submitted three separate applications to three separate jurisdictions. When we were in front of Sunset Valley, we addressed citizens concerns and actually met with several of those citizens, numerous times, to address issues such as the building location, location of detention and water quality ponds, buffering of adjacent neighborhoods. We moved the building to the rear of the property. We brought the ponds along brodie lane and we left approximately 8 acres on the northern portion of the property. Adjacent to the subdivision and ultimately Williamson creek to be left preserved and undisturbed. Traffic was another issue of Sunset Valley, some of the residents. We have conducted a traffic study. We have proposed to realign ben garza lane, connect to mopac which will alleviate some of the congestion at the intersection. Install a traffic signal at garza, realign garza and brodie lane and extend [indiscernible] for resident interesting brodie at oak detail. In addition water quality measurements that will meet most of the s.o.s. Requirements and in some instances possibly exceed those requirements. Lowe's wishes to meet the intent of the s.o.s. Requirements to as much as they can with the impervious cover requirements that we were under as when we originally applied to the city of Sunset Valley. Regardless of the settlement with the city of Austin, we will move forward with water quality standards that will protect the edward's aquifer. We believe that is important as most of these people here today do and we want to assure the commission that is one of the most important things in developing on this site. Thank you.
>> closing, judge, we are now almost in July of 2003. Preliminary application was filed initially in November of 2002. As mark indicated, we have been to three jurisdictions now. And nine months later we still don't have a preliminary plan approved. We had met your requirements and we ask that you do your duty and approve the preliminary plan. Thank you very much.
>> on a scale of one to 10, with 10 being settlement, one being fierce fighting in court, where do you think negotiations are?
>> your honor, I’m always optimistic, I have had not direct contact, maybe mayor todd can answer that. I think we are not arguing over that much. He ought to be able to get this -- but I don't think delaying helps it get resolved.
>> are we at 3 or 8?
>> I i know that casey dobson and me both have each other on speed dials on our phones. The answer is either one of those. The reason I qualify that is because casey told me in principle, I don't want to divulge any negotiations because I don't think that's appropriate at this point in time. But both of us believe from an engineering standpoint that it is possible to achieve the water quality standards on that tract. That are being -- that are desired. There's a methodology question which I the reason I can't answer your question more directly. There's a methodology question that we are in difference about. I think it's going take a while, frankly, if we reach a general agreement, to sit down and make that a very specific agreement that is absolutely clear about exactly what would be done. So until I receive the response from the city of Austin, it's really not possible to say how long it going to take. Neither he nor I would be involved in this process if we didn't think it was possible. If we didn't think it was perhaps closer to probable, but there are some big issues out there. I don't want the court to believe that it's a done dial. I do know that it's going to take time because it is complicated. That is where again as mr. [indiscernible] said that we are requesting not that the county cast a dye one way or the other today, but simply to provide preliminary approval which without final approval is of no meaning whatsoever except it entitles the applicant to the process anyone else would be given under normal circumstances.
>> allows us to move forward with the engineering.
>> which is critically important. Those issues frankly become very critical and relevant to the issue of if and when judge Biscoe that we are able to bring back an agreement that hopefully will be approved by the council. So again I -- I don't mean to dodge your question, it been one i've wrestled with. Sometimes a 10, negative two, sometimes a 12. It varies all over the board. I do know that the city of Austin and that the applicant are working very hard to make it possible. If we don't come to that conclude, it will be out of honest disagreements of what's possible, what can be done.
>> when do you believe it will be ready for final plat approval?
>> well, we probably would not come back here before we had issues resolved with the city of Austin. It will take us four to six weeks probably to do basic engineering and the any refinements to address some of the water quality issues may take longer.
>> I think that, you know, the point is, again, I don't mean to be redundant, but I think that it's critically important because it's come up in the last couple of hours or so, but this is an interim step and only an interim step that respects the process and it allow the technical work, the engineering that he referred to to go forward. It is part of the process and the final approval will wait until such time as the -- as these negotiations, which are a separate issue but important to the process, hard to believe. That's why we --
>> can we assume that no settlement is reached, if settlement is reached, when will it be ready for final plat approval.
>> if f a settlement is reached ?
>> is not.
>> if the settlement is not reached, we will probably need a declaratory judgment action to declare our rights under 1204 to have the plat approved only by the county and not by the city. So I -- if we can't reach a settlement agreement, I would assume that we would pursue that matter before coming back to the Commissioner court. There's no point coming back to the Commissioners court and asking for final plat approval, only to have the city notify the Travis County clerk not to record the plat because they claim some jurisdiction. So we -- we won't come back and ask the Commissioners court to approve the final plat until this jurisdiction issue and the settlement issues with Austin are resolved.
>> terry, if -- if there's no settlement and you have to get a declaratory judgment, have to seek a declaratory judgment, do you think Travis County would be a necessary party to that litigation?
>> they may need to be a nominal party, yes.
>> okay. Thanks.
>> terry, I have a couple of questions. When you are finished, judge. Okay? [indiscernible] former mayor bruce todd, let me ask you this question. Has there been any attempt by any of you to -- to contact the elected city council officials as we have gone -- as we have gone through this process as far as negotiations are concerned.
>> [multiple voices] city council?
>> yes, city council. Not staff level, but city council.
>> I have let a couple of them know about it. Our process said first work with staff to get staff recommendation.
>> I understand.
>> because that is a starting point and then to go to council after that.
