Travis County Commissioners Court
July 26, 2005
Items 24 & A2
24, consider and take appropriate action on on interim rules on water quality, the environment, and procedures for review of the applications submitted under chapter 82, Travis County code, standards for construction of streets and drainage in subdivisions. And after a couple of conversations with interested persons, the county judge added a 2. A 2 has a couple of new words. Consider and take appropriate action on requests to add scientific and technical expertise to the ongoing work on permanent rules on water quality, the environment and procedures for review of applications submitted under chapter 82, Travis County code, standards for construction of streets and drainage in subdivisions. The thinking here being if we adopt interim rules today, hopefully we will take some action, there will be ongoing work over the next few months as we aim towards adoption of permanent rules and the suggestions made to me was that earlier we had scientific and technical persons and it may be a good idea or is a good idea to engage those individuals again. So a 2 really is -- is to respond to that request and we chatted just briefly. We did have such people working with us at some points in the past, I guess they did their work, sort of phased themselves out.
>> not really phased out, no. They expect to bring them back as needed.
>> okay.
>> our focus today is more on 24, though, with a 2 being in the back of our minds.
>> that's right.
>> all right. We had the draft that we presented last week. We have made some -- some -- a few modifications to that draft. And I would like to just tell you what those are. I will try to stay focussed on the significant items. The -- we still had some comments on the utility provision. And as you may recall, the first time, the first draft, we had that the [indiscernible] resolution from the board of governors, board of directors of the utility attesting to the adequacy of water and wastewater services. [indiscernible] a need for putting up a [indiscernible] to secure the capacity of the system. The -- costing the developer money prematurely. So we have -- retooled that and the next adding basically a certification from the chief executive officer of the utility and the applicant and [indiscernible] perhaps a little too strong. So it is now a -- perhaps getting to what we are looking for, is the letter of intent. So what we are trying to avoid is actually -- actually provoking or making the utility require a fiscal at the time they are trying to tell the county whether or not they have adequate capacity to serve. We understand down the line that there will be contracts in place to secure that. But what we are more interested in is the planning process, the thoughts that went into it, just how much capacity is needed for this development, where that capacity is going to come from, who is going to pay for it, what are the arrangements being made to make sure that it's there in a timely manner so that it's phased as the development is there. Basically the same things that we would look for in our phase-in agreement on things that the county would require [indiscernible] when it came in at that level. We are looking for the same level of information from the utility provider. So we have now used the word letter of intent so as to avoid the issue of fiscal. And I知 still testing that with the utilities. So far the response that I have got is they do not think that it's going to require a fiscal, but I have only been able to talk to two so far.
>> joe, I see the one pager. That's what you are going by, right?
>> I知 using tom's e-mail, yes, as a go-by.
>> I知 looking atom's July 25 -- at tom's July 25th legislative formatted copy of the rules. I知 looking at page 3, line 8, I don't see that. Page 3, line 8 I also what the one pager directs you to, right? So page 3, line 8 of what? Would it -- tom, would it be your July 25th document?
>> the pages and line number in the e-mail yesterday were yeah the July 25th document. I don't have a copy of that e-mail. My secretary is bringing it down.
>> that would be --
>> but the change on the -- on the utility, letter of intent, would be page 6, line 8 is what i've got on my July 25th --
>> that's the wrong page number.
>> yeah.
>> my page 6 -- okay, line 8. The line is out of number, we just have to counts from the top.
>> page 6, line 8.
>> did you print yours right off of e-mail. It package nature differently than if -- pageates differently than if you pull it up in word and then print it.
>> if you have the copy that does not have the line numbers on it, it would be page 8, section 18,.
>> page 6. Not page 6.
>> page 6, I知 sorry. Page 6. You read down 18.
>> okay.
>> it says the owner and the chief executive officer of the entity or its utility department shall submit a signed utility service and phasing letter of intent certifying, then going through all of the similar provisions, but it's trying to get to the language that really gets to -- it's not a contract, it's not an agreement, it's a -- it's a -- it's a basically a statement of information that you provide the county. With these -- with this level of information. And -- and we believe that this would not trigger the fiscal, which was the chief concern I think that we were hearing from the development community that somehow just by virtue of asking for this information from the utility that that would trigger a -- the requirement of a utility to guarantee the service and put up money to do that.
>> so the letter of intent means --
>> it's -- I guess it's artful language. It's what we are trying to avoid language that may be interpreted as contractual in nature. We believe the letter of intent should be generally understood as not being that. Okay, letter of intent certifying what's provided on page 6.
>> that's right.
>> basically.
>> okay. Actually the letter of intent is the new part of it.
>> what was in the document that we reviewed last week?
>> that's correct, that's correct.
>> okay.
>> all right. Okay. Tom, would you explain the next one, number 3 and -- number 3.
>> developments usually require permits from other entities, whether it be lcra, corps of engineers, u.s. Fish and wildlife service, tceq and one change we had made regarding existing rules, one change in the interim rules means those permits all will be final before the plat comes to you for approval. The reason for that is -- is those permits can affect the layout of the subdivision, where the lot lines are, where the right-of-ways can go, where the storm water management facilities can go, and so it doesn't make much sense for y'all to approve a plat and sort of carve that layout in stone, for that plat to go then get filed over in the deed records and then have corps of engineers or lcra or tceq or fish and wildlife say, no, that road can't go there, that lot line has to be moved, then you have to go through the plat review process all over again. So the idea was -- was make sure all of that is in place, that the plat is not going to change whether you all are asked to -- to act on it. The tceq permit Texas pollutant discharge elimination permit, really deals more with what kind of water quality controls, the developer has in place during the construction phase when he's grading lots or roughing in right-of-way or things like that. It really doesn't affect the layout of the subdivision as much as the other permits. The comment really was you should not ask for the permits until after the plat is approved. For most of them we felt like it was still important to have them before the plat was approved, but at least for the tceq, Texas pollutant discharge elimination system permit, we felt that was appropriate to put -- to put getting off the final permit there until the -- until the developers construction plans are approved by t.n.r. Because really the tpdes permit does relate to construction, construction plans are not approved until after the plat is approved, we felt that was a more appropriate place to ask for that final permit.
