Travis County Commissioners Court
November 9, 2004
Item 39
39, consider and take appropriate action on the following request regarding
waste management. A, a phasing agreement between Travis County and the developer,
waste management. And b, approval of a plat for recording in precinct 1, waste
management short form plat 3 lots, 130.906 acres springdale road, fiscal posted
with the city of Austin, Travis County, ossf, which means on-site septic facilities.
City of Austin e.t.j. We received a request from residents and Commissioner
Davis to postpone this item as well as 49 -- 50. 40, I believe. 39 and 40.
My preference in view of the fact I have postponed this item three or four
weeks to accommodate schedules of the court was that we basically lay this
out, have a discussion today. Whatever issues, questions we have, we could
work on between now and next week, but plan to take action news Tuesday. Okay?
Joe, can you lay this out for stphus.
>> joe geiselman from t.n.r. We have received -- actually
have had received for actually December 2002 an application for a subdivision
by waste management, incorporated. A tract otherwise known as the wild wood
tract. It's a piece of property adjacent to the existing landfill. The waste
management submitted a three-lot subdivision. Lot 1 and 2 are designated as
open spaces. The third lot is proposed to be a landfill site. T.n.r. Looked
at the subdivision for compliance with the adopted subdivision regulations
of Travis County. There are really a lot of issues with regard to landfills
which this court has addressed for months and months.
>> years ago.
>> yeah, well, years. But truly what they wanted the staff
in this is really to look at compliance with the adopted subdivision regulations.
The one outstanding issue that kept this from being placed on the court agenda
was the dedication of right-of-way for arterial a. Arterial a is a four-lane
divided arterial in the campo transportation plan. Typically when an applicant
comes in for a subdivision and you have an arterial within that piece of property,
we ask for a dedication of right-of-way and also fiscal to build a roadway.
In this case, because of the location of the land, the applicant was not going
to use arterial a. And at one point was not even going to dedicate the right-of-way.
But we successfully came to a conclusion on that. They will dedicate the right-of-way
for arterial a. They had posted fiscal for boundary improvements to springdale
road, but that is not the road they intend to use to get access to this tract.
We're going to take access from the existing landfill. But it was a requirement
to post for fiscal. You may do that. The phasing agreement, because we do
not kroepbl have a finite alignment for arterial a. It's basically a route
within the master plan of campo. So in absence of a finite alignment, we came
to an agreement in the phasing agreement that the applicant, waste management,
will dedicate the right-of-way when Travis County is able to tell them exactly
where that is on the ground. And that will be done after a certain amount
of engineering studies is conducted and we have a more definitive alignment
all the way from 290 to [inaudible]. That phasing agreement allows for the
county to get the right-of-way dedication for basically up to 12 years. We've
got to take some affirmative action to define alignment within 12 years or
we lose the dedication of the right-of-way. The other provision is if arterial
a is ever taken out of the [inaudible] plan, we would also lose the right-of-way
because there would be no need for it at that point. But if any of these conditions,
[indiscernible] or the arterials taken out of the plan, basically we would
lose our right-of-way dedication. With that provision having been met, now
the subdivision application meets Travis County standards, and that is why
it is on your court agenda. The larger issues have to do with the use of a
property with the use for a landfill. We do not regulate this land through
subdivision regulations. It cannot by law. We understand that the [indiscernible]
that we're probably hearing about today have to do with what waste management
intends to use that property for after it's platted. I believe I would tell
you I expect tom would tell you as well that you are somewhat restricted in
what you can do with your subdivision regulations in regard to the future
use of that property. With that said, I note the neighborhood is fearful if
somehow if the court approves the subdivision application today, it becomes
a subdivision, digs disthat predisposes the court to accepting the landfill.
And it really is not. You are basically [indiscernible] your subdivision regulations.
If it makes everyone feel more comfortable, you can actually put a plat note
on to indicate that this action of approving the plat in no way pre determines
the court's decision on [indiscernible] of the landfill for that purpose.
It's going to take two separate actions. It's really two separate actions.
So with that I can -- I guess what I知 here to say is that the applicant has
met the standards that you adopted for subdivisions. We move forward for a
court decision because of that.
>> so when we say we are approving a subdivision plat, joe,
what -- what does that entail, basically?
>> it means that they are in line to proceed with the subdivision
of the property breaking it into three pieces. It has met the standard for
street and road and drainage construction. Meaning that all the standards
that we set out for how this -- and in this case there are no internal improvements.
There are no streets. They've basically set up a subdivision to take access
from their existing landfill. So a lot of the requirements that we have for
subdivisions don't apply because of the nature of the subdivision. But we're
telling you where they do have standards or where standards do apply to this
subdivision, they have met our regulations.