>> well, I was looking at ways to -- the reason why I wanted to, I asked that question because it was earlier stated that staff would be taking something back to city council. I think that the city council will start --
>> the city council --
>> in July 17th. [multiple voices]
>> two executive sessions on this, am I right? So they are -- they are -- I think that I can say that, they are well versed in the dynamics.
>> okay. Thanks.
>> the city council has been briefed on the issue and some of the complexities and I think where the bills were, where we were in the process. So -- so they are briefed on the issue. But they have not been presented with any proposals or recommendations or solutions by which to judge settlement and make a decision.
>> all right. My final question, it just appears is it a there still may be some assumptions that are being made, I guess as relates to house bill 1204, it has not yet been determined if what we are dealing with here is subjected to 1204 because the terminology as far as is it still in the city's e.t.j.
>> well, what you are referring to --
>> right. [multiple voices]
>> what constitutes an application.
>> well --
>> I have a response t that. But I would agree with you that this court is -- is really not equipped to -- to make that factual determination or quasi fact, device quasi-law determination. The city of Austin testified earlier the way they reject an application, if they don't think it's an application, they don't take money and they don't give you a receipt. Sunset Valley when they don't want to take, accept an olympic, they don't accept money. They reject the tender of the money. And in our case, the city took the application, they gave us a receipt. It was only after, several days after the property was outside of their jurisdiction, at the release that they returned everything. Again that's a fact issue or maybe a mixed fact and law issue that I don't think we can resolve here.
>> thank you for bringing that point up, but I was referring to house bill 1204, instead of house bill 1704. 1204 being that the city, of course, position is that this particular property is in their e.t.j. We are looking at this because -- because for a lot of reasons, but one of the reasons is that -- that there has not been a basic determination and of course looking at 1204 suggesting that house bill 1204 suggesting that this is Travis County only taxing jurisdiction because of the fact that it's -- it's not in anybody's e.t.j. So the challenge to me is still the determination and finding of fact of the e.t.j. Criterion. So I don't want anybody to assume just because we are looking at this that the e.t.j. Is not operable. I think that it still is. If that's the case it's a whole set of new rules and other things to look at.
>> I understand the e.t.j. Is an issue. I know Austin believes it's in their e.t.j. I believe it is not in Austin's e.t.j. They presented argument to mr. Nuckols on that. I think mr. Nuckols is right. Whether it's in Austin's e.t.j. Or not is probably not relevant. To the question of whether or not county regulations still apply. 1204 really doesn't address e.t.j. It says under certain facts and circumstances only county regulations apply. We think that's applicable in this case. Again, I think if the determination of those facts, hopefully we can get this resolved through settlement negotiation, but we would like to be able to move forward and actually be able to authorize the engineers to start doing some real engineering which we think will help facilitate negotiations and not delay them further.
>> any more questions of the applicant or the applicant's representatives. Let's hear from some of the residents, there are five seats available, if you will come forward, give us your full name, we will be happy to get your comments. I this I that you have seen how the discussion has been going. If you would address those, we would appreciate it, limit your time to about 3 minutes, we would appreciate that, too, I’m assuming that we have multiple residents who want to give comments today? Judge, my name is brad rockwell, deputy director and attorney for save our springs alliance. I’m a former municipal lawyer, represented two cities here, done work for them, i've actually also represented the developers on indication, used to show up in bruce todd's office on behalf of an east side developer. I would like to -- to encourage you to recognize that you do have choice over the matter. That this is -- if there's any ministerial duty it would be a ministerial duty to reject the application. This is something that is before you, there's nothing that's -- that's required you to act now, there's no time table. There's no time frame that forces you to do anything right now. Will the context of this. Where this proposed lowe's is to be located is right next to an h.e.b. That is 100% compliant with the s.o.s. Ordinance. So it's very possible to build, you know, a large store in compliance with s.o.s. Ordinance and in fact we -- we have heard some testimony talking about not only the lowe's specific property, but adjoining property that the same landowner own. Certainly if creating more space for more impervious cover, to allow more impervious cover is -- needs to be done, certainly would -- would proceed to be done in this situation. What I have heard being told that you don't have the choice in this matter because i've heard statements that 1204 settles the matter. That's not true, it does not, the only way that you assume the 1204 operates is if you assume the facts in the law and -- in favor of the way the developer is looking at it. If you look at the matter, and look at how 1204 is worded, it's clear that 1204 does not apply in this context and in fact that's what's being litigated. There are other aspects that I want to go through to show that in fact 1204 doesn't apply and in fact what you are being asked to do is approve something way out of the ordinary during the course of business in terms of dealing with they see these matters. The applicant has gone to great lengths to [indiscernible] the laws of the city of Austin and perhaps Travis County. It is my understanding that Travis County requires subdivision applicants with property within the e.t.j. Of the city of Austin to file a subdivision application with both the city and the county. It my understanding that that's not -- there's no pending application with the city of Austin right now. Let me review -- we have heard about the 1204 provision. Final plat or preliminary plat application that is pending when the e.t.j. Was released. You've heard testimony from doug young of the city of Austin that in fact this was not an application. Crucial with 1704, with 1204 