>> the next item relates to the bluffs. Actually there are two items that -- that relate to that and I might add that we did have a chance to visit [indiscernible] on site on the property out at the pedernales, we spent several hours looking at the bluffs, looking at the property, so I have a pretty good visual now of -- of the -- his situation in particular. We didn't do the entire pedernales, but we have a pretty good idea. We did not change the existing provision that refers to the bluffs, we did add some alternatives to that. The provision still calls for a buffer setback of 50 feet. But which could be reduced to 25 feet under certain circumstances. That's still in the base document. We have added to that on several alternatives that basically get to the same issue, which is the discharge of the storm water discharge from the property. One alternative, what you see on page 11, number 1 at the top, would be to trade the bluff setbacks for a lot size, minimum lot size, frontage lot on the bluff. In other words you can go ahead and put the homes right on the bluff, but the -- the minimum requirement, the minimum frontage would be 200 feet per lot. So basically what you are saying is you reduce the number of houses perched on the bluff, that way accumulate the same water quality value as having multiple, more numerous houses setback about 50 or 25 feet from the bluff, so it's basically another way of trying to get to the same issue as the quantity of runoff. Now, we understand that even that given the -- the dynamics of the water and how it actually flows over those bluffs, it was pointed out that the water does not necessarily sheet flow across the bluffs. That -- that the water that ends up in the pedernales arrive is coming from the entire parent tract. And that is being conveyed to the pedernales by ravines and gullies and so it actually discharges at various points along the pedernales. And in talking with mr. Stuart about his per spect -- prospective use of his property, we actually created an entirely new provision within the document. And that provision is -- is actually found on -- on page 15. Page 16, it's a new section called 82.210. The concept is there are probably any number of different ways of getting to the issue of water quality discharges. If you want to deal with it in an aggregate, on an entire parent tract there ought to be a way of doing that. We have created what we call for lack of a better term a conservation development. Within the terms of 82.210, you can do multiple different things that might get to the larger issue of -- of discharges from the parent tract. These are in the nature of perhaps clustered development, reduced impervious cover on the entire tract, in other words less requirements for -- for the infrastructure. The -- more set asides for open spaces. But the -- the aggregate of all of those actions would basically be to reduce the amount of storm water discharge into the water system. And this provision, the 82.210 is basically a variance to all of the rest. So if you don't want to go the standard way of doing stream setbacks and all of the other requirements, you might ought to go with the 82.210 which is the conservation development. It's along the line of basically a planned unit development and you might see in a city code whether you start to step back, you start looking at more things in aggregate for the entire parent tract as opposed to individual regulations on individual lots. And it's quite frankly it's a -- it's a -- it's a -- an undeveloped section of the code, the interim rule. We know if we have some general concepts about where we want to go with this in terms of the final rule, but it's -- it's basically a platform to continue our discussions on the final rule about an alternative to these other rules. Which is what we are trying to get to is just create an entirely new mechanism called conservation development. Let's work on that to determine what is perhaps a better way of managing water quality issues on an entire tract.
>> joe, would that also -- would that conservation go that -- another two that's been put here, included here, to -- to control some of the runoff, is that -- is that a -- could you kind of explain that a little bit? Because with -- you know, the conservation easement within that particular parent tract, the way I知 understanding that, also I think it's what, 50%, something like that, also the cluster, of -- of development all strategy in one area on the other 50% of this tract, is that -- is that -- I知 trying to get to the control aspects of that, if there's something that's pretty much acceptable, also something that would -- would maybe have -- like I say, another tool in the tool box with the -- with the 50% with the 50-foot, 25-foot type of setbacks and also the other 200-foot setbacks of frontage. All of that stuff, so we are just adding another two to the box of tools to control, have a better sense of -- of controlling the -- the harmful runoff.
>> I -- unlike the rest of the interim rule, where we have imported from other existing regulations, we are really pioneering in this section. We have looked at model ordinances, but there have not yet been adopted by any local jurisdiction. So we are somewhat off in new territory when talking about this conservation development. In reading some of the literature, some of these model ordinances, there seem to be some repetitive provision that's we saw in those ordinances. Basically that's what you see here, as a preface this remark, this is really a section that's in development. These are -- are provisions that probably will change between the interim rule and the final rule. I知 positive it is, will change. But what the concept here, is that -- is that there are multiple other ways of dealing with storm water runoff, necessarily the one that's are already existing within current regulations of other entities. What we want to do is to be able to address those in perhaps a different way of what we have seen in -- in the rules of the city of Austin or lcra or Lakeway or anyone else that we have imported from large land holdings. We have opportunities in thousands of acres what you might not do on a 20-acre tract or even a 120-acre tract, because you have so many degrees of freedom to do things differently. What we are trying to do is explore, as in the case of ted's property, ways of doing what I think we hear him wanting to do, but with a little more flexibility.
>> okay.
>> I mean, there are -- we do not deal with -- what we do not deal with well in this section is whether or not the incentives are great enough to achieve the results what we are looking for. We are open for -- for discussions on what those incentives might be.
>> okay.
>> 82.210 may be the alternative to 82.209.
>> exactly.
>> that's right. You are talking a total tradeoff at that point.
>> okay.
>> do one, don't have to do the other.
>> the concept of a conservation development was generally discussed in the growth dialogue, the southwest growth dialogue. So we knew that we were at some point going to discuss this item. We decided to go ahead and put the platform in, interim rule that will allow us to actually engage the stakeholders in the discussion of using that mechanism as a -- as an alternative to the interim subdivision rule.
>> can I add that between the -- between the interim rule and the final rule, if we have different provisions on conservation subdivisions the applicant could choose to use the new final rule when we get there when they prefer, it's their choice? Put that in there.
>> once we finally have the conservation subdivision ordinance flushed out, if they wanted to, they could elect, if it was in their best interests to use the final rules conservation subdivision as opposed to what we have in the interim rules now.
>> you anticipate recommending that in the final rules?
>> something. A regular conservation subdivision ordinance, more than what we have right now. More fleshed out. It probably will change some, though.
>> okay.
>> then we got several comments about allowing golf courses within the buffer zones of creeks. And I think when we blow this one down, it really spoke to the use of fertilizers and pesticides and herbicides. Within the fair ways that crosses those buffer zones. So basically if you had a -- if the buffer zone was part of the rough in a golf course, probably less issue there. Than if you had a -- a fair way crossing or using the buffer as the fair way, where you would be discharging fertilizers and adding nutrients to the water. So basically the way we split the baby on this one, was that -- that you could not have any portion of the golf course in the buffer if you use fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides. Basically you can still have a golf course, you just can't fertilize, herbicide in the buffer. Depending on how you design that golf course, you have a fair way that -- that goes through a rough in the buffer or you incorporate the buffer as part of your rough. We are trying to get to the issue of water quality. Don't do something in the buffer zone that would be adverse to water quality. I think that's what we attempted to do with this provision on golf courses. Not totally prohibit golf courses within the buffer zone, but what you do within that area, within the -- within the golf course.