>> questions from the court? Or comments?
>> yeah, I have a few.
>> okay.
>> and I know i'll have some follow-up questions. But to
get the ball rolling in the right direction, I think -- I remember when the
last time we had issues with some of the subject matter that's being discussed
here this morning, it was in April. In fact, April 13th, April 13th agenda.
And after that discussion, of course there was a resolution that was -- that
needed the court from the neighborhood supporting any expansion of waste management
and also w.m.i. And also b.f.i. Commissioner Daugherty and I both talked to
that particular resolution from the neighborhood, and of course we failed
to [indiscernible] vote with expansion of these particular facilities at the
current sites. But also in that discussion on April 13th agenda of this year,
we also indicated in that discussion that the closure and relocation efforts
that was to be embarked and approached and aggressively sought out by the
occupants, the owners, b.f.i. And also w.m.i., To report back to this Commissioners
court, and I thought it was in about six months to see what their findings
were as far as relocation and things of that nature because of the opposition
that's consistently have come from the neighborhoods on any expansion purposes
over there. However, six months have expired, in my opinion, since it was
April the 13th, and I have not heard anything from the landfill operators
to actually discuss and tell me are they going to move or have they found
a site to relocate. But the first thing I get back is the thing that the neighborhoods
have definitely opposed and that is the expansion of where they are currently
sited. And it just appears to me that we are also due a report from them,
the landfill operators, of the findings that they have come up with for relocation
and also closure of those two existing sites. And so this is what I was looking
for, first of all, instead of even going into a phasing agreement short form
plat that's being proposed for three lots, those kind of things were in the
back of my mind as far as coming later if it was going to come at all. And
I thought the setting, again, was the looking for a site for expansion purposes.
So I think all this is all incompetent in a period that they may have been
short at least as far as reporting to us, to me and the court on what they
have done as far as looking for a new home. So -- to operate their facilities.
So this is basically where I知 coming from. Set the stage. But those [indiscernible]
are very important to me as far as the April 13th meeting, 2004, that came
before this particular Commissioners court.
>> do you all have the information? I met with them. I think
there were some plans underway to try to go through that process. And so --
but do you all have something more, t.n.r.?
>> really I cannot speak on behalf of waste management on
that.
>> no, I mean from your perspective, do you have additional
information to answer that question?
>> it would be more appropriate, I think, to post it for
next week. We're not taking action today, so if we want a follow-up for a
summary from the operators, we can post it for next week and get as much information
as they can give us.
>> I think that would be appropriate, judge.
>> okay. Anything else for the court at this time? If you
are here to give testimony during this discussion, please come forward. We
will post an agenda item next week to get an update from the -- from b.f.i.
And waste management on efforts to locate greenfield sites, realizing that
it is impossible to be totally [indiscernible] because you jeopardize acquisition
if you do that. But whatever basically we can get next week, we will try to
get in open court. But on 39-a or b, comments? John, can we give ms. English
a hand there?
>> i'll get there in a minute. Do you want me to sit there?
I can go around. Good morning. My name is trek english and I知 here to comment
on this particular item. Seems to me we have two issues. We have arterial
a and the subdivision application. I知 here to request the Travis County Commissioners
court oppose the subdivision application. I understand what mr. Geiselman
has laid out to the court in terms of your restrictions, but I still think
that the legal department, or your legal department could pursue some additional
research in regard to perhaps finding some requirements that -- that would
apply in this particular subdivision process. It seems to me that -- I will
go to the map in a minute because there's another map underneath this. The
first reason that I have that I would like you to oppose it is the phasing
agreement written by w.m.i. I mean it's obvious who wrote it if you just read
it, has no provision stating that the subdivision cannot be used or a part
of the subdivision cannot be used for any expansion of the landfill activities.
In fact, there's not even a provision that states that approval of this application
cannot be construed as an approval by Travis County for any future expansion
of the landfill. So it's actually absolutely no protection for the county
to then say, well, we knew we were granting you a subdivision process, but
if waste management decides to use that as a means to say that you knew what
they were planning on doing ahead of time and that you didn't have any problem
when you gave them the subdivision, you know how it can be done. They are
masters at it so they can manipulate this any way they want to. And therefore
I would think there should be at least some type of rider or some type of
restriction on that phasing agreement that protects us in the future or yourself.