issues. The city can only be bounds to a project associated with an application, not just any piece of paper. What happened there is the developer rushed down to Sunset Valley, threw something in there, said this is a -- this is a subdivision application. Sunset Valley said no it's not a subdivision application, it's not complete. Because of that, 12004 does not apply at all. Even if 1204 did apply, 1204 by its own language has no bearing on the s.o.s. Ordinance other other water quality ordinances. As the attorney for lowe's mentioned, this only applies to certain regulations, not to everything. It says shall be subject only to the county approval of the plat application and related permits. And county regulation of that plat. 1204 only amends and regulates the subdivision regulations of the section of the local government code. It only applies to subdivision regulations, it doesn't oust the city of Austin's jurisdiction over water quality, doesn't take away the e.t.j. It says just if it applies, again it doesn't apply in this context because there was no application that was pending at the time that the e.t.j. Was released. If it did apply it still would not oust the city of Austin's e.t.j. Jurisdiction, does not exercise their water quality ordinance including the s.o.s. Ordinance. All it says is that Travis County would approve -- would approve subdivision plats. So the question is before you, another way this is relevant, you can't go ahead and approve this -- this preliminary plat without taking sides in this ir. If you approve it, you are signing off on the version of interpretation of 12004 that's being urged on you by the developer. I will give you another example of -- of that. There was a discussion here by mr. Gieselman about his review of the plat application. He noted that one of the requirements is showing that you can provide water and wastewater services that are available for the plat. The application, even working out the service agreements with the city of Austin and Sunset Valley, the way they have decided to do that is by -- by doing onsite septic with drainage fields and also water wells. And mr. Gieselman I believe said that they reviewed the application determined that there's enough space, enough setback to do both a water well and onsite drain. I think that assumes that the s.o.s. Ordinance does not apply to that tract and that in fact there is sufficient space because under the s.o.s. Ordinance, it's my understanding the drainage fields are not part of the I am impervious cover requirement. If you have a big drainage field, you would be taking away all of that space you would be able to set off with impervious cover. I think the analysis that's been done so far by city staff, based on the assumption that the lowe's developers legal arguments, and factual arguments are correct. And for you to approve the application at this point without asking your staff to go back and look at hypothetically if s.o.s. Ordinance applies, whether this -- whether this in fact could be done, the drainage fields, the setback, I think that you are -- that you are, you know, ultimately probably, because of my position misreading the law but also unnecessarily siding with the developer on a contested issue that needs to be litigated in the courts or otherwise negotiated. So our position is no matter what lowe's did through the legislature with 1204, s.o.s. Ordinance clearly still applies and needs to be factored into your analysis and there also needs to be an application that -- that meets the requirements of city of Austin subdivision regulations because 1204 does not apply in this circumstance.
>> so do you believe Travis County has jurisdiction?
>> you all do have jurisdiction, but based on your own agreements with the city of Austin, this should not be approved right now and I believe it also does not meet the requirements substantive requirements for your own ordinance of showing that they can provide water and wastewater because there's been no review done to see if there's in fact enough space for that if the s.o.s. Ordinance does apply.
>> what is the county's authority to apply s.o.s. Standards?
>> well, I think when you are looking at a subdivision application, your own rules require a showing that water and wastewater needs can be met. In this situation, I don't think that showing has been made yet because the only showing that's been made and analysis that's been done is assuming there's not any additional constraints of the s.o.s. Ordinance that would perhaps prevent drainage ponds from -- from being applied in this phase and perhaps also not leaving us -- [indiscernible]
>> anything from the court?
>> if this development could be reconfigured to meet s.o.s. Standards, would you endorse it?
>> ll, we actually do not endorse development over the recharge zone. But we would not appear possess it if -- we would not oppose it if it cop primed with the s.o.s. Ordinance complied with the s.o.s. Ordinance.
>> yes.
>> my name is [indiscernible] draker, I’m a citizen.
>> mr. Roberts, we may need your chair. By the way, you don't have to sign in, just come forward when there's a seat available.
>> I’m a citizen of Sunset Valley, probably the closest resident to this development in this room, my house is one house away from brodie lane. We have been there 18 years and I’m here because I’m scared of what this is going to mean. We have a well, a few years ago our well was part of a study, it found from our way it took less than a day and a half for reach barton springs, any kind of fliewtion that would occur is going to get there, they call it the super highway, going to get their awfully quick. I’m scared of the water pollution that's going to result from this development. But I’m also scared of the noise pollution, crime and the traffic that's going to result on brodie lane. Lowe's has told us to our face, to expect 18 to -- 18 [indiscernible] a day throug a residential street. There are houses on brodie lane. I don't know if you have ever driven that stretch, it takes me 15 minutes to go a mile from my stretch to 290, because of the traffic but also because of the unsynchronized lights. We don't need a fourth light at oakdale drive that's unsing noised. Four different entities, four different lights this that stretch. It takes a long time to get anywhere. I’m also scared of the influence that lowe's has. Their influence, their lobbyists, bullyin tactics. They have done all that they can do to negotiate with -- I don't think they have done all that they can do to negotiate with us. There's a legitimate lawsuit in the courts right now, I urge you to postpone action on this item until as a result. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> yes?