>> thinking that the buffer that you have in the rough between the manicured part of your fair way and the stream is enough to filtrate and to deal with it?
>> yes. That you are still using the buffer for its intended purpose.
>> you take this rule and close down Augusta. I mean, you could -- you could take some pretty famous golf courses in this country and do away with them, I mean, I understand, you know, what you're after here but, I mean, --
>> we're not talking about retrofitting a golf course.
>> I realize that.
>> which is Augusta's problem. We are talking about designing it from the ground floor up.
>> you just kind of hit a hot button with me.
>> you can tell who plays golf, who doesn't.
>> I spent more time in the rough maybe that's why -- [laughter]
>> joe, do we have any golf courses that's outside of the city in e.t.j. Within the county?
>> not to my knowledge.
>> outside the city, any city's e.t.j.?
>> yes. In other words, are there any golf courses in the unincorporated area of Travis County?
>> I think --
>> yes.
>> yes.
>> the -- outside the e.t.j. Is what you are talking about?
>> yeah, yeah, right. Because do we have -- [multiple voices]
>> absolutely.
>> not recently, though.
>> you are not saying recently. I mean there are golf courses [multiple voices] moved it --
>> let me put it this way. I think that you should expect to see golf courses in the you think incorporated area -- unincorporated area, primarily because they are used as untreated effluent and part of the dynamics of land development. You should expect southwest Travis County being a prime example. I think that you will see golf courses as part of new development.
>> okay. I just wanted to bring -- just get some public acknowledgment to -- to the question that I asked. Go ahead. Thank you.
>> I think those are the --
>> the east-west thing, joe.
>> which one was that?
>> number 6, clarifying what is really needed to reflect the eastern watersheds versus the western watersheds.
>> the issue there was looking at the language in the last draft closer, I realized that I had not as precisely as I should have incorporated the existing provisions of the joint city and county code, which were borrowing from for the storm water treatment requirements on the east side. So I just added some stuff in to make sure that we are not changing anything, other than extending it to the city of Austin e.t.j. Outside the e.t.j. On the east side. Nothing is changing by the geographic reach.
>> okay.
>> is that it?
>> that's it.
>> I知 sure some individuals have come down to address us on this matter. This is their opportunity to do so. So if you would come forward at this time, and give us your full name, we would be happy to get your comments. And we have four chairs available.
>> thank you, judge, i'll go first. I apologize first of all that I was not here last week. My name is jim knight. I am the president of the real estate council of Austin.
>> a number of months ago when this process started, as you might remember, my previous testimony, we were quite concerned about -- about where the ordinances were going. That we were going to be looking at something that was going to be the beginning of a -- of a watershed of ordinances that we would have a problem with. As -- as the process has played out, I would have to say that -- that county staff deserves a great deal of accolades with respect to the document that's been presented before you. I -- to be honest with you, I believe that the testimony that you are about to hear is going to spell this out. Virtually in every situation, when you have cases before you or the legislature does or the city council does or something else, you have people who scream and holler against things. In this case I think that you are going to have folks that are going to be both on -- on the far left and on the far right. Who are arguing that it's -- that it's either too restrictive or some folks who are going to argue that it's not restrict active enough. I think -- restrictive enough. I think that's perfect. I think that you have found the obvious balance when you have that situation occur. This document is a big step for the county. It gives you the ability to implement cut and fill limitations, start construction on slope issues, control water quality, make sure that the appropriate water and wastewater utilities are available for subdivisions when they are there. I think county staff has listened intently to the issues which our community and organization find particularly important, some of which they agreed with us on, some of which they respectfully disagreed. But I think that the document that you have is a fair balance on that. There are a number of people in our organization who would love to have the rules stay exactly the way they are today. At the same time i'll tell you we cannot legitimately sit in front of this court and say you should not have the ability to regulate the development within your jurisdiction. That is your ability. And I think that you are trying to exercise that judiciously. I知 not going to speak to the legalities or anything because I知 not a lawyer. I know there are other people making those arguments. I believe that the document that you have on an interim basis is a fail and reasonable document to allow the staff to start working with a permanent set of rules and regulations on a go forward. Please do not take this as -- as a pass card from our organization that we will agree with, whatever comes up in the permanent rules. That's not what we're saying. If the rules as written today are what the permanent rules will be, I will be happy to sit in front of you and tell you the exact same thing. But subject to reviewing those documents, I think the county staff has done a fantastic job. I think that they have been able to differentiate the sensitivities, the areas of the southwest which you know are particularly important with respect to water quality and dangerous species issues and the sensitivities of the -- of the lower lying farm lands and flatter areas of the eastern part of the county. So I think they deserve a lot of credit, particularly mr. Gieselman and anne bolin have done a fantastic job. I wish that we would have gotten everything in there that we needed. We were very happy with what we came up with. I think it's a very good compromise. What we said earlier, I think the level of testimony that you will hear on both sides will probably bare obably bear that out. Thank you.