My second opposition is from what I understand this morning, it seems that
we're going to be dumping a whole bunch of traffic on arterial a. And you
are talking at least three major arteries like springdale, yeager, hair race
branch park way, all of this is going to end up on arterial a because even
the trucks that won't want to pay toll roads on sh 130 will be using it to
get to 290. So you are going to have an enormous amount of traffic on this
arterial a which means 120 feet isn't going to be big enough. 60 feet is what
spring dale is and there's not even enough shoulders for anyone on walk to
side of the street so 120 feet for four-lane is not big enough. So one of
the things that we're very concerned about is -- one of them is that we will
be straddled with an enormous amount of traffic next to our neighborhoods.
But also with the landfill expansion. So we're going to have landfill activities
in perpetuity at this point. My third reason is, in case you haven't seen
this, and I知 sorry I don't have a bigger map, but if you look at this, the
blue line right here, this one here, this blue line right here, that's what's
projected to go right through the -- that western portion of Travis County,
northeast Travis County between the present landfill and springdale. So this
is a commuterer rail already that is proposed by campo, I guess, or whatever,
that's going to go right there by arterial a. We've got motan, a creek, arterial
a, a commuter rail, and if that's not tough, I want to show you another map,
and I will pass this around so you can see it. There's an orange line, and
I don't know if you can see it right here, there's an orange line, a solid
line that goes this way. That's a tphraoufl waterline. That is also -- Pflugerville
waterline also proposed in the same area by the creek. So we're looking at
at least a quarter of a century of massive carnage next to springdale road
into our subdivision. You are looking at a lot of activities to be taking
place right there. In fact, if you want to look at this. My next point is
going to be -- I only have two more points, the flood plain. And for the flood
plain, I need to go there.
>> should snap right off. There you go.
>> does that work?
>> yes, ma'am.
>> I don't know if I have the map in the right place. And
of course I don't. But I only need this for a moment. Have you this map and
it's this way. In order not to change everything around, I still have a question
as to why the landfill needs street tracks. If we have the first track for
the creek, the second tract for the road -- actually I don't know wrao road
is going, why do they need three tracts since two tracts will not be used
based on the amount of creeks and flooding and raw soil for them to expand.
I still would like the landfill to at least come forward and explain why they
need three tracts. For the flood plain, -- i'll go this way because it will
be easier. Here's 290 east. Here's decker lake and b.f.i. And b.f.i. And here
is waste management right here. Here is their expansion at the present time,
which they are working on. This is the first cell. And here's where they are
proposing to subdivide the second cell. And right now this flood plain is
not very -- is not very descriptive of the carnage that actually takes place
during the -- after a rain event. I believe that one of the residents [indiscernible]
had delivered a tape showing you the amount of --
>> silt.
>> thank you. The amount of silt that deposited above 10
feet in this area. So we don't think this flood plain is actually very depict
I have of what their actual situation is after a rain event. What I am concerned
with is this -- all of these green lines here that you see are all subdivisions
and development that's coming in. So you are looking at a much, much larger
flood plain in the near future because this is being built as we talk. Are
you going to wait until this flood plain is as big as this flood plain before
we realize that there is going to be a serious problem in this area? This
little area from here to here -- [indiscernible] is right here. So this area
rear is what everybody wants a piece of. And my last argument finally and
that's the one that really, really upsets me is in June 2004 at the tceq arguing
and this will affect us for number 40, the waste management and b.f.i., But
since we're talking about waste management at this point I will myself to
waste management argued successfully that due to their redesigning of their
expansion, their caps it was limited -- capacity was limited and therefore
they are now anticipating to close in 2013. 2013 is a key -- a key date because
not only does it dictate how much capacity they have left, but it dictates
whether they are a major facility or minor facility based on the fact that
the potential emissions are measured the year that they close or the year
thereafter. They are saying they will now be forced to close in 2013 which
would lower -- actually it didn't lower their emissions below the standard
that the e.p.a. Put forward, they lowered it based on their criteria, which
was the second criteria that they put forward not only based to closure date
but on different figures that they used. So if they are not a major facility
and they avoided paying $800,000 worth of fines just two months ago based
on a potential to emit which would occur in 2013. I find it totally hypocritical
that it would come today asking for a subdivision and which will establish
really the only step needed for them to expand this area of the landfill for
the next probably 20 years. So you are going to have to take a stand and not
let them get away with just about everything because they just saved themselves
close to a million dollars in fines by putting forward this date which they
are not now abiding by. So someone needs to say that's enough. You can't do
that in June and then apply for soil borings at tceq in October, which they've
already done, in case you haven't heard. So they've -- they are going to do
soil boring in this which is the first step you do for an expansion of the
landfill. So I would request that perhaps we sit down and find out what the
truth is about all of these manipulations that these companies are able to
do right in front of our face and we can't do anything about it. I think something
can be done about it and we're saying enough is enough. So you have the key
in your hand to stop this expansion and I知 going ask you to use it. Thank
you.