>> yes. Hello, my name is helen bessie. I live at 795 oakdale drive, actually more at the end of the dead end. And I first wanted to just tell you thanks for being here. I was on the city council in the early '80's. I was on the council when that first development went in. And but even prior to that, it was the county who supplied us with the coal mix that terry cowan described, our councilmembers, not me, would go to the county and get that mix and tamp it into our potholes. So I have always felt a real affiliation with the county. We have worked very hard with you and had a very good relationship back in those days. I felt that -- that -- I still feel that -- that counties have a real, real -- have real, real problems with their regulatory abilities because you have none. And would support anything at all that could be done to change that, although I know that you have tried and tried and nothing has happened over these many years. But your -- you are at the short end of a very long stick. I just wanted to say thanks for being here. It takes a lot of courage to do what you do. And with that said, i'll make my few statements about -- about lowe's development. Just downstream from the lowe's development, which would empty into dry branch Williamson creek, there's a sink hole, you are probably aware of the dye studies that were done there in that sink hole. Years ago, when I first saw it, it was about 12 feet deep, just a straight hole down to the aquifer. When Williamson, when dry branch Williamson creek flows, any depth, my neighbor's well turns brown, totally brown. In the almost 20 years that he's lived there until he could get city of Austin water, he had to bring in his drinking water. Because of the water quality of his well after rains. I have a reputation at Sunset Valley of kind of answering everybody's comment. One of you asked Sunset Valley considering buying that piece of property. And a citizens group got together, they said let's just buy it, offer more money, do the capitalistic way. Well, what we fnd out through our investigations was that lowe's is paying over 8 million for that 30 acres, I don't know if it's 30 acres, mr. Wheelis said 30 acres. $8 million is princess diana pretty pricey -- is pretty pricey for any property other than a big highway commercial from my understanding of marketing folks. So -- so we had to drop that immediately because even though we are considered very rich, we are not that rich. And probably never will be. Just going on with that, wealth I think is a relative issue. I understand now that mr. Garza gave up 20 acres of his 130 acres with the promise of we would be acquiring a good piece of property to develop economically, I think that he's in a good position to do that. I don't know how much wealth we all need. It's all relative and everybody has their own -- their own needs, their own desires for wealth. But -- but I will say that -- that I have two acres, in Sunset Valley, they are about my only wealth and I drafted an ordinance that restricted my being able to subdivide my two acres because I am on the -- within the critical water quality zone and the buffer zone of that creek. So -- so I -- I just think that -- that money gained is not necessarily something that should be considered in your decisions. With the light of oakdale, some mentioned that the residents were very much in favor of having a light there. I was very opposed to do that. I want to go on record as saying not all the residents wanted that light there. The last thing that I just wanted to say is that I have written a letter to mr. Robert tillman, invited, the c.e.o. Of lowe's at north carolina, and I have invited him to come to Austin and to Sunset Valley to just meet us. To see where we live, to see what kind of community we have, looking for places to see -- to show him our local cuisine, et cetera. I really hope that he does come here. I hope that he has a chance to -- to really meet the kind of people that we are in Austin and in Sunset Valley, so -- so I ask you to please let those two entities deal with this. And to -- to either postpone or to reject today's item. Thank you very much.
>> thank you. [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> ... The Sunset Valley flow path flows basically from south to north underground more or less under this very vicinity. And it is -- it's conduit that the city of Sunset Valley is tapping for its drinking water supply, so this site is of serious concern to the aquifer district. It's an important site for the aquifer and it's a site that will directly affect someone's drinking water supply. We have -- the amount of imperviousover that is being proposed on this site, 40%, is an amount that, while I’m not a water quality scientist, I believe that all the water quality scientists that I have heard believe is too much to be mitigated by structural control on the site to eliminate the pollution that is going to be added to that water. So I haven't heard -- I have heard the applicant say they intend to meet the intent of the sos ordinance and meet most of the requirements and I’m not going to argue whether or not those requirements are the -- the only requirements that might achieve water quality, but I think I can -- I will take the risk that some scientists might contradict me to say that I do not believe it's possible at a 40% impervious cover to remove all the pollution from the water that would run off this site. And so what we're looking at here is a site that would, I think, unquestionably pollute the aquifer, and while we've had a lot of discussion of the law applicable to this tract, I think a fundamental principle should be that there is no right to pollute. The discussions of the law have made it clear that -- that the law is far from certain on this area. There's a dispute on whether the new house bill 1204 applies. There have been mentions of grants to the county of authority to enact water quality regulations which the county may not have done. I hope to be able to work with Commissioner Daugherty in the recently-convened hays, Travis County regional planning process to the point where we can have a consistent legal framework that would apply throughout the aquifer region all the way from mountain city down in Hays County to barton springs itself, that people would know what the rules were and that these rules would be adequate to protect the aquifer. We may not be there yet. The law is uncertain in this area. So I am suggesting, urging the Commissioners to postpone this item, as you have heard others urge as well, so that the city and the developer can try to reach a negotiated settlement on this -- on this, the issue of this tract, and so that the law can be clarified and made more consistent as the regional planning process goes forward. I think if the city postponed -- if the city/counties rather. If the county postponed action for 30 days it's likely to save far much more time than that later on because issues that would be thought overlay ter in over later in court, could be caught here more or less at the beginning. I know that the 1-point briefing that mr. Gieselman passed out indicated that if the applicant comes and decides to go forward with a well to provide water for the site, it would require a permit from the barton springs aquifer district. I have no authority to speak on behalf of the district on such an application which has not been filed. But I would say that my only point of view would be to grant a well to serve a tract that we would be pretty sure would pollute the aquifer, would be contrary to our management plan, and I can't see myself supporting that. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> Commissioners, my name is judy paff, i've been treasurer of the Barton Creek association since 1981. I've obviously live add long time. In fact two of the garza girls were friends of mine back in at least the 1940s and the 1950s and I’m not sure about since then. I, too, echo the many speakers who are asking you to postpone this, and my main hitch would be is the representative of lowe's still here? My pitch would be an appeal to the national cooperation, or maybe it's multinational, lowe's, to find another site. We don't need the battle between home depot versus lowe's to be carried on over the battle ground that is our most precious acreage. There are plenty of other sites that would serve their financial and corporate growth purposes, and to subject the people of this community who love our natural resources with this invasion is just unconscionable, and what has not been mentioned is that beside Sunset Valley and barton springs, the last number I heard was that at least 45,000 people living just south of the city of Austin use this aquifer as sole source drinking water. That is in southern Travis County, which is your jurisdiction, and northern Hays County, so my appeal to you is to postpone it, and my greater appeal to lowe's is to get off of our watershed and find another location. [ applause ]
>> is Commissioner Davis coming back this afternoon? Are you able to come back this afternoon?