>> I知 [indiscernible] from the hamilton pool road. You have heard many of us say, not necessarily this week but last week, that we support the interim rules but they don't go far enough. They need to be more strict. What I -- actually what I heard a few minutes ago, makes me a little bit uneasy, the notion of conservation development sounds great, but it can be abused. If I have 100 acres, I put 50 acres into conservation, turn the other 50 acres into a parking lot, not a practical example, but that would be -- that would not be protecting water quality. I think there still needs to be resumes that go along with conservation development, not just making whatever could be negotiated with t.n.r., at least that's my opinion. However, what I really want to say is -- is we acknowledge that -- that the county is breaking new ground here. This is an experiment. So I want to thank the staff, tom, joe, people who work with -- for them, I want to thank you Commissioners, for -- for having the courage and foresight to go where no county has gone before. I want to thank you for even considering taking the risk of -- of doing the right thing. I have three wishes: first, please adopt the interim rules. Second, I hope that we will March towards the permanent rules guided by what the best water quality experts tell us, what the best legal experts tell us, not simply by who that has the loudest voices, the most money. The previous process briefly convened a group of scientists and then that group went away, I think it became a shouting match. I think there needs to be more balance between real technical input and then the typical stakeholder process. Finally, I hope the Commissioners will find it within their hearts to adopt the recently purchased regional water quality protection plan for that very small portion of Travis County that is outside the e.t.j., and that is within the barton springs contributing zone. And I would add that none of ted's bluffs are in the watershed.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> ...however, thinking back, I had my chance -- [laughter] and I really made a mistake by not doing that. But -- and there is some humor I guess we can see in all of this. But -- and one of the funniest things is what jim said, he represents the downtown group of realtors. One of the points i've tried to make through this whole thing. It's like a lot of other things, if you don't have a dog in the fight, it really doesn't matter. The four changes of the seven you made were to compensate or to ease the situation with developers. For people who are out there trying to develop the land. The two changes that you made supposedly as a result of our meeting which provided for -- basically it's one change that provides for the establishment of the conservation development. Didn't change anything, any of our objections in the interim rules. They are as they were drafted back in March -- February, March of this year. So nothing has changed there. All the conservation development rules have done is to give us a more stringent set of rules. You've cleverly interjected the impervious cover issues that we talked about before. You've stated in there that if I want to go ahead or if we out there in that part of the county want to go ahead and give up 50% of our land up front for conservation purposes, well then we'll talk about having a -- getting our bluffs back. Well, you know, I don't know where we go, and the one thing that joe geiselman did say, which is my key point in all of this is, as we continue to make these rules more stringent and people who don't have a dog in the fight continue to say go ahead and grab that land out there, you guys, you know, the voters are all live inside, there's no voting consequences to this because they are all constituents. You've got seven votes in the county for mr. Daugherty up here so it doesn't really matter and there are no consequences to what happens. But the thing that's missing in this whole process which should be where we're going is the issue of compensation and/or incentives. Rather than say give us half your land and we'll let you -- and give us, you know, any -- anything over 20% impervious cover you are going to have to live with a stricter set of guidelines, instead of saying if you'll do these, here's the incentives. I've offered for months and months and months different types of incentives. We're not looking at trying to raise cash and sell our land, but there are all kinds of ways to get the incentives to get to the point where you want to go and accommodate the minority of us out there. And large landowners are a serious minority in this county. There are only a few of us left. And we're being punished here. But I知 just here to see these rules go into effect today and kind of for the record get a few things answered. And Gerald, you're my Commissioner out there and i've got a few questions that I want to ask you, and the first one is did you read the legal brief that was prepared -- that we prepared, the Texas landowners conservancy for your review?
>> yes, I did.
>> I知 just talking to Gerald because he's my representative and he's done a good job of trying to keep this process going and provide us at least with a podium where we can make our -- our opinions known. And in that -- in the reading of that brief, you're like I am, I知 not going to ask you what you think of the legal opinion of that is, but if you proceed today in the adoption of these interim rules, is it your belief that the county has the legal authority after reading the brief to proceed forward with the regulation of water quality controls?
>> yes, I do. Because i've got an attorney on my side -- we have to get into the legal question that as you said, I知 not an attorney, you're not an attorney. What i've learned is that I can read 500 briefs, and as i've told you and told everybody in this community, you want to know who gets to make the call, it's the district judge, it's a judge of the criminal court of appeals. Take it to the supreme court. Because it doesn't -- what I have learned and half the stuff I read up here, I can read your opinion, your opinion, your opinion, philosophically I think most people know how I feel about taking people's property. I think they ought to be compensated. But if you're asking me do I think that we have the ability and should we have the ability as a Commissioners court to impose some rules, i'll tell you yes, I think that we should and that we need some rules. But there is a limit as to where I知 willing to go with that. So -- but I think I answered your question. And even they I may philosophically agree with a lot of things that were said in that brief, whenever we go into executive session or whenever we just have the county attorney come to our offices and say where are we with this thing, I mean i've got to rely, ted, on -- that's the reason we have a legal staff. And quite frankly, I don't know who is right. I mean but I think that there ultimately is a place to go to get that legitimate answer. Or at least from somebody that can give you you an answer that you do have to do what they tell you to do.
>> right. And and like gene said, I guess a follow-up to that is that you are breaking new ground in the county, and the per sperblgt I ives obviously on that change depending where you are. If you are philosophically a eco nazi, you think that's a real good thing. If philosophically you believe in private property rights and you believe that this country, this democracy that we have does not have the right to punish minorities and don't have the right to confiscate land in the name of the common good without compensation, then fill sof he canly what you are about to do here doesn't make sense. And because the county is charting new grounds, my question to you, Gerald, is what is the need to do this right now? Why do you feel compelled or do you feel compelled that this is that important that we don't these interim rules now and move forward with putting the only county in the state of Texas, to my knowledge, in the business of water quality regulation.
>> yes, I do feel like we've got to do something. If I didn't feel like that, I would have never convened two groups that have worked the last year that you have been part of. I mean the intent of this thing was -- and I knew at the end of the day there were going to be some things that I was going to be more comfortable with saying yeah, we need the ability to do that because, you know, when somebody is upset, when i've got people that live on creek, whenever I have people that live on a river, whenever i've got people that live in subdivisions and something happens to them that is not right, then I am an elected official and I am expected to try to respond and try to react. Now, I don't want this thing to be an all west cypress hills, but let's face it, I mean it at least was the catalyst for us saying we have got to do more than what we feel like that we are capable of doing right now. And you would probably have felt the same way, ted, if you had had something done to your property or to cypress creek that is so valuable and so beautiful that you live on. And the river. I mean my god, there is nothing sinister going on here with regards to what I am trying to do. I mean i've -- I openly admit that confiscation of people's private property, that is where you bring out the republican in me. That is where -- and I will look anybody in the eye and say you know what, I will do everything within my power to try and make sure that you get to maintain the true value of the property that you own. And I think that as a community and this community, I mean probably ought to be asked. I mean are you willing to compensate somebody for something if it is going to affect them negatively, I think that that's the right thing to do. And at that point in time I will say that is what I知 willing to do or that's not what I知 willing to do. But in answer to your question, I mean yeah, I mean I do think that i've got to have the ability to control some of these things. Now, if controlling some of those things affects your property value, ted, then I think we as a community ought to figure out a way to compensate you for the damages that you would incur.
>> let me ask another -- I appreciate that. That's been the entire point of our whole discussion since the beginning of the interim rules and to this point no one has addressed that, no one has entered it into any type of proposal. It doesn't show up because there are no consequences incurred by not doing it. One last question I would like to ask you, did you read the report that was prepared by the southwest Travis County growth dialogue?
>> yes.
>> have you compared it with the staff's proposals relative to that?
>> I haven't laid them out and compared them to each, I mean no.