>> thank you, trek.
>> trek, just as f.y.i. On this, you had the capital metro
folder here and I hope at some point we can stop using light rail, it's commuter
rail, but in terms of this blue line, all that is is a designation of where
is the abandoned missouri-kansas, mokan right-of-way. That's it. It doesn't
say there is commuter rail going in there. It doesn't do anything other than
identify the right-of-way. And there would be significant challenges in terms
of even using that for commuter rail since a good portion of the mokan right-of-way
has already been utilized as the dessau expansion and Pflugerville's hike
and pike trails are using that. It doesn't say anything more than that is
where the mokan abandoned right-of-way which is owned by txdot, state of Texas,
that's all it says. That's it.
>> well, perhaps you need to bring the guy from txdot here
because when we asked him is this a future plan for the commuter rail or is
it just a map that you are using, and they said that would be the best place
to put it. Okay?
>> i've had the similar discussions with folks over at the
state, including transportation Commissioners, and it is a corridor that is
being reserved, but it is nothing more than they own it and that's it. There
are no plans to put commuter rail in that because, again, as I said, there
are significant pieces of that corridor that have a roadway and park road
-- park improvements in it right now. There are gaps in it. It's simply --
it simply identifies where is the right-of-way and does not presume that something
may or may not happen in it. That's it.
>> right. Well, I didn't say it was going to happen, but
have I to presume it will happen because at the rate we're going we'll all
be carrying a bag to breathe in the next 10 years because things are getting
so bad. So we're going to be forcing through some kind of public transportation
-- forced into some kind of public transportation and the eastern part of
Travis County always seems to get it. So I知 not going to just -- I understand
what you are saying and I respect what you are saying.
>> it's just a question.
>> but I have to take it into consideration in this analysis
of what is going to happen on this tract of land.
>> I appreciate that. Thanks, trek.
>> thank you.
>> anybody else today? If so, please come forward. Joe,
if we could get you to move to the end. We need to back that terminal up so
we can sit down. If you would like to give testimony during the constitution
of 39-a or b, please come forward at this time. We have two more chairs. Yes,
sir, mr. Hutchinson.
>> good morning, Commissioners and judge. My name is john
hutchinson, walnut place neighborhood association. I just want to bring maybe
a little light to one thing. You all have been sitting here this morning listening
to people complain about traffic through the neighborhood. As you know, our
neighborhood was the first street in Travis County to be designated as a no
traffic street. Now you are having other neighborhoods coming with the same
exact problems. Truck traffic is getting to a level that's just bordering
on insane. The people on yager lane, I understand their problem epl facilityicly
considering I live one house off springdale road and we have the same sort
of problems. They have a problem of they've got empty dumpster trucks going
through there hitting those bumps at 50 and 60 miles an hour. It sounds sort
of like grenades going on in their front yards. I totally epl pa size thao
eus with them. I move you all somehow see a way of fast tracking arrest year
ial a in one form or another that will allow and/or force trucks d level of
traffic. So that you can get them offrang and out of springdale road. Three
weeks, a four weeks ago I was before you discussing the fact the sheriff's
department was no longer writing tickets for truck traffic in our neighborhood.
If you give the truck drivers a way to get from point a to point b without
going through residential, they will use it. I sometimes have to drive a big
truck. I will do everything I can to stay on major roads because they take
less time to get from point to point. So if we give these truckers, whether
it be the gas haulers, the dump truck people, the gravel haulers, or the landfills
a route past the neighborhoods without interfering with the neighborhoods,
we're all for it. For basically we have had 18-wheeler gas haulers flip upside
down in the intersection of springdale and 290. Have to shut that whole intersection
down for probably 10 hours while they drain that truck and mopped up the spill.
So we know about how dangerous it is to have all these trucks going through
a neighborhood. And i'd hope that you all see a way to pushing arterial a
forward. Whatever alignment it ends up. We've got people in the neighborhood
that don'tment it to go this way, they want it to go that way, back and forth,
that needs to be hammered out in the future, but right now let's put something
on paper that gets it moved faster. Maybe campo can give up some money and
get us on that route. We appreciate your help. Thank you.
>> thank you. John, let me ask you something before you run
off. Has there been any enforcement action -- since you have come back and
we did what we have to do to ensure that --
>> i've been remodeling my house, been outside the last three,
four weeks putting a front porch o i've seen one truck pulled over since I
left the Commissioners court that day. One truck. I知 not there full time.