>> your honor, I’m not.
>> I wasn't planning...
>> we don't have the time and energy, to be honest. There's no way for us to finish it this morning and I’m about to suggest that this item be called up at the earliest possible time which is about 2:30. And if my plan works, this will be the only item left. And my recommendation to the court would be for us to come back at 1:30, go into executive session, and get whatever legal -- additional legal advice we need to, and complete the other items on the agenda. And that's the best we can do. Now, I never know whether these items will take one hour or three or four. This will be in the four-hour range, I think. Who else wants to give comments on this item that has not spoken already?
>> they need to come back?
>> yeah, we're looking at spending at least another hour on this, I would say. When we typically break for lunch at 12:00, not necessarily to eat, but normally other commitments that we make over the lunch hour, so... Yes, sir?
>> your honor, with all due respect, I have some commitments this afternoon that would make it really imposing on me to come back. I've been here all morning. My name is scott drakeer, I’m a councilmember for the city of Sunset Valley. I’m here as a citizen today before you and I would very much appreciate the opportunity to speak to you this morning and before you go into executive session.
>> are y'all able to come back this afternoon or are you in the same situation?
>> [inaudible]
>> that's our problem.
>> my recommendation would be if you e-mail those to me or other member of the court, whatever comments you have, we will enlarge the font, give those to the other members of the Commissioners court and if you get them to us by 2:00 today, by 1:30, we can do that when we call this item back up at 2:30, we can review those. I don't know that I can do more than that.
>> is it possible that we be given an opportunity if we come back this afternoon before you go into executive session.
>> that would be fine with me. Now, the other thing is I would ask myself am I saying something that has not been said already? I mean I don't know -- on one hand, I have received 150 e-mails at least. And 99% of them really were against the project. So there are laws and standards that we have to follow whether we like them or not. But in response to your question, I mean I have no problem with coming back and taking citizens comments at 1:30 if that will help.
>> at 1:30? If that is better than 2:30. But at some point there, to get advice of counsel, we have to put this item on hold this afternoon, get into executive session, when we go in there we have two other executive session item, may may as well discuss this one. If that is a better strategy to come back at 1:30 and take whatever additional comments from residents that we need to, we can do that ...
>> i'll make the arrangements to come back at 1:30 if that's what work.
>> yes. Let's do that. We'll take comments from the rest of the interested parties at 1:30. All in favor? That passes unanimously.
>>
>>
>>
>> good afternoon, we do not need the northwest Travis County road district number 3. As there are no claims and no investments. Let's call -- just a reminder, there's a work session, Thursday afternoon, two items there. We do have departments calling about budget impact of various pieces of legislation.
>> so it should be interesting, informative and exciting.
>> in that order.
>> now let's call back to order the voting session of the Travis County Commissioners court. Before we took the lunch recess, there was several individuals who were waiting for the opportunity to address us interesting, informative and exciting.
>> in that order.
>> now let's call back to order the voting session of the Travis County Commissioners court. Before we took the lunch recess, there was several individuals who were waiting for the opportunity to address us on item no. 18. 18. Consider and take appropriate action on request for approval of a preliminary plan in precinct three: garza brodie subdivision (lowes home center in Sunset Valley) if you would come forward, we have five chairs. And five microphones. Give us your full name, we will be happy to get your comments, we do request that you try to restrict them to about 3 minutes.
>> good afternoon. My name is steve beers, I’m a Travis County resident and a resident of Austin. My understanding on this case is that the landowner had an application already approved by Sunset Valley for apartments on this tract. The lowe's application was an 11th hour document filed on the very day that the e.t.j. Release was scheduled to occur. So in -- in my not very sophisticated way of looking at these things, it was plainly intended to avoid water quality rules. In my mind this raises questions about the social responsibility of the applicant, being a huge company, beating up a little town and perhaps destroying barton springs in the process. To me it's a telling irony that they are petitioning to release plan to the city of Austin to get their water and sewer service, but not to come under their water quality rules. In 1999 lowe's and other retailers sowkt [indiscernible] at william cannon and mopac so they could locate there if it passed. One of the promises of the forum is that it would meet s.o.s. Quarter quality standard and [indiscernible] needing other nearby lands for preservation. So the gentleman that was sitting where I am, that I guess was a lowe's representative, he said lowe's wishes to meet the intent of s.o.s. They have had ample time to do so since 1999. They could have [indiscernible] at the forum. They still could use the other garza land that they talked about to meet s.o.s. Voluntarily instead of deliberately evading it. The delay has caused hardship since November of 2002. It's already been four years since they secured the forum permits that they didn't use. The proof that they were tied into the forum is not only the news discussion at the time, a search on the travis central appraisal shows that there's other land under the lowe's name, not the forum developer's name, 6820 mopac and 7,000 mopac, that is the immediate adjoining vicinity of that forum land. As for addministerial duty it doesn't sound like your hands are tied. Your attorney said there was no requirement f approval of a preliminary application. Distinct meet the requirements. The jurisdiction is unsettled and there is no water supply yet. So I think within -- if you were to deny it, hypothetically, I suppose they could go ahead and file for final application, which would set a 45 to 60 day clock ticking, but this that period you can actually adopt a joint code or adopt new rules. Therefore your hands are not tied. If the county does pass this, then I don't see any choice but for the city of Austin to break off negotiations and then begin litigating because the only remaining question is did the city have the authority over this land? If they didn't make the transfer successfully before a real application was filed, then that's the only remaining legal card to play to protect the applicant for lowe's. I think the safest thing to do is to do nothing. And let these other entities sort it out. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> can I ask steve a question?