>> what I would request that you do that and i'd ask -- like to request that joe and tom maybe make some comparatives there because what the southwest Travis County dialogue committee suggested and agreed on and voted on is not anywhere close, not nearly as onerous as the set of interim rules that are going in here. They are much more restrictive, not what was agreed on in the panel and I would like you to make your own people to people who say they are not restrictive enough and I understand that. But I think that would be something worth doing to say, you know, ted, I sat through that thing for a year from the time I was a voting member, I only missed one year for that whole time, and we all -- we had our shouting matches and discussions, but at the end of the day I think we voted on rules to be adopted. And I believe staff has veered away from what was the intent of that southwest Travis County dialogue, and I would like someone else to interpret that for me.
>> I mean I知 not really aware of a great amount of variance in those things, but I will sit down with joe and go over those things. You know, I -- you know, after having read and watched out people voted on things, ted, and I have read that thing, and I have really tried to gather out of that where I think that we continue to try and head. And we all knew going into it that there were going to be some places where people were going to get substantially planted and say I知 not move, you know, from those areas. The thing that's the most amazing to me about all this is that, you know, I do think that the shortcoming that we have always had, we as the county, is that we don't really have the enforcement man power to go out and do things. Most of these rules are already in either tceq -- I know that lcra, you know, as of recent has said where we really need to go is where tceq, you know, says that we can go state-wide, but, you know, I have never been misled with regards to are we going to be able to just go out and to create regulations that, number one, we're not even going to be able to enforce. That's the thing that I usually end up telling most people. I said we can't go out and do something that we're not going to be able to even, you know, have the ability to do. But I don't think that -- I mean other than, yeah, I知 very sympathetic to your bluff restrictions because I知 not convinced that it's a water quality issue given that there are some things that a person can do to ensure of not did he go are dadeing the streams and river and the water. And I think we're trying to get there. Now, at the end of the day are we going to be able to get you where you want to be? I don't know, but I will say this, ted, if I ever am convinced that you are harmed, you or any other landowner out there, that you are harmed by devaluing your land, I will not go there. As a matter of fact, I will insist, me, the precinct 3 county Commissioner, that you are fully compensated to what I think that you ought to be compensated for, and no one has ever questioned as to how I felt about that and I will continue to feel that way.
>> well, again, the david copperfield part of this thing is make it -- create this issue about water quality, it's not an issue about water quality. And i'll leave it at that. And we all know that and if we're honest with ourselves, we admit that. And there are other ways to get there besides forcing it on people who don't have representation in the process. And I知 --
>> you have representation, ted. Don't think that you don't have. I am not going to -- you and I don't know each other real well, but I will assure you I知 not going to let anybody run over you anymore that I want anybody to run over pepper. I really want to try to be an honest broker in this thing, and I thought that what we were doing when we started this process was, okay, let's come up with some logical things that we know that we need to do to ensure us of not having just a catastrophe out in western Travis County. And I think that most of those things you probably agree with. And that's where we're headed. I mean I am not going to get led into, well, you're not doing, Gerald, what you said you were going to do because I think from day one what i've said that I was going to do was convene the people that had a vested interest in western Travis County, get them at the table, find where we can come up with logical things that we need to do to make sure that we preserve western Travis County and still have growth. I mean I still continue -- I know there's some people that don't like for me to say you're going to have a road, you're going to have growth, you're going to have these things because I don't have the ability to stop that. But I知 still pleased, I mean I go home every night, ted, and I am very comfortable with going to sleep because I think that I continue to do the right thing for western Travis County and that is is to try to keep as many people at the table, understand where there may be some overreaching on your part where maybe there isn't something that protects someone else. That's all I知 headed. That's the only spot I知 headed.
>> Gerald, I see the changes that were made for the development community and we all know where they come from. And I want you to understand when I say they are very well represented here. But the developers' project starts in the cost of the property that he acquires. And the key to it, you know, is buying property at the right price initially. So once these rules are in place and you penalize the landowners up front, when a developer comes out to look at this property and say what can I do with it, ted, or my children or my trust or whenever it ends up, what can I do with it. Oh, you've got all this environmental stuff out here, you've got all these critical features. Have to give up half the land to start off with. That takes away half the value of your property, et cetera, et cetera. Everybody can argue on the value of that property later on, but the developers don't have a dog in the fight with the raw landowners. And that's the point that I知 trying to -- that we have a hard time -- you know, if it were the issue, which Karen said, truly about water quality why don't you go to Barton Creek and Austin country club and say we want these water buffers cleaned up. No more -- you know, no more fertilizer in them. Well, politically you can't handle it. And the representation is there to make sure that doesn't happen. And by representation, I even had a chance to spout my feelings about this and these regulatory takings and this won't be over when you all pass these rules today. The point is the minorities don't have a forum when it comes to voting in representation to protect their land values. And it's a big issue in this country. It's a growing awareness, I think, of some of the other things that are going on, and the fight is not over, but -- Gerald, and I do appreciate what you've done and at least given us a opportunity to whine a little bit.
>> I just want to add on to this that related to, you know, when you're at the beginning of something and trying to predict and look ahead of where is this going the lead me, I am reminded about a lot of the discussions that occurred on balcones canyonlands where rather than Travis County or the city of Austin saying something, you had the federal government dealing with endangered species saying this is the way things ought to be. And i've heard many of the very same kinds of arguments. And I will tell you know post all of that in terms of people, in terms of the balcones voluntarily getting into that plan to piggyback on the city and the county's permit is that you now cannot pick up a paper or watch a t.v. Commercial about development in western Travis County where they don't try and market preserve lots. To market the fact that your next-door neighbor will be a bird. That you will never see a house next door to you, and you saw it happening at lake point, you see it happening at steiner ranch where they have turned what originally I know on lake point and steiner they were not happy campers, but they have turned that into a huge marketable asset where people want to live next to those conservation things as opposed to the idea that you could have a house next door or something like that or be within the view. There is a marketable value to all of this. When we first started related to purchasing land for the balcones, there wasn't even a price on it that made everybody irritated. It was very low. Now many times the highest and best use of property in terms of value is not the developable value. We have created this category called conservation land, preserve land, and people when we did comparisons of how much you would get in terms of developable highest and best use of putting whatever on that land, ignoring the fact the species was even there, they don't exist, state law says there is that category you have to look at, we actually found in many instances people got more money for their land, that the value on that land was valued higher, that the species was there and that the preserve aspect of it got them more dollars per acre than if they had ignored the bird and acted like it didn't even exist and what they could have done in terms of development. It's hard to sit here right now going it's going to cost me. I知 willing to say please, there is a huge chance here that there is a huge market and value to your land and to the open space, and I知 looking here, tom, it says here that the owner need not provide any public access to the conservation areas. So in terms of there being a land grab for the public where you're not being compensated, the answer is that land is yours. And I don't remember seeing the word "impervious cover," tom, is the word "impervious cover" anywhere in these documents?