Aoeup not outside all day. All i've seen is one truck pulled over in the entire
time. Still got trucks going up and down the street. They are not paying any
attention. And now we've got fed ex that's moved down on springdale road across
290 and their trucks are cutting through worse than ever. So, you know, until
the sheriff's department makes a conscious decision to enforce the law, there's
nothing I can do anymore.
>> thank you very much for your comments.
>> hello, I知 christy [inaudible], secretary of the walnut
place neighborhood association. Thank you for this opportunity to speak today.
I know that this line you have representing arterial a is, you know, not --
you know, defined the way it will be etched in stone, but the way it currently
is -- can I go over to the map?
>> okay.
>> do I need a microphone?
>> yes, please.
>> okay. The little one I have in my hand -- [indiscernible].
Where the flood plain is that trek was talking about, I personally walk through
mud up to my knees in that flood plain, and a study of really -- really needs
to be done about how close this arterial a can be to that flood plain. It's
a pit. It's a mud and silt pit, just literally. So it doesn't seem possible
that you could really put arterial a that close to it. I mean it may need
to move further over. You know, and, you know, which would push it more into
waste management's, you know, plans. So I think more needs to be done, you
know, some type of study. Okay.
>> of how possible that really is.
>> don't put the road in the flood plain or don't put it
in the landfill.
>> well, this is -- get rid of the landfill. Put it right
there. But, you know, before you go plotting lots out, you know, in a subdivision,
see what is possible about arterial a because that, to me, you know, seems
too close to that mud pit to be putting a road. So you might want to actually
have people look at what they are talking about before making decisions.
>> I anticipate that that road is a few years from now.
>> oh, I know. But the subdividing and giving a right-of-way,
you know, they are anticipating it to be here.
>> no, our commitment is that we would designate the precise
alignment at some point in the future, right, joe? We have 12 years to make
that decision and tphorpblly you don't do that until you are sure you got
the money. So there would be engineering and design work before you start
construction and putting all of the funding together. This arterial a has
been on the campo plan how long?
>> it's been on a while.
>> so long that many of our community have forgotten it.
>> yeah.
>> but it is an important arterial for us to have and it's
--
>> oh, I do believe it's very important.
>> whether we plan to construct it or not --
>> it's very much needed. I do agree. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> judge, let me comment. I don't know why you can't build
a road across a mud pit. I mean if you drive i-10 from baton rouge to new
orleans, you've got about 90 miles across an entire swamp. You can build a
road in a mud pit. You know, we can build some roads in this community, folks,
if we have the political will to build roads. And one thing that is irrefutable,
I mean because we have people continue to come down, and I知 very sympathetic
with all the traffic through these areas and on roads that they absolutely
shouldn't have to have those kind of vehicles travel on. But, folks, we can't
have everything or we can't be against everything else and really get around
in this community. I mean it's just impossible. At some point in time somebody
has got to yell calf rope. I mean we've got to do something. And so arterial
a is something that is going to be very, very difficult to move me off of
because, unfortunately, it's not going to be public transit that gets the
traffic off the road. I mean we have got to do something with roads and so
I just don't -- I know people would like to think, you know, we can find an
obstacle to not build roads in this community, but I feel the other way.
>> I知 joyce thorson from walnut place neighborhood association.
I agree we need arterial a very badly. I知 wondering if this subdivision might
be an opportunity for the county to acquire even more right of way from waste
management. For example, the right-of-way that's going to be needed in the
already permitted expansion just that would be just south of the right-of-way
that you would be getting. I don't know how much -- how much you could do,
but we really do need that arterial a, and if there is any way you could get
that through the more right-of-way you are asking for, that would be really
good. Just an idea. And I agree with everything ms. English said. I don't
have any further to comment on that.
>> thank you.
>> ms. Best.
>> joyce best from harris branch. Yes, we do support arterial
a as well, but we would like to emphasize the importance of taking care with
the flood plain and I知 very well aaware of the fact a lot of highways do
go through areas like that. We just want to exercise caution so that we don't
get into the kind of situation we're facing on blue goose road with the flood
plain issues that we've had to discuss with b.f.i. And the situation there.
So I would like to caution about that. And I also wanted to further comment
on trek's comment about w.m.i. 2013 proposed departure and that does fly in
the face of some other things we've been told and in fact what we are doing,
and I simply would encourage to you look at all of the factors involved in
that, that they are, on the one hand, having fines reduced based on using
that date, but that date goes out the window when they start talking about
expansions. Thank you.
>> thank you very much. Joe, there have been several issues
mentioned today. We'll work on those between now and next Tuesday, try to
come in with answers to questions that were posed. Is that all right? Thank
you all very much on 39-a and b.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, October 26, 2005 3:16 PM