>> yes, sir.
>> steve, you obviously have somewhat of disdane for lowe's trying to pull a little shenanigan on the night of.
>> and you don't?
>> let me ask the question. Do you think the same also applied to Sunset Valley?
>> how so? Wasn't it scheduled to --
>> was it not scheduled, was it not fast tracked to do -- to pull this thing out and to relinquish this property back to the city of Austin? In their mind that not what they were trying to do? Did you not think that of that the case? And if that was the case, would you also be as vehemently opposed to what Sunset Valley would have to have dealt with that night, the same thing that we are dealing with today?
>> I think there are processes, certainly, that are important in government. I would also say that this is clouded. Unless you all are prepared to sit as judge and jury and attorney on this, I think that you should let others sort it out. To give the benefit of the doubt to the public. I understand that lowe's is a big company with interests. But I believe that the citizens also have interests and I don't believe that the interests of an out of town company should trump our water supply, I’m not sure why you would take their side.
>> do you think that mr. Garza is from out of town. But I think that low's plainly is, I think lowe's has alternatives about where they can locate their property, locate their store. There's not only the forum, the aquifer terminates a mile further east. It seems like they could serve the same area very easily with a location off of the aquifer. So I was mainly addressing lowe's responsibility and not so much mr. Garza. I don't really know the particulars of mr. Garza's situation, seems like he's been there a really long time. Seems like he's had various plans filed. I don't know enough to know the rights and wrongs of that. I hope the city of Austin does negotiate something fair with mr. Garza because property rights are a cornerstone of our constitution and the united states. If you don't have property right, you really don't have rights. But I believe that that property right does not stop at the boundary line. It extends to the neighbor's and extends to downstream and barton springs is a unique publicly owned resource that most county Commissioners and city council members over the last 10 years have sworn to protect. What I see what I get frustrated with, we are crying crocodile tears over a 45 day delay for a huge company. It's like the citizens have been waiting 10 years for effects active protection of barton springs. If not now, when? And that's just -- you know, there's a whole lot I don't know, but that's what's motivating me here is just it doesn't feel right.
>> thank you, mr. Beers, yes, sir? By the way if anybody else wants to give comments today, please come forward. Final opportunity to come forward, four more chairs.
>> yes, sir.
>> thank you, your honor. Commissioner Daugherty, I appreciate the questions that you just asked. In my own way I will respond to those in just a minute.
>> would you mind me telling your name one more time.
>> my name is scott draker, I’m here as a citizen from southwest Austin. Also an elected official for the city of Sunset Valley. First, before we broke for lunch, you asked us to make sure that what with had to say was not repeating something that's already been said. As someone who sits in a position similar to yours I appreciate those comments. Thought about it and thought that I would not repeat. After the last speaker, I’m not so sure. I want to start by thanking you for the time and effort you put in on matters like this. Earlier the landfill item --
>> that was a joke, yeah.
>> I appreciate the frustration but I sat here this morning and I listened to the questions that you all asked. I know if your hearts that you want to do the right thing here. It's not easy to weigh all of the options and determine what that right thing is. I appreciate it because i've lived it. I’m here for three reasons, because I’m embarrassed, because I’m confused, because I’m frustrated. You've heard a lot of talk today about 1704 and 1204 and about applicants grandfathering the projects and that sort of thing. What frustrates me is that there's never an opportunity for the public to grandfather what the public wants to do. Sunset Valley makes every effort to play by the rules. In March 2002, while there was already an approved development on this site, Sunset Valley began discussions with the city of Austin about releasing this property from its e.t.j. As you know, the governmental entity has to post notice before they can do anything. They have to have public hearings. The landowner and the developer can meet privately, cut deals, et cetera. They have no burden to the public. And that's a good thing. But what frustrates me is that the public never gets [indiscernible] house bill 1204 is a classic example, had we known months ago what the rules of house bill 1204 were going to do retroactively, we certainly could have lived within those rules. But we did begin the discussions. We did grandfather ourselves in a moral sense when March of 2002, while there was an apartment developer who had a contract on that land, we entered discussions with the city of Austin to lease that property from our -- to releasing that property from our e.t.j. I’m confused because I wonder how robert tillman, c.e.o. Of lowe's would file file -- would feel about having the lights and the noise at the lowe's store in his back yard. This site, while it's on a heavily traveled road, brodie lane, is still an inappropriate site for a development of this type. Nowhere else does lowe's have a store in an environment, a neighborhood environment like this. I’m confused about what their motives may be. In the years that i've heard about lowe's coming into the development that you have heard about earlier, I have known as a consumer that home depot has built a store on i-35 and [indiscernible], home depot has built a store, lowe's biggest competitor, built a store in the bee cave area, west of brodie lane, east and west and now they are under construction with a store on i-35 and slaughter lane, so they are going to be soon opening a store south of this site. All of the while, lowe's has done nothing in terms of developing new stores in south Austin. Now they are concentrating all of their efforts and all of their moneys on this particular site, which is not -- which does not seem like a normal site and it's not an appropriate site. And I’m embarrassed. As a republican and a pro business person, I’m embarrassed by a corporate citizen that would do to the -- the tactics that lowe's is taking. Yes, I appreciate that there may be some frustration on lowe's part about the city apparently pulling a last minute stunt and relooksing this -- releasing the property. The landowner who is the person that should be protected here, the landowner has known about this and had an opportunity to know about this