>> well, it's in there in a couple of places when it talks about what types of water quality treatment controls have you to have in place. So there's no limit on impervious cover, but as impervious cover increases, you basically have to have a higher level of storm water.
>> but in terms of the traditional way people are thinking of restrictions in western Travis County in terms of the 15% impervious cover, the lcra rules in terms of what the 15 or the 20 depending on what was going on out there, the standard language in terms of impervious cover limits, are there impervious cover limits in here?
>> no. The amount of impervious cover is totally up to the landowner and the developer. Thank you.
>> well, ms. Sonleitner, that was a good point you tried to make there. In fact, I think when the day comes to sell this, I hope you have your real estate license. You would do a good job at sales. Maybe you are right, and I bought this property, the paradigm is I bought this property because of what it is, and our greatest fear when we went out there is we're going to have developments all around us. All right. So that was 13 years ago. And if we lose everything that we as private property proponents are trying to get here at the end of the day, tom and my neighbors and I all agree at the end of the day what we have is what we wanted when we came out here. And this is where the paradigm shift is. The problem is in wanting to do the right thing on a conservation easement -- from a conservation standpoint, the way the drill is today, in order to get maximum value for your conservation development today, the way these easements are granted, you base your calculations on the highest and densest use as possible for that area. So you start with a hill country and you are talking about townhouses and everything else on the property. The appraisers come up with the value. That's the net value of your property developed. You give up that value in exchange for granting a conservation development agreement or conservation easement or whatever you do. You do out there, and what's left, it becomes the rule of thunderstorm if you take the storms ranch, the shields ranch, others, end of the day it's about a 50% value of what the upside value. If this property is devalued 90% to start with, when we get ready to negotiate our easements, we're going to be in trouble. I think at the end of the day you could in fact be hindering -- you can get open space, but like bccp, most of it is fenced off and so covered with cedar you can't get into it and it's not open to the public. I think at the end of the day, unless you are willing to sit down and talk about a reduced price from lcra, certain other things that you can get help and get some sort of road, infrastructure built, things like that where the county participates so at the end of the day, it would be a great thing to have the -- have stewart ranch out there three or four generations left like it is today. That would all be great. There's no way you can get to that point if you go through these regulatory takings and devalue the property where there's nothing left to knowing from.
>> I would just -- negotiate from.
>> I would disagree respectfully it's a regulatory taking. But I have been listening. I read the brief too even though I知 not your Commissioner.
>> do you have a list of recommendations you would like us to take a look at? If you would send them to us, we would be happy to do.
>> .
>> I think we have a dialogue going now. Hopefully on 101, I believe larry neiman pretty well outlined where we're going first and we'll fiend out where we go from there.
>> the other thing is if you would take your copy of the report from the southwest Travis County dialogue and put an asterisk by points you would like us to take a look at, I would be happy to do it. F you will do that quickly.
>> I haven't received a copy. I was just told I have one here now.
>> but an asterisk to the left of the language we think we should pay special attention to, get that to Gerald and he will share it with the rest of the court.
>> there was one important thing in that whole dialogue that we voted on and that was the word "voluntary." the southwest Travis County dialogue was all couched on the acquisition of these view corridors, which is what we're talking about, conservation easements, impervious cover restrictions, lot size restrictions, et cetera, et cetera, on a voluntary basis and with incentive based voluntary measures. And we have failed to address that yet, and I believe all it would take is just an acknowledgement that people need to be -- you acknowledged it Gerald. You guys changed the rules after going out and looking at it. You acknowledged that there was a situation out there that may not be addressed just by a 400-foot buffer, a buffer along the bluff. So my feeling is is that the county could do something else in a pioneer mode out here trail blazing policies out here by saying, look, we're going to do this but we're not going to go down the road washington state has gone down. We're not going down the road organ state has gone down, pendulum swinging the other way and get a measure adopted in this state. Things are going on at the legislature right now addressing these issues. That's a simple request and that would be my primary goal is to see if, you know, if you call the I want room rules option -- interim rules optional, that would be great, and number two, let's sit down and talk about incentives.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> I知 nell penridge and I live on hamilton pool road and I知 here to encourage you to please adopt the interim rules. I think first i'd like to thank everyone, the Commissioners court especially and staff for providing such -- such a good means for input for everyone in the community to have a say, despite what ted seems to think there isn't, but there is. And I really want to address one or two things that ted said, even though he's not here. But not having a dog in the pack or the fight or whatever, he seems to think he is the only dog or he and six other people, but that's not so. We all are the result of what happens here with these rules. Everyone is going to be affected by this epl. If we do not attempt to address water quality, we will degrade the water. And every one of us including my children and grandchildren will be affected by it. So to think that you are not -- that he is the only one affected is not so. And I really would like to take an exception with that. The last thing is the incentive to abide by the law is not something that I ever heard of. I don't understand where that concept comes from that people should be provided an incentive to abide by the law. That's -- I don't understand it and I don't think it's logical in any event. But I really wanted to mostly thank you, encourage to adopt the interims, and I really thought the golf course revise was really a good thing. It really addressed water quality, exactly what we wanted. Have I no problem with a golf course being anywhere. But if it's going to affect water quality, I do. And I think what you came up with was a really good point. And as far as adopting the I want rooms, excuse me, the finals, I hope that the permanent rules we come to as expedient a fashion as possible simply because so many tracts will be filed for platting in between, and that's a lot of -- there's a lot left. And hopefully these will be as strong as possible and the interim -- excuse me, the permanent will get adopted as soon as possible. But I thank you.
>> thank you very much.
>> I知 [inaudible] morris. I live on lake creek. And the first thing I want to say is thank you very, very much for what all of you are doing. It's a precedent-setting event and staff is to be congratulated as well. And I want to thank Commissioner Daugherty especially for putting together the southwest Travis County dialogue of which I participated, felt like I was in over my head, still feel like I知 in over my head in much of these instances and I leave it all to you professionals to make sure that things are done properly. And this is -- the interim rules of -- things will be worked out. And I hope that you adopt these interim rules. One of the things that I had to do to clarify for myself was go on the internet and do as much research as I possibly could, and I came across the senate committee on intergovernmental relations, interim report 78th legislature, October 2002, which said to further assist urban counties in managing development, the 77th legislature enacted house bill 1445, house bill 3172, and senate bill 873 to expand the authority of county officials in fast-grows area, which Travis County was one of those that was tapped. In order to assess the new legislation and issue -- and the issue of county ordinance authority, the lieutenant governor charged the senate committee on intergovernmental relations to study the power of county officials to regulate growth and development in unincorporated areas including housing development, subdivision regulations, water and general health, welfare and safety. And I think that that's what you are about to do and you are to be congratulated. That's all I have to say. Thank you all very much.