for a long time. A long time prior to the action that the city took. We heard testimony earlier that the garza family donated property on william cannon and mopac, but they did not get anything in return. But it wasn't denied that the motive for that donation was profit driven. The motive that many people have when they invest in the stock market is profit driven. There are no guarantees when you invest in the stock market. We all know in light of the current economy what the consequences of holding investment too long will be. How long did mr. Garza believe that this property would be given such a free rein when everything else in the area was subject to 15% s.o.s. Water quality standards? Furthermore, property owner in question had been given opportunities over the history of Sunset Valley to come within the city. He chose not to do it. Again, it's [indiscernible] I’m sure that he chose not to become a part of Sunset Valley. We have heard testimony from mr. Wheelis earlier that they were seeking to meet the water quality standards of s.o.s. Thins they are proposing to put almost 3 times the impervious cover on this site, I assume that the water quality standards that they are proposing are three times those required by s.o.s. I believe that mr. Garza has a right to sell or develop his property. But as said earlier, I don't believe that right should supersede the rights of the community at large and the other people in the area. As for lowe's, regrettably, I don't believe they have the ultimate right to decide to build wherever they want to build. You have asked your staff the number of questions and your legal department about rules and requirements and time lines. I believe that all this discussion has been based on old rules. Rules that were in effect prehouse bill 1204. From house bill 1204 has thrown such a curve ball everybody involved that I believe it challenges you to take bold action. I don't think anybody will deny house bill 1204 is just simply bad law. The motives behind it may be great. The law itself is bad law. Somebody said earlier about doing your duty. Your duty extends beyond one property owner. And encompasses the entire community. I would like for you to keep that duty in mind as you weigh the options and make the decisions that you make. The [indiscernible] that I refer to I realize may not be realistic, but your county attorney has told you earlier today that the preliminary plan is not required. There is currently litigation that will determine whether there is a preexisting project or not. I would suggest that you deny the application. In light of house bill 1204, I would suggest that you then issue a moratorium and then I would suggest that you develop and adopt your own impervious cover standards. Now if that court decision says it was a preexisting grandfathered application and the answer is there. If there's not, then you will have your own development ranks and codes from which you can look to to find the answer to this situation. I’m not an attorney and there's probably reasons why you can't do that. As a layperson it seems pretty simple and obvious to me. The last resort, I will be honest with you, I’m a little -- I’m a little confused on this one, too. You have heard city of Austin staff to delay to continue negotiation. You have heard the applicant to ask you not to delay so they could continue negotiation. Frankly, in my heart I wonder about the negotiations. First of all, 45 days, 60 days, is not too much time to ask for on such an important problem. 90 days, 180 days would not be too much to ask for on such an important topic. I frankly wonder what good would come out of these negotiations. But I have heard the city ask for it and the applicant ask for it. So I’m willing to let the negotiations proceed. I do not believe in my heart of hearts that negotiations are going to render a decision that will be an equitable call. I think that there are citizens in the area that will get left out of those negotiations. I’m concerned about that. The -- I realize that this is a difficult decision for you all. I realize that it is a complicated issue. [papers shuffling - audio interference] I urge you to allow the time [papers shuffling - audio interference] thank you.
>> thank you.
>> questions? We want to thank the citizens for coming out. As I indicated earlier I do have a couple of legal questions that need answered. We may as well get those before council today, now. If we do that, we may as well take the other executive session items in executive session. Hopefully they will be brief and to the point. Our well organized will be well organized today. Therefore, I announce our intention to take this item, number 18 into executive session to get advice of council under -- advice of counsel under government code annotated 551.071 consultation with attorney. We indicated earlier that we would pull item 27 until further notice. 28. Receive briefing from county attorney on laws related to unmarked graves within county road rights of way, issues related to lockwood road and lockwood road cemetery, and take appropriate action. That's the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act, also. 29. Consider request to the Texas turnpike authority to design and construct an interchange at the proposed howard lane arterial during the initial construction of state highway 130, and take appropriate action. That's the real property exception and the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. We will discuss these four items in executive session and return to open court before taking any action. If I were a betting man, I would bet that we will be back out here in 30 minutes. But I always lose my bets, therefore I won't bet. [laughter] we'll do our best to get back in 30 minutes. Hopefully that w
>> we have just returned from executive session, where we discussed the following items. Number 18 involving the lowe's project. I move that we indicate our intention to reset this item until postponement until July 22nd, 2003. Hopefully that will give the parties an opportunity to continue to negotiate, hopefully that will give the city council an opportunity to hear any settlement proposal. That will give us an opportunity to look further at house bill 1204. To make sure that we understand the legal ramifications and implications for us. To give the county attorney's office an opportunity to do a bit more fact finding on the completeness of the application at different stages and it will give the Commissioners court an additional opportunity to learn more about the background of this project. It's a little bit more complicated than I thought a week or two weeks ago. Keeping our fingers crossed, but one way or the other the Commissioners court will take action on July 22nd when the matter comes back to us.
>> second.
>> seconded by Commissioner Gomez. Any more discussion?
>> judge, I would like to --
>> I would like to ask the city staff a question.
>> [indiscernible] suggesting that we looking at this and come back for action in July, I guessñi the 22nd, for us to take in action. I would like to find out from you, since hearing the discussion of the parties involvement, would that be apple enough time for -- for you all to -- ample enough time for you all have to the opportunity to work, to continue to negotiate as you have done with the lowe's [indiscernible] all things concerned, I want to sure there's enough ample enough time.
>> this morning, we actually met with the lowe's representatives between the break when you were in executive session and we have kind of outlined some scheduled times that we think will -- we probably can met that deadline (microphone cutting out).
>> I can't hear you.
>> on both sides we would like to see that resolved. I think that we will make every attempt to get that done by that date, we would like to have it done as well. So -- I think that's sufficient.
>> you think that is sufficient? Okay. I want to hear from you on that. I’m really not -- the time line as such, something has to be done, we have to move forward. I’m really -- it's -- I just want to make sure that there's enough time. Under the circumstances and -- and usually -- being comfortable with that. I wanted to hear it from you before I can move forward with this. As far as I -- what I intend to do. I think it's something that's very critical on this particular issue. That there is enough time we need to work out those differences.
>> it's a complex issue [inaudible] it's all in our interests to find the resolution, the term sheet that we finally agree to.
>> judge, would you accept a friendly to this motion. Let's say they need one more week to finalize that, is there any way that can be allowed, a friendly amendment. In other words, they are right at the door and they need to open it and pass through. If there's another additional week added on to that, is that any way possible that that's friendly.
>> it's more possible on July 22nd, if there are three votes to support it. I think we ought to wait until then. Obviously if they have gone 99% of the way, [indiscernible] the other 1%. But I think we should indicate, my intention on the motion is that we take final action on July 22nd. That's the motion.
>> yes. My intention in seconding that motion is that it's -- that it gets the Commissioners court some additional time to research the new law, 1204, so that we will know for sure where we stand and our county attorney's office needs that time. So -- so that's -- that's my intention.
>> right. That's all inclusive in the [indiscernible] Commissioner, thank you for those comments. But I wanted to hear from the city of Austin [indiscernible] [multiple voices]
>> those things can happen, yeah, while we are doing our research.
>> I’m extraordinarily sensitive to what I heard on both sides. Some people feeling like this is extraordinarily rushed and some people feeling like it's taken forever. But the reality is this Commissioners court today is the first day, no matter what's been going on behind the scenes, today is the first day that this body has been able to hear everybody, have all of their comments be on the record, we all have heard exactly the same thing at exactly the same time. We have asked a lot of good questions this morning and I’m going to respect the process that we need some of those answers a little bit more information, but it is my intent that on July 22nd, that this court one way or another takes some kind of action and that is the challenge to everyone involved, everyone has got the chance to make this thing come out all right. So -- we'll be ready, hopefully everybody else will be, too.
>> I don't want anyone to think, I think everyone here realizes how -- how sensitive that I am to water quality and not only in the drinking water protection zone, but also in the desired development zone, a lot of that area in the -- in the eastern part of the country, basically across the board. So I’m for the going to coapromise anything if it's going to lessen the water quality in that area in the desired drinking water protection zone. I’m not going to compromise that. That's my position. So -- so I want to let folks know that right off the bat that I’m not comfortable. Thank you.
>> the reason that I’m not going to support it, if I honestly thought that the city would come and we would be able to have something done on the 22nd, I might be inclined to do that, I mean, I have been asked for three weeks now to postpone something that I think there are a number of people that have been putting a lot of effort and a lot of good faith effort into this thing. The city has been producing some of that effort as well. One of the folks who spoke said they were embarrassed, confused, frustrated. I’m all of the above. I don't appreciate being put in a spot from a municipality, because I do there's some shenanigans pulled here. And I have lived in this community for 38 years. The last thing that I want to do is mess up the water system. The last thing that I want to do is take a neighborhood and to not comply with the requests that they have. But there are other issues in this community that we have got to deal with. We have got to deal with somebody that has owned property for 70 or 80 years, there's got to be a way to work with that. Virtually saying we don't care about you. I hope that the county doesn't have to continue to deal with these kinds of issues because it really isn't our -- we have really gotten this thing thrown in our face, we have watched the legislature come into this town for at least the last 10 years to try to do things to -- to -- to -- some of the things that a large number of people in this community find to be important. I don't think anybody wanted to go through 1204. I don't think anybody wanted to do 1704. I don't think anybody wanted to do 1445, but the legislature comes into this community to do things because there is a perception there. Now, maybe the city can go out and spend a million dollars and hire all of the necessary folks that it takes to -- to fight these kind of issues. But this is not something that I think that is beneficial to a community, whether you are living in Sunset Valley, whether you are living in the city of Austin or whether you are living in Travis County alone. But I would hope that we can have this next meeting on the 22nd. What I fear is that I will come here and have another 75 people, because I don't think that whatever you do that the s.o.s. Contingent is going to be happy with what we are doing. No one wants to mess up the water in this community. I mean, you have got to -- you have got to go forth in a community and allow a community to build infrastructure and do the things that we all know that we all need. So I’m -- I’m sorry that it has resorted to this. Because I do think that we have been put in a spot where somebody didn't deal with something the way they should have dealt with it. And we are the ones that's been put in the cross hairs on this. I don't appreciate that. But it's happened, it's taken place and so -- so that's what I have got to say judge, thank you.
>> any more discussion? All in favor of the motion? Show Commissioners Gomez, Davis and Sonleitner yours truly voting in favor, voting against Commissioner Daugherty. Thank you all very much for coming down, we appreciate your input.

Last Modified: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 9:52 AM