>> thank you.
>> thank you very much.
>> i'll be brief. I think s.o.s. Views are fairly well known at this point. I'd like to say we very much appreciate all the work that the staff has put in on this. The level of attention and detail and their sophistication. And we appreciate the fact that you all are addressing water quality and watershed issues throughout the entire county. I think that's obviously really important and a big step forward. And we appreciate the fact that the legal advice you are getting is clear that you have the authority to do what you are doing. That clearly is the law. We have provided y'all with a memorandum brief that counter acts and shows that the brief prepared by ted stewart's lawyer, alan haywood, in fact is incorrect. That there is ample authority for you to do everything you are contemplating doing here. That being said, I think there's been some misconceptions here and deficiencies in the rule. One, it may be a misnomer to call these rules interim rules. This may be the one important opportunity to make the rules be effective. There may be -- and there will likely be a large amount of grandfathering that follows the adoption of these interim rules that will make the permanent rules have an effect that's relatively marginal. As I mentioned before, impervious cover restrictions are the primary and most effective ways of protecting water quality. We have -- s.o.s. Alliance has recognized that you all are not going to don't impervious cover restrictions -- adopt impervious cover restrictions. We recognize that as a political reality. We recognize that, in fact, it may even be a politically wise step for the county to take to omit impervious cover regulations, but they are not a scientifically-wise decision. Therefore we have made and propose very specific suggestions in the event that you're not going to include impervious cover restrictions, and we urge you to include those proposals and incorporate them into the interim rules because they think that that's the only way in which the interim rules will be effective in protecting water quality. We appreciate the fact that one of our suggestions has been addressed on the golf course encroachment, and I have not seen the new draft rules that includes that so I can't comment specifically on it from what joe geiselman has said, it sounds like it is being addressed. I did have one question in terms of the golf courses. There was a comment about the restrictions being on the use of fertilizers and herbicides, and does that include spraying wastewater effluent?
>> it is not addressed.
>> so as you address golf courses, it sounds as though, and again, without reading the draft, that you would aplow wastewater effluent to be sprayed possibly in the buffer zone next to a creek. Again, that's -- we would consider that to be kind of a serious deficiency. We urge you to adopt interim rules and adopt I want room rules that include our recommended changes. And we're glad to assist you in any way possible with either legal or technical or any other assistance that you may request.
>> on just the last issue there related to the spring, are we superseded in any way by tceq? I知 just trying to remember all those discussions. There's got to be discussions when we had all of that stuff on our plate that we weren't happy with a whole lot of stuff related to aerial spraying, but we were superseded in that category by the state of Texas.
>> well, tceq's requirements are going to deal mainly with human health and not spraying effluent that hasn't been treated to the right level in an area where you may come into contact with humans, I don't think they have any requirements on paying attention to where you spray it in terms of how it's affecting a stream or I can't really inform you about that.
>> I appreciate -- I have some more questions about that.
>> what specifically were you having reference to when you mentioned impervious cover? Were you basically going toward the spring bank erosion stuff?
>> yes. What specifically are you talking about.
>> again, assuming you are not going to impose impervious cover restrictions and that seems to be not a question of dispute here that you are not going to do that, that there are some very specific alternatives that we have suggested, modifications to the interim rules that could somewhat compensate for that lack, and one of those is to add -- when you're talking about stream bank erosion, add a sentence that says runoff from development shall be managed through water quality controls and other drainage devices so the development does not result in an increase in total volume of runoff from the site. So you're using your drainage authority and your water quality authority to reduce the amount of runoff which keeps the volume of runoff at the same level as the undeveloped level, that will reduce the amount of pollutants in the water and it also very much assists with preventing erosion which not only causes damage to creeks and waterways from development when you get increased runoff, but the sediment that's caused through erosion is itself a major pollutant and carries a lot of the other pollutants which attach to the sediment.
>> on the existing language that we have right now, to incorporate what you suggested, would there be much variance and what would be the variance?
>> I think it would be a substantial change in that I think what brad is talking about is if you're not going to impose impervious cover limits, then you need to have very strict requirements on what type of water quality controls you have in place to manage the storm water runoff that results. And I think what brad is saying is you really need to impose the strictest limits in that the water quality controls will be required to capture all of the runoff that's produced by the development and hold it and not let it leave the site. Which would require you to either, you know, use it for irrigation or just let it evaporate. I mean the standards that are in the rules right now for the western part of the county were barring from the lcra standard and they do require you to treat the runoff from the development but they don't require you to retain it all on site and not let there be any increase in runoff. You have to have structures in place and it has to remove most of the pollutants but not all of them. And it doesn't require that there be no increase in the volume of runoff above the non-developed state. Of the land. And on the west side, of course, we're borrowing from the city of Austin. And while they differ from lcra, it's basically the same approach. Have you to capture most of the runoff that the development produces, but not all of it. There can be some increase in runoff from the site. It does have to be treated, but there is, you know, a certain small amount of pollution that can be tolerated. I think what brad is suggesting is just a higher standard of treatment of the storm water. And I don't want to put words in your mouth.
>> this one sentence does not really require a different treatment than you already have, it just requires capturing it, the actual volume of water and not releasing it. In fact, the water treatment standards that you have are much loser than what the city of Austin requires in the barton springs zone, and that was another suggestion that we had was that you basically adopt the same standards that city of Austin does where actually the engineer treatment facilities, that's something most developers are used to dealing with, it's not an impossible task, it's something everybody has experience doing. So that is something that we would recommend. And also instead of using the lcra standards which are a lot loser and allow for large amounts of pollutants to leave the site untreated.
>> I thought we were dealing with the city standards on what I just heard you comment on.
>> on the east side we are. On the west side --
>> you're still lcra. On the east side, I know it's city standards on the east side. Chapter 30.
>> you're referring to your July 19th memo, right?
>> yeah, July 21st. July 21st I sent a letter which kind of gave line by line suggestions.
>> okay.
>> and it's attached at the end of a memorandum brief that I have handed out today.
>> okay. Any other questions? Thank you very much.
>> judge?
>> yes, sir.
>> I was about to say there will be work to do between now and the adoption of permanent rules. And our goal on those is what? Keep working and try to get them done as soon as possible?
>> given the process we went through for the interim, I think my timetable is probably going to be a little more down the road. I thought we would have a set of final rules by October. I think it's going to -- I don't think that's possible. I think we're probably looking at the first of the year at this point. Going through the same level of stakeholder involvement, meetings, hearings and work out where we have something for you to finally adopt. But with that said, I mean the staff is prepared to put their full effort into this and I think the way that we view approaching this is to first gets the principals out on the -- principles on the table where we can establish what we're trying to accomplish with the rules before we go into legal language. I think what you will see is a framework of all the issues that we're trying to address, the principles that will drive those decisions, some alternative methods, and get some community discussion going on in those areas. And then after we're fairly clear and we know what we're trying to accomplish, then we'll start drafting the legal language.
>> so you are trying to move as fast as you can, basically.
>> yes, we will. And that's sometimes slower than we think. I mean we are already in the process of developing the final rules. Finishes.
>> judge? Joe, in regard to a lot of the testimony we heard here today, especially on some of the impervious cover provisions that were brought in by s.o.s. And others, in the time frame that you suggested coming back toward the permanent rules, what type of -- would there be the same type process as worked before? As an example, satellite 1, precinct 1 building on johnny morris, we had questions that came in, development community came in, they gave their testimony, said look, this is what we think needs to be added to the interim rules or deleted from the interim rules and went through a process. Will that same process be allowed when we lead to the permanent rules leading into January? I知 trying to get some type of framework in my mind, some kind of working framework in my mind to see how this is going to be carried out because I want to make sure inclusiveness is the ultimate goal as we go toward permanent rules. So ...
>> I think you will see a solid process. I don't think you are going to see a one-step process. You will see we'll probably work with and I formal working group -- informal working group to make sure basically we're in the ballpark with what we're trying to accomplish and get that up. I think this will be staff driven in that we will get work products out so that they can be viewed and reviewed and debated. We're not looking for consensus. We're looking for reasonable rules that everyone can look at, and I don't think we're going to end up with this process satisfying all people. We certainly didn't do it with interim rules, but we will include everyone who wants to comment as we did on the interim rules. If that means separate meetings, both meetings, group meets, we're available to all of that.
>> well, joe, I would like to say this, and I want to be -- hopefully have a motion to end up voting on this and I知 going to let you know right now as far as a motion, I知 going to support it, item 24 today. And i'd like to say this for those that are in the listening audience, that we have some very serious challenges. I've been a champion of the environmental and I guess a lot of us have for many years of protecting our environment. Thank goodness I think we have now the -- we have authority to do what we're doing dealing with the subdivision and things like that. You heard Commissioner Gomez say what happens upstream affects us downstream. As you look at the challenges we have all across Travis County, I was just thinking about some of the things that are happening as far as quality of life, and I hear the water quality here and da-da-da. But we have khaeulgsz across the board with air and water and yet we're suffering with odors that are unbearable. Stems you can't stand the stench and the stink and the sludge from landfills and a whole bunch of other things. All of this court -- and I hope this court be aggressive as we are in this particular issue be aggressive on the things happening of aoefplt of i-35 to bring some kind of quality of life as far as the environment is concerned because we do speak for all of Travis County, however we are elected individually from the precincts. Mine is on the east side. I think looking at where we are at now and looking at the dispro forks nature, and I知 saying disproportionate array of things permitted through tceq, dealing with things that are unwanted anywhere else, they are located east of ih-35 in precinct 1 and 4. And I just don't think it's right. The 74 permitted projects over there, 54 of them are located in the -- 76, 54 are located in precinct 1 and precinct 4. Of course we have some very serious challenges when it comes to the environment. I just hope this aggressiveness that you show here today dealing with water quality, dealing with subdivisions, dealing with all of the things protecting the bluffs, protecting this, protecting that, well, we have-endangered species east of i-35 and I want to make sure these folks get the same attention. I知 going to support this motion, whoever makes it, thank you.
>> moved approval of the proposed interim rules.
>> second.
>> discussion?
>> yes. I'll have a substitute for that. I think that most of everything on this page is fine. I mean there's some things that I think all of us kind of grit our teeth over and wonder whether or not it's the right thing to do. I don't think there's anything overly onerous with anything on here. I personally think I am not convinced that bluffs -- that the whole bluff setback and the whole bluff discussion doesn't need a whole lot more attention with regards to what we're going to do with the bluffs. I think that joe is working towards perhaps some resolutions on this. But I知 afraid that we might not be able to move back from the interims even though we know that they are interim. It's just that 4, judge, is where I have the most issue because I just think that the bluff situation -- I think that we can work something out. But it's not -- I mean it shouldn't be a deal killer. And if I didn't think that we were eventually going to get to a spot, I would be -- I would be more comfortable. But I mean my friendly amendment would be, you know, that I知 in support of going through with the interim if we can omit 4 and continue to work on the bluffs.
>> help me understand what that means, Gerald. Omit 4. You mean bring up the new thing related to conservation development? Bringing up the new thing about the 200-foot minimum, one-acre minimum? Or are you saying omit everything related to the bluffs?
>> I知 saying that I think that the bluff conversation needs more discussion, and I知 confident that -- and maybe the conservation way is the way to go. But if we vote on the way they are today, we put something in place on the bluffs, and I知 not comfortable having bluffs be part of the interim.
>> well, I知 going to go the other place, I知 not going to be comfortable with excluding them. The way we've got it right now is we've basically given you multiple tools this the toolbox to be able to deal with this. It can be 50 feet or it can be 25 with the engineering to kind of create that extra 25 feet. And I think there have been good conversations of talking about this 200-foot minimum or a one-acre minimum. It's like -- it's not a one size fits all.
>> is there a second to the substitute motion? We're back to the original motion. Is there discussion of it? All in favor of the original motion? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you all very much.
We discussed a-2 but we didn't act on it.
>> some have brought to my attention the scientific and technical expertise, rather than objection, we just give directions -- I was kind of left with the impression that previously we had the right people working with us and those folk disengaged and maybe they came to work when they could but they're available if we want them back.
>> yes, we fully intend to bring those people back if we need them or reach out to other experts depending what the subject matter was.
>> this is a keep your commitment item more than anything else.
>> do you want a motion on the Sam keeping commitment item.
>> I have joe's word, that is even better.
>> you have my word.
>> well, I知 make a motion --
>> anything else?
>> I believe that does it for us.
>> second.
>> all in favor. Passes by unanimous vote.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, July 27, 2005 7:49 AM